CHAPTER VIII
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.