a stage when it was regarded as sacred before the year 432 B. C. It was fully two centuries later when the second canon, including Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, and all the prophets, was thought to possess the sacred character which would entitle it to a place among the holy writings. The third canon, including the remaining books of the Old Testament, was not accepted as Scripture until after the beginning of our era. Thus it was that custom and use rather than the decision of any one man or body of men decided what our Bible should be.

Undoubtedly Jonah was one of the books which gained admittance to the canon only with difficulty. Ryle says:

"The adverse testimony is here very slight. The idea that the book contained only a legendary story may possibly have induced some Jewish scholars to exclude it from the canon, and may account for the language of the Midrash Bammidbar

(c. 18), 'Lord of fifty, that is, of fifty books, that is, the twenty-four books of Holy Scripture, with eleven of the Twelve (Minor prophets), excluding the book of Jonah, which is a book by itself. . . . ', we may suppose the passage to indicate a doubt whether Jonah was of equal historical value with the other prophets. Kimchi (A. D. 1240), in the introduction to his commentary on 'Jonah,' hints at the same suspicion" (Canon of the Old Testament, 193-194).

Davidson in his "Introduction to the Old

Testament" says, "The canon makers thought as the book related to the prophet, he himself must have written it, and it was placed with the other canonical writings, regardless of the character of the contents of the book."

It is thus seen that even among the early Jews there was a dispute as to the fitness of the book of Jonah for a place among the sacred writings. Jonah is a very short book, it contains much that is

miraculous, unlike most of the Apocryphal books it was written in Hebrew; these were probably the reasons why it was given a place in sacred scripture.

In the few concluding words of this discussion it may be well to ask what effects the conclusions reached in the study of Jonah should have upon the commonly accepted religious value of the book. To repeat, the results of our study teach us that Jonah was a prophet of Gath-hepher, who lived in the eighth century B. C., that several centuries later some one who wished to teach the Hebrews that a penitent foreigner, as well as a son of Abraham, might claim the protection and love of Yahveh, attached the name of Jonahto a legend which has now been forgotten; that transforming the story to suit his

purpose, he thus formed the book of Jonah. We have also seen that the book contains nothing historical; that its description of Nineveh is impossible; that the story which it relates of the repentance of the Ninevites is anything but

true.

No one is more aware than the author that to many pastors and religious teachers these facts will seem harsh and unacceptable. They may cause to be uttered many expressions of displeasure by those who have cherished the mistaken opinion that Biblical criticism can bring harm to the Christian religion. It may not be out of place here in anticipation of such statements, to quote the words of one of the great religious leaders of our age, who, in referring to the critical students of England and Germany says: "To assail them as infidels or unbelievers is to use a coarse, blunt and rusty weapon, which in these days at any rate, will only betray the weakness of the cause of those who wield