Among the books for which we have rabbinical discussion of
canonicity none is more prominent than Ecclesiastes.126 Next in
frequency of discussion is Song of Songs.127 Several others are
discussed in a single passage (though not necessarily only once
in rabbinic history): Ruth,128 Esther,129 Proverbs,130 and
Ezekiel.131 It is possible that Ezra and Daniel were also discussed, although the only reference to them in this sort of material does not seem to deal with the question of whether or
not they belong in Scripture.132 The only extra-canonical books
mentioned in these contexts are the "books of Hamiram"
(Homer?) mentioned below, but the context seems to imply
that they are not under consideration for canonization.
In the rabbinical discussions of the canonicity of the Old
Testament, the term "canon" and its derivatives are only used in
periphrastic English translations, as this is a later technical
term developed in Christian circles. Although the word "Scripture" already seems to be a technical term with the required
significance, our extant reports usually give the discussions in
terms of two other concepts: "uncleanness" and "hiding."
Those books which we would call canonical or scriptural were
held by the rabbis to confer uncleanness on the hands of those
touching them.133 According to a late tradition, the rabbis declared uncleanness upon the Scriptures:
Because originally food of terumah was stored near the Scroll
of the Law, with the argument, This is holy and that is holy.
But when it was seen that they (the Sacred Books) came to
harm (apparently because of mice), the Rabbis imposed un-
cleanness upon them.134
From its context, this particular distinction seems to go back
to the period when the temple was still standing. This seems to
be supported by the presence of Sadducees in a similar type of
passage in the Mishnah:
The Sadducees say: We complain against you, 0 ye Phari-
sees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures render unclean
the hands, but the books of Hamiram do not convey unclean-
ness to the hands. R. Johanan ben Zakkai said: Have we
nothing against the Pharisees excepting this? Behold they
say that the bones of an ass are clean, yet the bones of
Johanan the High Priest are unclean. They said to him:
Proportionate to the love for him, so is their uncleanness, so
that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father
or mother. He said to them: So also the Holy Scriptures
proportionate to the love for them, so is their uncleanness.
The books of Hamiram which are not precious do not convey
uncleanness to the hands.135
Such a passage also seems to indicate virtual identity between
the concepts “Holy Scripture” and "books which render the
hands unclean." Certainly it is true that a book which is not
Scripture does not defile the hands, but another passage shows
us that the converse is not necessarily true:
If an Aramaic section was written (translated) in Hebrew,
or a Hebrew section was written (translated) in Aramaic, or
Hebrew (Phoenician) script, it does not render unclean the
hands. It never renders unclean the hands until it is written
in the Assyrian (square) script, on hide and in ink.136
Thus "defiling the hands" is a ceremonial concept which does
not apply to translations. It would seem that the stipulations
regarding type of script and writing materials indicate that only
scrolls which would be fit for reading in a worship service can
defile the hands. So "books which defile the hands" is a somewhat narrower concept than "Scripture."
Another concept common to rabbinical discussions on the
canon is that of "hiding" certain works.137 Unfortunately this
concept is not explained as thoroughly as that of "books which
defile the hands," although it is clear that "hiding a book" indcates disapproval. It is possible that a book is considered hidden
when its reading in public worship is forbidden, but it may be
that even private reading of the book is thereby discouraged.
R. Akiba is reported to have denied a place in the "world to
come" to those who read non-canonical books.138 The connection of "hiding a book" with the synagogue geniza (hiding
place, at least for worn-out copies of Scripture) or with the term
"apocrypha" (hidden books) is not clear.
Having looked at the terminology used in discussing the question of the canonicity of various books, let us consider the arguments presented for questioning various books. Only one work
is ever explicitly charged with heresy, the book of Ecclesiastes.
The third verse, "What profit has a man in all his labor which
he does under the sun?" was thought to deny the value of
studying the Torah. This was reconciled by suggesting that
man's profit from Torah will be given him "above the sun."140
Similarly, the writer's exhortation to a young man to "walk in
the ways of your heart" (11:9b) seemed to violate God's command to follow His law rather than one's own desire (e.g.,
Num. 15:39). These were brought into agreement by noting the
context (Eccl. 11:9c): "for all these things God will bring you
into judgment."141
Several books, however, are charged with lesser or internal
contradictions, namely Ezekiel, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. In
the case of Ezekiel, the contradiction is said to be with the
Torah.142 No details are given, but the problematic material
seems to involve the predicted temple and liturgy foreseen in
chapter 40 and following. Hananiah the son of Hezekiah is
blessed for having expended three hundred barrels of "midnight oil" successfully to reconcile them, but his arguments are
not recounted.143
Proverbs was claimed to be self-contradictory because of
Proverbs 26:4,5:
Answer not a fool according to his folly
lest you also be like him;
Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own conceit.
Here, too, the rabbis managed to find a way to bring these words
into agreement.144
Ecclesiastes was seen as both self-contradictory and in disagreement with other Scripture.145 In addition to the passages
mentioned above, Ecclesiastes 4:2 and 9:4 seemed divergent,
as did the former when set beside Psalm 115:17. R. Tanhum of
Neway solved these with a long explanation.146 Another rabbi
explains that Ecclesiastes was not hidden because "it began and
ended with words of Torah."147
A third reason for rejecting a book is charged against Ecclesiastes: it has only Solomon's wisdom rather than God's.148
It is significant that some Bible-believing Christians today say
the same thing. But the "words of Torah" with which Ecclesiastes closes do not allow them this solution:
The preacher sought to find out acceptable words, and that
which is written is upright, even words of truth (12:10).
The subject matter of Song of Songs was apparently responsible for the questions raised regarding it. R. Akiba's reactions
suggest the nature of the problem. "All the Writings are holy,"
he says, "and this is the holy of holies,"149 implying that some
felt the Song of Songs was not so holy. Similarly, "he who, at
a banquet, renders the Song of Songs in a sing-song way, turning it into a common ditty, has no share in the world to
come."150 Again it is significant that, even today, some Biblebelievers are embarrassed by this book, feeling that allegorical
exegesis is necessary to justify its canonicity.
The only problem mentioned in connection with Esther is its
post-Mosaic establishment of a religious festival,151 although
both Esther's Purim and 1 Maccabees' Hanukah were then
being observed. Perhaps the lack of any specific reference to
God was also a problem.
No discussion arises over Ezra and Daniel, but the citation
given above regarding translations and unclean hands (p. 26)
is immediately preceded by the remark, "The Aramaic sections
in Ezra and Daniel render unclean the hands."152 Apparently
the presence of long Aramaic passages concerned some. But
the Mishnah here seems to affirm the belief that Aramaic was
the original language of these passages, that therefore that language was to be used in their public reading, and that not even
a Hebrew translation of such was an adequate substitute.
For the book of Ruth, the remaining work which may have
come under discussion,153 nothing is said of the problem involved. Perhaps the difficulty was reconciling Deut. 23:3 with
the fact that Ruth was a Moabite.
Let us now attempt to date these rabbinical discussions on
the canon. Although a number of the references are too vague,
saying only that the "Sages" gave some opinion,154 others are
more specific.
Even while the temple was standing (before A.D. 70) it
seems that the rabbis discussed the extent of the canon. According to the Mishnah:
R. Ishmael cites three instances of lenient rulings by Beth
Shammai and rigorous rulings by Beth Hillel. The Book of
Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands according to the opin-
ion of Beth Shammai; but Beth Hillel says: It defiles the
hands.155
R. Simeon, a student of Akiba,156 reports the same opinion,
adding that Ruth, Song of Songs, and Esther are to be considered Scripture.157 As Hillel and Shammai were active at the
beginning of our era, their schools were in existence before the
fall of Jerusalem, and no known rabbis of Jamnia are mentioned
here, it is probable that these discussions pre-date Jamnia.
A stonger evidence of early canon discussion is given in the
Gemara:
In truth, that man, Hananiah son of Hezekiah by name, is to
be remembered for blessing: but for him, the Book of Ezekiel
would have been hidden, for its words contradicted the Torah.
What did he do? Three hundred barrels of oil were taken up
to him and he sat in an upper chamber and reconciled them.158
According to the Mishnah at this point, eighteen halakoth were
enacted on one day in the upper chamber of Hananiah ben Hezekaih ben Garon when Beth Shammai outvoted Beth Hillel.159
The Gemara further informs us that one of the rulings was that terumah is made unfit by contact with Scripture.160 Since
this ruling is presupposed in the argument between Johanan ben
Zakkai and the Sadducees quoted above (note 135), it was probably enacted before Jamnia. Since also Hananiah ben Hezekiah
is connected with the authorship of Megillat Ta'anit,
161 and the
appendix of that work mentions his son Eliezer, who is thought
to have been one of the leading rebels in the first revolt against
the Romans,162 it appears that this discussion occurred in the
last generation before the destruction of the temple.163
Thus it appears that there was at least one discussion regarding canon, involving two groups, Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel,
and one named individual, Hananiah ben Hezekiah, which gives
every indication of having occurred before the fall of Jerusalem
in A.D. 70.
In the period of Jamnia's prominence we also find such discussions. The most specific statement comes from R. Simeon
ben Azzai, a contemporary of Akiba,164 who says that he has a
tradition "from the seventy-two elders on the day when they
appointed R. Eleazar ben Azariah head of the Academy" that
both Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes defile the hands.165 This
specific (though undated) day166 seems to have occurred some
time after the death of R. Johanan ben Zakkai. The number
seventy-two suggests that the action was taken by the Great
Beth Din rather than the Beth ha-Midrash (presumably the
"Academy" mentioned here) or the special (?) group of 120
elders who drew up the Eighteen Benedictions.l67
R. Judah, a student of Akiba,168 reports that Samuel rejected
the Book of Esther.169 Presumably this is Samuel the Little, a
contemporary of Gamaliel and Eleazar ben Azariah,170 so this
could easily be the same incident mentioned above. Strangely enough, Samuel did not deny that Esther was inspired by the
Holy Spirit, but rather he felt that it was not supposed to have
been written down, presumably remaining as oral tradition.
In addition to these, we have the remarks of R. Akiba on the
Song of Songs171 and his condemnation of those who read noncanonical books.172 As Akiba was already a prominent rabbi
when Gamaliel II was temporarily deposed,173 these statements
in themselves need not imply any later discussion. Elsewhere,
however, we have R. Akiba's statements on both Ecclesiastes
and Song of Songs174 in a context which seems to be a discussion between himself, R. Simeon ben. Azzai mentioned above,
and three of Akiba's later students, Judah, Jose, and Simeon.175
In a sense this is a discussion about the two previously-mentioned discussions of the canon, as the controversy between
Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel, and the making of R. Eleazar
ben Azariah head of the Academy are both mentioned. Yet the
disagreement among these men on just what was disputed and
what was decided in these previous discussions seems to belie
any widely-publicized decision. Presumably this last discussion,
involving Akiba and his students, is set in the Beth ha-Midrash
rather than the Beth Din.
Thus Jamnia saw at least one discussion of canon in the Beth
Din and, later, another in the Beth ha-Midrash. Probably there
were even more discussions among the rabbis on these matters
during the Jamnia period, but there is no indication of a special
council for this.
But discussions and even arguments on canon did not cease
with Jamnia. About A.D. 200,176 R. Simeon ben Menasia
claims that Ecclesiastes is not Scripture, as it contains only
Solomon's wisdom.177 R. Tanhum of Neway is still discussing
apparent contradictions in Ecclesiastes178 a century and a half
beyond this.17Likewise the inspiration of Esther, though favored earlier by
such as Eleazar, Samuel, Akiba, and Meir, is still being argued
by Raba, Rabina, Joseph, and Nahman ben Isaac180 late in the
fourth century of our era.181 It does not appear, therefore, that
any earlier rabbinical decisions were viewed as ending all discussion.
So far, we have seen that the canonicity of from six to eight
books was discussed by the rabbis, all but one of which are in
the third of the present divisions of the Hebrew Bible. Unless
one considers the books of Hamiram to have been real candidates for canonicity, only books in the present canon were even
mentioned.
The defensive nature of the discussion suggests that the rabbis
were trying to justify the status quo rather than campaigning
for or against candidates for admission. There is no hint that
any of the books discussed was of recent vintage or of any other
than traditional authorship. The questions which are raised, in
fact, are just the sort that are still being raised today among
people with similar theology and interests. These involve internal considerations only, and it appears that no other lines of
questioning were pursued.
Although the rabbis occasionally refer to "decisions" in regard to the canon, reported discussions of these matters go backward to early rabbinical times (before A.D. 70) and forward
nearly to A.D. 400. The question therefore arises whether the
rabbinical discussions really contributed decisively to the acceptance of the works discussed as Scripture or whether the
rabbis were merely seeking to understand and defend their prior
acceptance. To attempt to answer this, let us consider other early
Jewish and Christian evidence regarding the Old Testament
canon. that all were in existence nearly two centuries before Jamnia.182
Instead let us examine early statements regarding the extent
of the canon and groupings of the books included in it.
Among the oldest sources which give numbers for the books
in the Old Testament, at least two different enumerations are
found. A twenty-two book count is given by Josephus183 (see
above, note 1) as well as by several church fathers (Melito,
Origen, Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Epiphanius, Jerome, and
Augustine) who seem to be reporting Jewish enumerations.184
On the other hand, 4 Ezra seems to picture twenty-four
books185 as known to the Jewish public. Such a count is also
seen in the Talmud186 and in the Midrash Rabbah on Numbers.187 It is probable that, as suggested by Bentzen:
The difference is accounted for by assuming that Josephus
combines Ruth with Judges, Lamentations with Jeremiah,
and takes Ezra and Nehemiah as one book, while 4 Esdras
probably regards Ruth and Lamentations as separate books.188
Whether it is also probable that Josephus's count was artificially reduced to twenty-two to match the number of letters in the
Hebrew alphabet, as Bentzen further suggests,189 is not so clear.
The Midrash Rabbah on Numbers associates the twenty-four
books with the twenty-four priestly divisions.190 Eissfeldt, for
instance, believes that the twenty-two book count is the older.191
A third, rather peculiar numbering of twenty-seven is found
in an eleventh-century Greek manuscript containing the Didache
and 2 Clement.192 Here the books of the Old Testament are
given in Greek together with a transliterated name for each,
some from Hebrew and some from Aramaic. ... around pages 20-27 of this article:
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted...tion/Text/Articles/Newman-CanonJamnia-WTJ.pdf