The Origin of the Old Testament Canon of Scripture
[LITERATURE.—S. Davidson, _The Canon of the Bible_ (1877); Riehm,
_Einleitung in das Alte Testament_ (1887-1890); Buhl, _Kanon und
Text des Alten Testamentes_ (1891); Wildeboer, _Die Entstehung
des alt-testamentlichen Kanons_ (1891); Ryle, _The Canon of the
Old Testament_ (1892); Robertson Smith, _The Old Testament in the
Jewish Church_, Lecture VI (1895); Briggs, _General Introduction
to the Study of Holy Scripture_ (1899); Duhm, _Die Entstehung des
Alten Testamentes_ (1899); Hölscher, _Apokryph und Kanonisch_,
pp. 1-41 (1905). The articles “Kanon des Alten Testamentes,” by
Strack in the _Realencykl. für Protestantische Theologie und
Kirche_; and “Bible Canon,” by Blau and Schmidt in the _Jewish
Encycl._]
We have, in the preceding chapters, considered the mental and
spiritual movements in Palestine, and have sought to show in how
large a measure these were affected by Hellenistic influence, and
how, on the other hand, resistance to this influence called into
existence a counter-movement which ultimately carried all before
it. The Hellenistic Movement with its profound influence upon the
Jews of Palestine, and its still profounder and more far-reaching
influence upon the Jews of the Dispersion; the Apocalyptic Movement,
largely indigenous, but also greatly influenced by the Hellenistic
spirit; the Legalistic Movement, initiated by Ezra and furthered
by Scribal activity; the opposing tendencies which resulted, viz.,
Particularism on the one hand, and Universalism on the other,
tendencies which remained such, and did not crystallize into
parties until after the Maccabæan struggle, so that both Scribes
and Apocalyptists could follow their individual bent, whether in
the direction of legal observance or of the pursuit of wisdom or of
eschatological study, without coming into conflict with each other;
the Maccabæan struggle which was the culmination of the deeply-rooted
tendencies just referred to, and which resulted in the formation
of two bitterly opposed parties, the Pharisees and the Sadducees,
each with their fundamental principles essentially irreconcilable,
each living and vigorous, each illogical, each offering the curious
paradox of triumphing in defeat—these and various other matters have
all been dealt with in the preceding chapter, with the object of
presenting a picture of the intellectual and religious surroundings
from which, and owing to which, the large body of literature
emanated with which we shall now have to concern ourselves. A not
inconsiderable portion of this literature was ultimately incorporated
into what came to be known as the Old Testament Canon; a large
portion which was studied and favourably looked upon even by
rigorously orthodox religious leaders among the Jews was excluded
from the Hebrew Canon, though admitted into the Greek Bible of the
Jews of the Dispersion; a further and still larger portion of this
literature was excluded, not only from the Hebrew Canon of the
Palestinian Jews, but also from the Greek Bible of the Dispersion
Jews.
Now to understand, first of all, how it came about that a distinct
line of demarcation was drawn between what we now know as the
canonical books, and those of the Apocrypha, it will be necessary
to consider briefly the _idea of a Canon_ in the Jewish Church, the
approximate date at which this idea arose, and the date at which the
Canon was finally closed. It will be important to touch also upon the
question as to whom the formation of the Canon was specially due,
as well as the reason for which some books were admitted into the
Canon,[199] and others excluded. This will be our task in the present
chapter. The further questions concerning the two other bodies of
literature referred to just now will occupy us in subsequent chapters.
We must first offer a few remarks upon the subject of the Hebrew
Canon as we now have it in the Hebrew Bible.
I. THE HEBREW CANON IN ITS PRESENT FORM
The Hebrew Bible contains twenty-four books[200]; the following table
will show the divisions and sub-divisions into which these books were
placed by the Jewish Church:[201]
i. The Law, or _Torah_, i.e. the five books of Moses, called by
the Jews the “five-fifths of the Law.”
ii. The Prophets, or _Nebiim_; this has two sub-divisions:
(_a_) The “Former Prophets,” or _Nebiim rishônim_, i.e. the
books of Joshua, Judges, 1, 2 Samuel, 1, 2 Kings.
(_b_) The “Latter Prophets,” or _Nebiim acharônim_; i.e. the
books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor
Prophets, which are reckoned as one book.
iii. The Writings, or _Kethubim_; this has three sub-divisions:
(_a_) Psalms, Proverbs, Job.
(_b_) Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes,
Esther; these are technically known as the five “Scrolls,” or
_Megillôth_.
(_c_) Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, 1, 2 Chronicles.
Regarding the first of these divisions, it may be pointed out that
the Jews regard the Law, or Torah, as by far the most important part
of their Scriptures, in comparison with which the other two divisions
occupy quite a subordinate position; indeed, the “Prophets” and the
“Writings” are sometimes spoken of as mere “Tradition” (_Kabbalah_),
in contrast with the Law. As to the second division, it should
be noted that the Jews in early days regarded the two books of
Samuel[202] as one book, and the same applies to the two books of
Kings. The terms “Former” and “Latter” Prophets do not refer to their
respective dates of composition, but must be taken to indicate the
order of the books in the canonical collection.[203] In the third
division we see, in the first place, that the order of the books in
each of the sub-divisions differs from that of the English Bible;
secondly, the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are treated as one book,
and this is also the case with 1, 2 Chronicles. The five “Scrolls”
occupy an important and somewhat special position among the Jews,
for they are assigned, for reading, to particular feast-days and one
fast-day, viz. Passover (_Pesach_), Weeks (_Shebuôth_), the fast of
the “ninth of Ab,”[204] Tabernacles (_Succôth_), and Lots (_Purim_),
respectively.
Thus, the first division has five books, the second has eight, and
the third has eleven, making twenty-four in all.
These books, then, constitute the Hebrew Canon in its final form,
the authoritative Scriptures to which no book may be added, and from
which no book may be taken away. We have now to inquire as to when,
by whom, and why these books were singled out from among the mass of
Jewish literature to occupy this honoured position.
II. THE IDEA OF A CANON
In seeking to answer the question as to when the Hebrew Canon assumed
its present, final, form, it is well to begin by emphasizing the need
of distinguishing between a _collection of books_, all valued more or
less, and the _formation of a Canon_. It is not only comprehensible,
but altogether natural to find that, given the existence of a large
literature, a certain number of books belonging to it should be more
highly valued and honoured than others contained in that literature;
it does not, however, therefore necessarily follow that such more
highly honoured books alone are acceptable and widely used, or
that they are regarded as so holy that not a letter of them may be
altered, while all other books belonging to that literature are
regarded as of inferior value and of no authority.
Applying this to the sacred literature of the Jews as it existed and
grew, roughly speaking, during the last two pre-Christian centuries,
we must begin by leaving out the Pentateuch from our present
consideration; we are justified in doing this, because these books,
as containing the written Law, occupied a position so unique from
the Jewish point of view that (from the time that they became books)
they never came under the category of ordinary books (see, however,
below, p. 168). Setting the Pentateuch aside, therefore, we affirm
that during the period indicated a large sacred literature was in
existence, and that a certain number of books belonging to it were
more highly honoured and valued than others; but that the former did
not differ in kind but only in the degree of value attaching both
to them and to other books. In other words, the _idea of a Canon_
assumes the existence of a number of books from which are selected
those which are to become canonical. Unless this were so we should
have to assume that all the books _now_ regarded as canonical were
so regarded on their first appearance. Our first task in seeking to
substantiate our contention, then, is to give evidence that at one
period the books which were subsequently admitted into the Canon
were distinguished, probably, in degree, but not in kind, from other
books, which were never admitted into the Canon.
In Ecclesiasticus xliv.-l. Ben-Sira writes a panegyric on the famous
men of old; among these he mentions Moses, to whom the Lord “gave
commandments face to face, even the Law of life and knowledge” (xlv.
5); Joshua, the “successor of Moses in prophecies” (xlvi. 1); the
Judges, not individually by name, but collectively (xlvi. 11, 12);
Samuel, “a Nazarite of Jehovah in the prophetical office” (xlvi.
13)[205]; the Kings, of whom he says, “Except David and Hezekiah
and Josiah, all committed trespass” (xlix. 4); Isaiah, who “by a
spirit of might saw the last things”(xlviii. 24, in the Hebrew);
Jeremiah, who “was sanctified in the womb to be a prophet” (xlix.
6); Ezekiel, “who saw a vision” (xlix. 8, according to the Hebrew);
and the Twelve Prophets (xlix. 10), these are mentioned collectively,
so that the writings bearing their names had already been collected
into a single book by B.C. 200 or thereabouts. In addition to these
there is a possible reference to the Psalms, though this is not
necessarily the case; the words are: “In every work of his, David
gave thanks to God Most High with words of glory; with his whole
heart he loved his Maker, and sang praise every day continually. He
set music of stringed instruments before the altar, and arranged
the sound of song to the harp. He glorified the feast-days ...”
(xlvii. 8-10, according to the Hebrew). While the possibility of the
Psalms being here referred to is not denied, one might reasonably
look for something more definite; the reference could equally well,
perhaps more probably, be to the rendering of the Temple music; it
is, at any rate, worth noting that the chief part of the panegyric
on David is taken up with an account of his heroic acts, (see xlvii.
2-7). Ben-Sira is more definite in his reference to the Proverbs
and Canticles, though even here this is not necessarily the case,
especially in regard to the latter, for the reference to songs may
be merely taken from 1 Kings iv. 32 (“And his songs were a thousand
and five”); when speaking of Solomon he says: “With thy songs, and
proverbs, and parables, and thine interpretations thou didst cause
astonishment to the peoples” (xlvii. 17, according to the Hebrew).
Job is also mentioned in the Hebrew, but not in the Greek text;
this omission in the latter can, however, be accounted for, as the
translator either misread or misunderstood the Hebrew. But the
reference to Job does not seem to imply knowledge of the existence
of the Book of Job; the words are: “And also he (i.e. Ezekiel) made
mention of Job (the prophet),[206] who maintained all the ways of
righteousness” (xlix. 9); here we have clearly a reference to
Ezekiel xiv. 20, where Job is mentioned as a typically righteous man.
Nehemiah is mentioned by name, and a comparison with Ecclesiasticus
xlvii. 9 (already quoted above), with 1 Chronicles xvi. 4, 5 implies
a knowledge of the books of Chronicles. But Ben-Sira makes no mention
of Ezra (there are perhaps special reasons for this), Daniel, or
Esther.
The first point to be noticed in this list is that no place of honour
is assigned to any one collection of books such as the Hebrew Canon
was divided into in later days; the Law, the Prophets, and some of
the “Writings” are all treated as belonging to the same category.
But more: Ben-Sira, in giving a _résumé_ of the history of Israel as
contained in these books, and in enumerating the nation’s worthies,
clearly does not consider that they alone are authoritative, or
that the list of the nation’s worthies, as contained in them, is
exhausted; for he goes on with the history of his nation during his
own time, and continues the list of worthies with the mention of
Simon, the son of Onias, to whom he devotes far more space than to
any of the earlier ones (see l. 1 ff.). Then, again, while Ben-Sira
is familiar with almost all the books of the Old Testament, he does
not regard them as what we understand by canonical, i.e. in the sense
of being separated off from all other books; for if that had been
the case, he could not have spoken words such as those which occur,
e.g. in xxiv. 33, whereby he places himself in a direct line with the
prophets:
I will yet pour out doctrine as prophecy,
And leave it unto eternal generations
(see also verses 30-32, 34);
nor would he have taken upon himself, as Hölscher has pointedly
remarked, to assume the tone and style of the ancient prophets, as he
often does (see, e.g., xlvii. 20, l. 29), if the “unbridgable cleft
of canonicity” had stood between him and the prophets.[207] The list,
therefore, such as it is, does not imply the existence of a Canon.
The same must be said of the evidence of Ben-Sira’s grandson, who
translated his grandfather’s work into Greek (about B.C. 132). He
says in his Prologue: “Whereas many and great things have been
delivered unto us by the Law and the Prophets, and by others that
have followed in their steps ...”; and later on, he again speaks of
“the Law, and the Prophets, and the books of our fathers”; and “the
Law, and the prophecies, and the rest of the books.” The loose way
in which the writer speaks of the third category of books, and the
fact that he does not apply to them the technical name of _Kethubim_
(“Writings” = _Hagiographa_) is clear evidence that what we now
understand by the “Hebrew Canon” was not yet in existence. We may go
even further and say that the Pentateuch, the prophetical books and
some others occupied a position of special honour among many other
books belonging to Hebrew literature,[208] but that not even the Law
and the Prophets can have been regarded as “canonical” in the later
sense of the word, otherwise they would not have been mentioned
along with books which admittedly were not “canonical.”[209] This
is further borne out by the following words, which occur in the
Prologue: “My grandfather Jesus, having given himself much to the
reading of the Law, and the Prophets, and the other books of our
fathers, and having gained familiarity therein, _was drawn on also
himself to write somewhat pertaining to instruction and wisdom_, in
order that those who love learning, and are addicted to these things,
might make progress much more by living according to the Law.” It is
obvious from these words that Ben-Sira’s grandson looked upon his
grandfather as one of those who had “followed after” the writers of
the Law and the Prophets, and that he regarded his grandfather’s book
as having a legitimate place among the “books of the fathers.” But,
this being so, it cannot be said that the Hebrew Scriptures, or any
part of them, were regarded as canonical in the ordinary sense of
the word. If the Law, the Prophets and other books are treated as a
special body of literature to which a new book can be said to belong,
in the natural and matter of course way in which Ben-Sira’s grandson
does that, it is clear that he, at all events, did not regard this
special body of literature as so sacrosanct that nothing could be
added to it. Therefore, according to this evidence, there was no
“Canon of Scripture,” as we understand it, as late as about B.C. 132.
It follows, then, further that such books as Ecclesiasticus, Tobit,
Judith, 1 Maccabees, and others, were not regarded as “apocryphal,”
but came under the same category of other edifying books, some of
which were, later, made canonical.
But if, as we have seen, there was at this time no such thing as a
Canon of Scripture, in the sense of an officially recognized and
authoritative list of books definitely separated off from all others,
there is no sort of doubt that a certain number of books were looked
upon as pre-eminent, and enjoyed greater favour than others. It is
in this fact that we may recognize the existence of the _idea of a
Canon_, as distinct from a finally settled and authoritative list of
canonical books.
III. THE FORMATION OF THE HEBREW CANON
But while we have thus an approximate date for the existence of
the _idea of a Canon_, i.e. the idea that some books are holier,
and therefore more authoritative than others, we have yet to ask
ourselves at what date the definite close of the Canon took place,
i.e. when the Hebrew Canon, as we now know it, assumed its final form
undisputed.
We have evidence that at the beginning of the Christian era the
Hebrew Canon was not yet closed, for at that time the canonicity of
Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs was disputed. The influential
school of Shammai held that these books were uncanonical, while
the school of Hillel acknowledged their canonicity. Thus, in the
Mishna (Jadaim iii. 5) it is said: “All the holy writings defile
the hands.[210] The Song of Songs defiles the hands, but regarding
Koheleth (Ecclesiastes) there is a difference of opinion. Rabbi Jose
says, Koheleth does not defile the hands, but regarding the Song of
Songs there is a difference of opinion. Rabbi Simeon says, As to
Koheleth, the house of Shammai esteems it lightly, but the house of
Hillel esteems it highly.” So, too, in another Mishnic tractate,
Eduyoth v. 3, it is said: “Koheleth does not defile the hands
according to the house of Shammai, but the house of Hillel says that
it does defile the hands.”
At a still later date the canonicity of the Book of Esther was
disputed. Early in the second century of our era two Rabbis, as
recorded in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 100_a_) regarded it as of inferior
value to the rest of the biblical books.[211] But the opposition to
this book is not to be taken seriously, since its canonicity was only
disputed by individual teachers. In the case of Ecclesiastes and the
Song of Songs it is different, for the canonicity of these was denied
by a whole school of authoritative teachers.
It will, therefore, be seen that as late as the beginning of the
Christian era the Hebrew Canon had not been closed, since there was
still the possibility of new books being added to it, as indeed
happened later when the disputed books, just mentioned, were
definitely included in the Canon. So that the close of the Canon did
not take place until some considerable time after the idea of a Canon
had arisen.
From the evidence of the Mishna we turn to an important passage
in Josephus. Writing at about the end of the first century A.D.,
Josephus, in his treatise against Apion (i. 8), after saying that the
prophets alone were inspired by God to write down the earliest events
as well as those of their own times, continues: “We have not myriads
of books disagreeing with, and antagonistic to, one another, but two
and twenty only,[212] which contain the record of all time (past),
and are rightly believed in.[213] And of these, five belong to Moses;
they contain the laws and the tradition from man’s origin to his
death for a period of nearly three thousand years. From the death of
Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, King of Persia, who reigned after
Xerxes, the prophets who came after Moses wrote down the things that
were done during their time in thirteen books. The remaining four
contain hymns to God and precepts for men’s conduct of life. But from
Artaxerxes to our times all events have, it is true, been written
down; but these later books are not thought to be worthy of the same
credit, because the exact succession of prophets was wanting.”
According to Josephus, therefore, the canonicity of a book depended
upon whether it had been written within a clearly defined period,
and that period was from Moses to the death of Artaxerxes, i.e., the
prophetical period. The artificiality of this test is shown by the
fact that, in the words of Ryle, “the mention of this particular
limit seems to be made expressly with reference to the Book of
Esther, in which alone the Artaxerxes of Josephus (the Ahasuerus of
the Hebrew book of Esther) figures.”[214] But in pointing to this
test of canonicity, Josephus is not expressing a theory of his own,
for a similar view was held by the Rabbis. They, too, maintained
that no book was canonical unless it had been written within a fixed
period, the prophetical period; for them this period was from Moses
to Ezra.[215] Josephus thus witnesses to the principle, authoritative
and fully accepted by the end of the first century A.D., on the basis
of which the Hebrew Canon was formed. But the theory on which this
principle was based was contrary to fact, for on this view “there
never was or could be any discussion as to the number and limits of
the canonical collection, which had from first to last an official
character. Each new book was written by a man of acknowledged
authority, and was added to the collection precisely as a new page
would be added to the royal annals of an eastern kingdom. It is
plain that this view is not in accordance with facts.... Josephus’
account of the Canon is a theory, and a theory inconsistent with
the fact that we find no complete formal catalogue of Scriptures
in earlier writers like the son of Sirach, who, in enumerating the
literary worthies of his nation, had every motive to give a complete
list, if he had been in a position to do so; inconsistent also with
the fact that questions as to the canonicity of certain books were
still undecided within the lifetime of Josephus himself.”[216] But
wrong and contrary to fact as this theory was, upon it nevertheless
was founded the Hebrew Canon as we have it at the present day. For
various reasons,[217] the Rabbis had determined to exclude certain
books from the Canon of the Old Testament,[218] and their will held
the day not only in their own times, but also reasserted itself, all
unconscious of this though their descendants may be, in later times
in certain parts of the Christian world.
The formation of the Hebrew Canon was thus virtually a _fait
accompli_ by about A.D. 100, the official _imprimatur_ being in all
probability given at what is called the Council of Jabneh (Jamnia).
That this was a council in the ordinary sense of the word may well be
doubted; but there is sufficient evidence to show that Jabneh was a
seat of Jewish scholarship even before the destruction of the Temple.
After this event the Sanhedrin removed to Jabneh and was presided
over by Jochanan ben Zakkai, the greatest of the Jewish scribes
during the period immediately succeeding the fall of Jerusalem; he
was followed by Gamaliel II. It must be fairly obvious that any
discussions as to the canonicity of books among the Jewish religious
leaders must have taken place in Jabneh where the Sanhedrin was, and
where the greatest Jewish scholars would be assembled. That such
discussions did take place is amply witnessed to by passages in the
Mishna. So that although it cannot be actually proved that the final
and authoritative formation of the Hebrew Canon took place at “the
council of Jabneh,” it is reasonably certain from the evidence we
have that the discussions on the canonicity of certain books held
by the Sanhedrin assembled at Jabneh resulted in what came to be
regarded as the formal and official fixing of the Canon.[219] How
far, in the gradual settlement of the question, the Rabbis acted on
their own initiative, and in how far they were merely registering and
crystallizing the popular verdict articulated by usage is difficult
to say. To maintain that the latter alone was decisive makes it hard
to understand why such books as Ecclesiasticus, Judith and Tobit, to
mention a few of the “apocryphal” books only, were excluded; on the
other hand, we cannot believe that popular usage counted for nothing.
Most probably the whole question was one of compromise in which by
degrees Rabbinical logic, based upon their theory alluded to above,
forced popular usage to give way to the official position which
became finally and irrevocably fixed by the Sanhedrin at Jabneh.
It is true that long after the council of Jabneh, the canonicity of
Ezekiel, Jonah, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes and Esther, was
at different times called in question[220]; but this only reflects
the opinions of individuals, and cannot be said to have in any way
modified the practical consensus of Jewish teachers that the final
word had been spoken at Jabneh.
IV. TO WHOM WAS THE FINAL FIXING OF THE HEBREW CANON DUE?
The question as to whom, pre-eminently, the final fixing of the
Hebrew Canon was due is not without interest; and although we have no
definite proof regarding the matter, all the probabilities point in
the same direction.
It would seem that at the time of Josephus the Pharisees specially
occupied themselves with the subject. It was Josephus, as we have
seen, who is the earliest witness that we have as to the existence
of a finally fixed Canon; now Josephus, as has been pointed out in
an earlier chapter, tells us in his autobiography that after having
made trial of the three sects of the Pharisees, Sadducees, and
Essenes in turn, so that by becoming acquainted with each he might
choose the best, he finally lived “according to the rule of life of
the sect of the Pharisees.”[221] This was in his nineteenth year; so
that from early manhood onwards he was a Pharisee. The fact does not
necessarily prove anything; but the presumption is that he must have
got his ideas about the Canon from the circle of the Pharisees. We
have already seen that Josephus’ theory regarding what constituted
the claim for admission into the Canon was identical with that of the
Rabbis; but by his time the leading Rabbis were Pharisees.
In the next place, we are told in the Mishna (Jadaim iv. 6) that
the Sadducees made fun of the Pharisees for teaching that the Holy
Scriptures “defiled the hands,” while the books of Homer did not
“defile the hands”; that is to say, the Sadducees repudiated the
Pharisaic conception of what constituted the Canon. This phrase,
“to defile the hands,”[222] was the Pharisaic way of expressing
canonicity; it implied that the holiness of the sacred object
produced by contact with it a state of Levitical impurity (cp. Lev.
vi. 24-28, Hag. ii. 11-13; and see further the interesting remarks
by Robertson Smith in _The Religion of the Semites_ [2nd ed.], pp.
161, 466 ff.)[223] “The fact that defilement only of _the hands_ is
attributed to the sacred writings demands more attention than it has
hitherto received. Interpreted in positive terms this can mean only
that _contact with them involves a ceremonial washing of the hands_,
especially as the ruling in the matter occurs in that Mishna treatise
(Jadaim) which relates to, and is named from, such hand-washings. The
expression would be an unnatural one if it implied a command that the
hands should be washed _before_ touching. The Pharisees attributed to
the sacred writings a sanctity of such a sort that whosoever touched
them was not allowed to touch aught else until he had undergone the
same ritual ablution as if he had touched something unclean.”[224]
The record of this difference of opinion between the Pharisees and
Sadducees on this subject throws an interesting light upon the
Pharisaic position regarding the Canon, and suggests that the final
fixing of this lay with this party.
It is also worth recording that prior to Josephus the attribution
of the term “holy” to the Scriptures occurs only once, viz., in
2 Maccabees viii. 23,[225] a book which emanated from Pharisaic
circles[226]; and in the New Testament this occurs only in the
writings of St. Paul,[227] who was brought up as a Pharisee. It is,
therefore, probable that the final fixing of the Canon was due to the
Pharisees.
SUMMARY
To understand how it came about that a distinct line of demarcation
was drawn between canonical and apocryphal books, a preliminary
consideration is necessary, viz. how the _idea of a Canon_ arose. We
are faced with the fact that before the beginning of the Christian
era there was a large body of literature in existence some books of
which were held in higher honour than the rest, though they did not
differ in kind, but only in their degree of sacredness, from these
books. It was from this fact that the idea of a Canon arose; that
is to say, the idea of a Canon assumes the existence of a number of
books from which are selected those which finally become canonical.
Between this and the fixing of a Canon there is clearly a great
difference. To show that a distinction has to be made between the
idea of a Canon and the fixing of the Canon, one has to prove that at
one period the books which were subsequently admitted into the Canon
were, as we have said, distinguished in degree but not in kind from
the mass of sacred literature.
The evidence of Ben-Sira, and of his grandson, is to the effect
that no fixed Canon of Scripture, as we understand it, existed at
about B.C. 100, and yet we know that at that time a large mass of
literature was in existence of which certain books were held in high
honour. The assumption is, therefore, justified that such books as
Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees and others came under the
same category as many other books, some of which were later included
in the Canon, and the possibility existed of such books as those just
mentioned being also included in the Canon.
The definite formation of the Hebrew Canon is another question;
concerning this, we have the evidence of the Mishna that it was not
completed at the beginning of the Christian era. On the other hand,
the evidence of Josephus shows that the final fixing of the Canon had
taken place before the end of the first century A.D.
The theory of Josephus, which was also that of the Rabbis, as to what
constituted the claim to canonicity, was that a book must have been
written within the “prophetical period,” i.e. from Moses to Ezra.
This theory was not in accordance with facts, but it held the field
nevertheless, and the Hebrew Canon was formed in accordance with it.
The final official _imprimatur_ was in all likelihood given by the
Jewish religious leaders at Jabneh.
The final fixing of the Hebrew Canon was in all probability the work
of the Pharisaic party.
ADDITIONAL NOTE
_The Conceptions underlying the Idea of Levitical Impurity._
Although not strictly belonging to the present inquiry, it may not be
out of place to say a few words as to why contact with a holy object
such as a roll of the Scriptures should be conceived of as bringing
about a state of Levitical impurity. Some of the explanations which
have been offered might be convincing if this particular form of the
way in which Levitical impurity was brought about stood alone. But
the fact is that other things involved a similar state of impurity,
and one cannot restrict oneself to the explanation of one of these
while leaving the rest out of consideration, because, as will be seen
in studying the subject, identical conceptions lie ultimately at the
base of all. How, for example, is one to account for the fact that
both the touching of a holy thing like a scroll of the Law, as well
as the touching of an unclean thing like a leper or a dead body (to
mention no others),[228] was held to bring about a similar state of
Levitical impurity and to require an ablution? That reverence for the
dead could have had nothing to do with this is proved by the fact
that a state of impurity was brought about not only by contact with a
dead person, but equally so by contact with a dead animal.
When one studies the laws of uncleanness in the Book of Leviticus
and compares them with many customs prevalent among uncultured
races,[229] one soon realizes the truth of Robertson Smith’s words
that “the irrationality of laws of uncleanness, from the standpoint
of spiritual religion, or even of the higher heathenism, is so
manifest, that they must necessarily be looked on as having survived
from an earlier form of faith and of society. And this being so,
I do not see how any historical student can refuse to class them
with savage taboos.”[230] Such survivals are to be seen in the
laws of uncleanness in the Book of Leviticus, not that there was
any idea of this when the writer of that book embodied in it those
popular traditional rules and customs which had been in vogue for
millenniums, any more than there was when the Pharisees decided that
certain books should henceforth be regarded as so holy that the mere
touch of them brought about Levitical impurity; they merely adopted
the outward expression of an antique conception, the essential
significance of which had been forgotten for untold ages.
In primitive religions it was regarded as most dangerous to touch
certain things and persons because they were conceived of as
belonging to, or as being under the protection of, or indwelt by,
spirits; it would be dangerous to touch these because the spirit’s
anger would be aroused thereby, and evil consequences would ensue;
they were, therefore, “taboo.” But in the dire event of any of
these things or persons being touched by a man, the supernatural
essence attaching to them was communicated; they were “contagious,”
and therefore the unhappy victim who came into contact with them
became “infected.” The result was one of two things: either the
man died,[231] or for some (to the savage) incomprehensible reason
no evil consequences ensued. In the latter case, since by contact
the supernatural and dangerous essence adhered to the man, it was
necessary that some means should be found whereby this “infection”
should be obliterated, otherwise the “infected” person would be a
danger to the community and would himself continue in the unfortunate
position of being debarred from intercourse with his fellows. Various
means were devised whereby this infection, conceived of as something
tangible, could be got rid of. Among these there was the obvious one
of washing it away with water.
But the tabooed things and persons referred to were of very diverse
character; some, such as a carcase, we should certainly consider
polluted or unclean; others, such as the priestly vestments, we
should call holy; but each was regarded as “infectious,” in the sense
used above, even in the Old Testament.[232] This is but an echo of
ideas which obtained among the forbears of the Israelites in distant
bygone ages; it may be illustrated by the condition of thought, in
this respect, among men of low culture at the present day. Frazer, in
dealing with the subject of “holy” persons[233] (and the principle of
what he says applies likewise to “holy” things), says, that so far as
the savage is concerned, “the conceptions of holiness and pollution
are not yet differentiated in his mind. To him the common feature
of all these persons is that they are dangerous and in danger, and
the danger in which they stand and to which they expose others
is what we should call spiritual or ghostly.... To seclude these
persons from the rest of the world so that the dreaded spiritual
danger shall neither reach them, nor spread from them, is the object
of the taboos which they have to observe. These taboos act, so to
say, as electrical insulators to preserve the spiritual force with
which these persons are charged from suffering or inflicting harm
by contact with the outer world.”[234] To man in a low state of
culture, then, the distinction between the conceptions of what we
speak of as holiness and uncleanness does not exist; but as soon as
a higher form of religion comes into being that distinction begins
to be discerned, especially as with any form of religion higher than
that which obtains in the animistic stage the conception of a god
begins to assert itself. Thus, to utilize (quite hypothetically)
the instances given above, in the lower stage a carcase would be
regarded as “holy,” i.e. something to be avoided, because it was
thought of as possessed by malignant spirits; a medicine man’s
belongings would be regarded as “holy,” i.e. something to be avoided,
just because they were the medicine man’s; both are uncanny things,
inspiring mysterious fear; both impart “infection” and are therefore
dangerous. This it is which, to the mind of the savage, puts both in
the same category. With the rise of a higher religion the carcase
would come to be regarded as “unclean,” while a priest’s vestments
(corresponding for the purposes of our present argument to the
medicine man’s utensils) would come to be regarded as “holy” in a
higher sense. But, and this is the important point, both would still
be avoided; the former because the touch of it involved pollution,
and thus unfitted a man for the worship of his god; the latter for
reasons of reverence due to his god. But in both cases the result of
the old idea of “infection” still clung, so that contact with either
necessitated a cleansing process of some kind. The persistence of
the ritual, though the purpose of it has been forgotten, is a fairly
common phenomenon even among the most highly cultured peoples; only,
since among these a “reason why” is insisted upon sooner or later,
plausible explanations, though far removed from the origin of things,
are usually forthcoming.[235]
That is how the special case before us is to be explained. The idea
of a Canon presupposes a wide literature from which the “canonical”
books are to be marked off; a working theory having been formulated,
the Canon is constructed in accordance with it; the Canon having
been constructed, some means of enforcing its recognition must be
devised. To the Rabbis of two thousand years ago, the quite obvious
means would be the adaptation of a principle which had been in
vogue in the whole domain of things religious from time immemorial.
“Sacredness” was imputed to the chosen books; and contact with
anything sacred necessitated ablutions. The ancient technical term
was still employed, so that any book declared to be “sacred” (and,
of course, the “sanctity” would be communicated to the material upon
which it was written) was said to “defile,” in this case the hands;
and therefore anyone who touched such a book was “defiled” thereby.
Theoretically he had to perform an ablution after having done so, but
only theoretically, for as a matter of fact no washing of hands (more
strictly, pouring of water upon the hands) has ever been required for
removing the “defilement” communicated through touching the scroll of
a canonical book, nor is it required at the present day.