What the Canon mean in the Context with the Hebrew Bible?
The word “canon” is of Christian origin, from the Greek word ??????, kano?n, which in turn is probably borrowed from the Hebrew (also borrowed from the Phoenicians) word, ka?neh, meaning a reed or measuring rod, hence, norm or rule. Later it came to mean a rule of faith, and eventually a catalogue or list. In present usage it signifies a collection of religious writings Divinely inspired and hence, authoritative, normative, sacred and binding. The term occurs in the New Testament (Gal.6:16; 2Cor.10:13-16); but it is first employed of the books of Scripture in the technical sense of a standard collection or body of sacred writings, by the church Fathers of the 4th century; e.g. in the 59th canon of the Council of Laodicea (363 CE); in the Festal Epistle of Athanasius (365 CE); and by Amphilochius, archbishop of Iconium (395 CE).
The Corresponding Hebrew Expression
How the ancient Hebrews expressed the conception of canonicity is not known; but it is safe to say that the idea, as an idea, existed long before there was any special phrase invented to express it. In the New Testament the word “Scriptures” conveys unquestionably the notion of sacredness. From the 1st. century CE and following, however, according to the Talmud, the Jews employed the phrase “defile the hands.” Writings which were suitable to be read in the synagogue were designated as books which “defile the hands.” What this very peculiar oriental expression may have originally signified no one definitely knows. Probably Leviticus 16:24 gives a hint of the true interpretation. According to this passage the high priest on the great Day of Atonement washed not only when he put on the holy garments of his office, but also when he put them off. Quite possibly, therefore, the expression “defile the hands” signified that the hands which had touched the sacred writings must first be washed before touching something else. The idea expressed, accordingly, was one akin to that of taboo. That is to say,just as certain garments worn by worshippers in encircling the sacred Ka’aba at Mecca are taboo to the Muslims of today, i.e. cannot be worn outside the mosque, but must be left at the door as the worshippers quit the sanctuary, so the Hebrew writings which were fit to be read in the synagogue rendered the hands of those who touched them taboo, defiling their hands, as they were wont to say, so that they must first be washed before engaging in any secular business. This seems to be the best explanation of this enigmatical phrase. Various other and somewhat fanciful explanations of it, however, have been given: for example, to prevent profane uses of worn-out synagogue rolls ); or to prevent placing consecrated grain alongside of the sacred rolls in the synagogues that it might become holy, as the grain would attract the mice and the mice would gnaw the rolls ; or to prevent the sacred, worn-out parchments from being used as coverings for animals ; or to “declare the hands to be unclean unless previously washed”. But no one of these explanations satisfies. The idea of taboo is more likely imbedded in the phrase. A special phrase to designate rolls that were worn-out or disputed. These they called genu?zi?m, meaning “-conceal – hidden away.” Such rolls might first be placed in the geni?za?h a special chamber of the sanctuary. Cemeteries filled with Hebrew manuscripts which have long been buried are frequently found today in connection with Jewish synagogues. They were not, however, apocryphal or uncanonical in the sense of being extraneous or outside the regular collection. For such the Jews had a special termm sepha?ri?m hi?tso?ni?m, “books that are outside” or “outer books” – these could not be read in the synagogues during the Sabbath or festivals services. “
The Division of the Hebrew Bible
The Jews early divided the Hebrew Bible writings into three classes: (1) The To?ra?h, or Law; (2) The Nebhi?’i?m, or Prophets; and (3) The Kethu?bhi?m, or Writings, called in Greek the Hagiographa. The To?ra?h included the 5 books of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy), which were called “the Five-fifths of the Law.” The Nebhi?’i?m embraced (a) The four so-called Former Prophets, Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, counted as one book, 1 and 2 Kings, also counted as one book; and (b) The four so-called Latter Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets, counted as one book; a total of 8 books. The Kethu?bhi?m, or Writings, were 11 in all, including Psalms, Proverbs, and Job, the five Meghillo?th or Scrolls (Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, cclesiastes, Esther), Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, counted as one book, and 1 and 2 Chronicles, also counted as one book; in all 24 books, exactly the same as those of the Protestant canon. This was the original count of the Jews as far as we can trace it back. Later certain Jewish authorities appended Ruth to Judges, and Lamentations to Jeremiah, and thereby obtained the number 22, which corresponded to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet; but this manner of counting was secondary and fanciful. Still later others divided Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah and Jeremiah-Lamentations into two books each respectively and thereby obtained 27, which they fancifully regarded as equivalent to the 22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet plus 5, the number of letters having a peculiar final form when standing at the end of a word. Jerome states that 22 is the correct reckoning, but he adds, “Some count both Ruth and Lamentations among the Writings, and so get 24.”Tannaite [1] literature makes no mention anywhere of the number of the Biblical books, and it does not seem to have been usual to pay attention to their number. This was felt to be of importance only when the Holy Writings were to be distinguished from others, or when their entire range was to be explained to non-Jews. The Talmud consists of two parts: (1) The Mishna (compiled circa 200 CE), a collection of systematized tradition; and (2) The Gemara, (Gema?ra) (completed about 500 CE), a “vast and desultory commentary on the Mishna” A Barita [2] (or Baraitha‘), known as the Ba?bha?’ Bathra?’ 14b, a Talmudic tractate, relates the “order” of the various books of the Hebrew Bible and who “wrote” or edited them. But it says nothing of the formation of the canon. To write is not the same as to canonize; though to the later Jews the two ideas were closely akin. As a witness, therefore, this tractate is of little value, except that it confirms the tripartite division and is a good specimen of rabbinic speculation.
Note [1] – Tannaim is the plural term (singular tanna) for the Rabbinic sages whose views are recorded in the Mishnah, from approx. 70-200 CE. The period of the Tannaim (also referred to as the Mishnaic period) came after the period of the Zugoth (”pairs”), and before the period of the Amoraim; lasting about 130 years.
Note [2] – Baraita (Aramaic “external”, “outside”; pl. Baraitot. Also Baraitha, Beraita, Ashkenazi Beraisa) designates a tradition in the Jewish oral law not incorporated in the Mishnah. “Baraita” thus refers to teachings “outside” of the six orders of the Mishnah. Originally, “Baraita” probably referred to teachings from schools outside of the main Mishnaic-era academies – although in later collections, individual Baraitot are often authored by sages of the Mishna (Tannaim).
Josephus’ “Contra Apionem” (Circa 100 CE)
Flavius Josephus, the celebrated Jewish historian, was born 37 CE He was a priest and a probably a Pharisee. About 100 CE , he wrote a treatise, known as Contra Apionem, in defense of the Jews against their assailants, of whom Apion is taken as a leading representative, Now Apion was a famous grammarian, who in his life had been hostile to the Jews. He had died some 50 years before Contra Apionem was written. Josephus wrote in Greek to Greeks. The important passage in his treatise (I-8) reads as follows:
“For it is not the case with us to have vast numbers of books disagreeing and conflicting with one another. We have but twenty-two, containing the history of all time, books that are justly believed in. And of these, five are the books of Moses, which comprise the laws and the earliest traditions from the creation of mankind down to the time of his (Moses’) death. This period falls short but by a little of three thousand years. From the death of Moses to the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, the successor of Xerxes, the prophets who succeeded Moses wrote the history of the events that occurred in their own time; in thirteen books. The remaining four documents comprise hymns to God and practical precepts to men. From the days of Artaxerxes to our own time every event has indeed been recorded. But these recent records have not been deemed worthy of equal credit with those which preceded them, because the exact succession of the prophets ceased. But what faith we have placed in our own writings is evident by our conduct; for though so great an interval of time (i.e. since they were written) has now passed, not a soul has ventured either to add, or to remove, or to alter a syllable. But it is instinctive in all Jews at once from their very birth to regard them as commands of God, and to abide by them, and, if need be, willingly to die for them”
Maccabees Book (Between 125 and 70 BCE)
1 Maccabee was written originally in Hebrew; 2 Maccabee in Greek, somewhere between 125 and 70 BC. The author of 1 Maccabee is acquainted, on the one hand, with the deeds of John Hyrcanus (135 to 105 BC), and knows nothing on the other of the conquest of Palestine by Pompey (63 BC). The value of this book as a witness to the history of the canon centers about his allusions to Daniel and the Psalms. In 1 Maccabees 1:54, he tells how Antiochus Epiphanes “set up the abomination of desolation” upon the altar at Jerusalem, referring most likely to Dan.9:24-27; and in 1 Maccabees 2:59, 60 he speaks of Ananias, Azarias and Misael, who by believing were saved from the fiery furnace, and of Daniel, who was delivered from the mouths of the lions (compare Daniel 1:7; Daniel 3:26; Daniel 6:23). From these allusions, it would seem as though the Book of Daniel was at that time regarded as normative or canonical. This is confirmed by 1 Maccabees .7:16, 17, which introduces a quotation from Psalms 79:2, with the solemn formula, “According to the words which he wrote”; which would suggest that the Ps also were already canonical.
Council of Jamnia (Yavne)
After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai relocated to the city of Yavne/Jamnia and founded a school of Jewish law there, becoming a major source for the later Mishna. His school is often understood as a wellspring of Rabbinic Judaism. The Council of Yavne or Council of Jamnia refers to a hypothetical Proto-Rabbinic council under Yohanan’s leadership, that was responsible for defining the “canon” of the Hebrew Bible. Heinrich Graetz introduced the notion in 1871; based on Mishnaic and Talmudic sources, he concluded that there had been a Council of Jamnia which had decided the Jewish canon sometime in the late 1st century. This became the prevailing scholarly consensus for much of the 20th. century. However, from the 1960s onwards, based on the work of Jack P. Lewis, S.Z. Leiman, and others, this view came increasingly into question. In particular, later scholars noted that none of the sources actually mentioned books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions were about canonicity at all, asserting that they were actually dealing with other concerns entirely. Lewis writes in The Anchor Bible Dictionary Vol. III, pp. 634-7 (New York 1992):
The concept of the Council of Jamnia is an hypothesis to explain the canonization of the Writings (the third division of the Hebrew Bible) resulting in the closing of the Hebrew canon. … These ongoing debates suggest the paucity of evidence on which the hypothesis of the Council of Jamnia rests and raise the question whether it has not served its usefulness and should be relegated to the limbo of unestablished hypotheses. It should not be allowed to be considered a consensus established by mere repetition of assertion
2nd. Century CE
During the 2nd. century CE, doubts arose in rabbinates circles concerning four books, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Esther. In a certain Talmudic tractate it is related that an attempt was made to withdraw (ga?naz, “conceal,” “hide”) the Book of Proverbs on account of contradictions which were found in it (compare Proverbs 26:4, 26:5), but on deeper investigation it was not withdrawn. In another section of the Talmud, Rabbi Akiba is represented as saying concerning Song of Songs: “God forbid that any man of Israel should deny that the Song of Songs defiled the hands, for the whole world is not equal to the day in which the Song of Songs was given to Israel. For all Scriptures are holy, but the Song of Songs is the holiest of the holy.” Such extravagant language inclines one to feel that real doubt must have existed in the minds of some concerning the book. But the protestations were much stronger against Ecclesiastes. In one tractate it is stated: “The wise men desired to hide it because its language was often self-contradictory (compare Ecclesiastes 7:3 and Ecclesiastes 2:2; 4:2 and 9:4), but they did not hide it because the beginning and the end of it consist of words from the Torah (compare Ecclesiastes 1:3; 12:13, 12:14).” Likewise Esther was vigorously disputed by both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Gemaras, because the name of God was not found in it; but a Rabbi Simeon ben Lakkish (circa 300 CE) defended its canonicity, putting Esther on an equality with the Law and above the Prophets and the other Writings. Other books, for example, Ezekiel and Jonah, were discussed in post-Talmudic writings, but no serious objections were ever raised by the Jews against either. Jonah was really never doubted till the 12th century CE. In the case of no one of these disputed books were there serious doubts; nor did scholastic controversies affect public opinion.
Conclusion
This brings us to the end of our examination of the witnesses. In our survey we have discovered (1) that the Hebrew Bible says nothing about its canonization, but does emphasize the manner in which the Law was preserved and recognized as authoritative; (2) that to conclude that the Jews possessed the Law only, when the renegade Manasseh was expelled by Nehemiah from Jerusalem, because the Samaritans admit of the Law alone as the true canon, is unwarrantable; (3) that the Septuagint version as we know it from the Christian manuscripts extant is by no means a sufficient proof that the Alexandrians possessed a “larger” canon whichincluded the Apocrypha; (4) that Ben Sirach is a witness to the fact that the Prophets in his day (180 BC) were not yet acknowledged as canonical; (5) that his grandson in his Prologue is the first witness to the customary tripartite division of Hebrew Bible writings, but does not speak of the 3rd division as though it were already closed; (6) that the Books of Maccabees seem to indicate that Psalms and Daniel are already included in the canon of the Jews; (7) that Philo’s testimony is negative, in that he witnesses against the Apocryphal books as an integral part of Holy Scripture; (8) that the New Testament is the most explicit witness of the series, because of the names and titles it ascribes to the Hebrew Bible books which it quotes; (9) that Josephus also fixes the number of books, but in arguing for the antiquity of the canon speaks as an advocate, voicing popular tradition, rather than as a scientific historian; (10) that the Councils of Jamnia may, with some ground, be considered the official occasion on which the Jews pronounced upon the limits of their canon; but that (11) doubts existed in the 2nd century concerning certain books; which books, however, were not seriously questioned. From all this we conclude, that the Law was canonized, or as we would better say, was recognized as authoritative, first, circa 450 BC; that the Prophets were set on an even footing with the Law considerably later, circa 200 BC; and that the Writings received authoritative sanction still later, circa 100 bc. There probably never were three separate canons, but there were three separate classes of writings, which between 450 and 100 bc doubtless stood on different bases, and only gradually became authoritative. There is, therefore, ground for thinking, as suggested above, that the division of the Hebrew Bible canon is due to material differences in the contents as well as to chronology.