John Lightfoot on Luke 24:44

[In the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms.] It is a known division of the Old Testament into the Law, the Prophets, and the Holy writings.

I. The books of the law and their order need not be insisted upon, commonly called by us, the Pentateuch; but by some of the Rabbins, the Heptateuch; and by some Christians, the Octateuch. "R. Samuel Bar Nachman saith, R. Jonathan saith, 'Wisdom hath hewn out her seven pillars.' These are the seven books of the law." But are there not but five books only? "Ben Kaphra saith, The Book of Numbers is made three books. From the beginning of the book to And it came to pass when the ark set forward [chap. 10:35], is a book by itself. That verse and the following is a book by itself: and from thence to the end of the book is a book by itself"...

Eulogius, speaking concerning Dosthes or Dositheus, a famous seducer of the Samaritans, hath this passage: He adulterated the Octateuch of Moses with spurious writings, and all kind of corrupt falsifyings. There is mention also of a book with this title, The Christians' Book, an Exposition upon the Octateuch. Whether this was the Octateuch of Moses it is neither certain nor much worth our inquiry; for Photius judgeth him a corrupt author: besides that it may be shewn by and by, that there was a twofold Octateuch besides that of Moses. Now if any man should ask, how it come to pass that Eulogius (and that probably from the common notion of the thing) should divide the books of Moses into an Octateuch; I had rather any one else than myself should resolve him in it. But if any consent that he owned the Heptateuch we have already mentioned, we should be ready to reckon the last chapter of Deuteronomy for the eighth part.

Aben Ezra will smile here, who in that his obscure and disguised denial of the books of the Pentateuch, as if they were not writ by the pen of Moses, instances, in that chapter in the first place, as far as I can guess, as a testimony against it. You have his words in his Commentary upon the Book of Deuteronomy, a little from the beginning, But if you understand the mystery of the twelve, &c., i.e. of the twelve verses of the last chapter of the book (for so his own countrymen expound him), "thou wilt know the truth"; i.e. that Moses did not write the whole Pentateuch; an argument neither worth answering, nor becoming so great a philosopher. For as it is a ridiculous thing to suppose that the chapter that treats of the death and burial of Moses should be written by himself, so would it not be much less ridiculous to affix that chapter to any other volume than the Pentateuch. But these things are not the proper subject for our present handling.

II. There also was an Octateuch of the prophets too: "All the books of the prophets are eight; Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve." For the historical books also were read in their synagogues under the notion of the prophets, as well as the prophets themselves, whose names are set down. You will see the title prefixed to them in the Hebrew Bibles, The former prophets, as well as to the others, The latter prophets. The doctors give us the reason why they dispose the prophets in that order, that Jeremiah is named first, Ezekiel next, and Isaiah last, which I have quoted in notes upon Matthew 27:9: and let not the reader think it irksome to repeat it here.

"Whereas the Book of Kings ends in destruction, and the whole Book of Jeremiah treats about destruction; whereas Ezekiel begins with destruction, and ends in consolation; and whereas Isaiah is all in consolation, they joined destruction with destruction, and consolation with consolation."

III. The third division of the Bible is entitled the Holy Writings. And here also is found an Octateuch by somebody (as it seems), though I know not where to find it.

"Herbanus the Jew was a man excellently well instructed in the law, and holy books of the prophets, and the Octateuch, and all the other writings." What this Octateuch should be, distinct from the law and the prophets, and indeed what all the other writings besides should be, is not easily guessed. This Octateuch perhaps may seem to have some reference to the Hagiographa, or Holy Writings: for it is probable enough that, speaking of a Jew well skilled in the Holy Scriptures, he might design the partition of the Bible according to the manner of the Jews' dividing it: but who then can pick out books that should make it up? Let the reader pick out the eight; and then I would say, that the other four are all the other writings. But we will not much disquiet ourselves about this matter.

It may be asked, why these books should be called the Scriptures, when the whole Bible goes under the name of the Holy Scriptures. Nor can any thing be more readily answered to this, than that by this title they would keep up their dignity and just esteem for them. They did not indeed read them in their synagogues, but that they might acknowledge them of most holy and divine authority, out of them they confirm their traditions, and they expound them mystically: yea, and give them the same title with the rest of the Holy Scriptures.

"This is the order of the Hagiographa, Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Canticles, the Lamentations, Daniel, the Book of Esther, Ezra, and the Chronicles." It is here disputed, that if Job was in the days of Moses, why then is not his book put in the first place? the answer is, They do not begin with vengeance or affliction; and such is that Book of Job. They reply, Ruth also begins with affliction, viz. with the story of a famine, and the death of Elimelech's sons. "But that was (say they) an affliction that had a joyful ending." So they might have said of the book and affliction of Job too. We see it is disputed there, why the Book of Ruth should be placed the first in that rank, and not the Book of Job. But we might inquire, whether the Book of Psalms ought not to have been placed the first, rather than the Book of Ruth.

IV. In this passage at present before us, who would think otherwise but that our Saviour alludes to the common and most known partition of the Bible? and although he name the Psalms only, yet that under that title he includes that whole volume. For we must of necessity say, that either he excluded all the books of that third division excepting the Book of Psalms, which is not probable; or that he included them under the title of the Prophets, which was not customary; or else that under the title of the Psalms he comprehended all the rest. That he did not exclude them, reason will tell us; for in several books of that division is he himself spoken of, as well as in the Psalms: and that he did not include them in the title of the Prophets reason also will dictate: because we would not suppose him speaking differently from the common and received opinion of that nation. There is very little question, therefore, but the apostles might understand him speaking with the vulgar; and by the Psalms to have meant all the books of that volume, those especially wherein any thing was written concerning himself. For let it be granted that Ruth, as to the time of the history and the time of its writing, might challenge to itself the first place in order (and it is that kind of priority the Gemarists are arguing), yet, certainly, amongst all those books that mention any thing of Christ, the Book of Psalms deservedly obtains the first place; so far that in the naming of this the rest may be understood. So St. Matthew, chapter 27:9, under the name of Jeremiah, comprehends that whole volume of the Prophets, because he was placed the first in that rank: which observation we have made in notes upon that place.