vi. EVIDENCE FOR THE JEWISH CANON.— At what period was the Canon of OT completed? or ean we indeed settle upon any exact date by which we can say that it was absolutely fixed ?
πέπον Nn interpretations are given by Ryle, Canon of
OT, p. 185. t These phrases probably refer to their position in the Hebrew Bible, not to a supposed priority or posteriority of date.
OLD TESTAMENT CANON
(a) The Baba Bathra.—The difficulty in answer. ing this question is in part the difficulty of assign- ing an exact date to a literary document, and in part that of pobre ier degree of objection or hesitation about a k should prevent our considering it as at the time part of the Canon. The facts are these: In the Talmudic treatise called Baba Bathra there is an extract (bar- aitha) from the Mishna which gives a virtually complete list of the books of the OT as we now know it.* The Mishna was committed to writing, so it is believed, not long before A.D. 200. On the other hand, Buhl (p. 25) refers to a Tal- mudic passage to prove that even after this a scholar was found to deny the canonicity of the Bk. of Esther. Whether the omission of this book, or doubts expressed about it by certain Fathers, Melito, Athanasius, Gregory azianzen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Amphilochius, were derived from Jewish objectors, or were the result of an independent judgment, cannot be positively deter- mined. The omission by Melito may well be a slip (see Buhl, p. 58).
(6) Talmudic extracts concerning disputed books, mainly 2nd cent. The evidence so far shows that by the end of the 2nd cent. at latest the Canon was virtually settled, but that it was even then no unheard of thing to doubt the canonicity of a canonical book. As we go back through the 2nd cent., we find such doubts becoming more frequent. There are several references in the Talmud to rabbinical teachers who rejected or disputed certain books. With the exception of Ezekiel, and perhaps Jonah also (see Ryle, pp. 193, 194), what Ryle has happily called the dvriAe- γόμενα of OT seem to have been confined to the Hagiographa, and included Proverbs, Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs, but especially the last two. The position taken up by these early Biblical critics is in many respects very interesting. They never appeal to an ancient tradition either for or against a book; nor do they, with Probably a few exceptions, discuss the question of authorship. And yet it is almost certain that both these considerations must have influenced the formation of the Canon. The ob- jections raised suggest rather that the canonicity of the books was generally admitted—but that in the opinion of the Rabbis quoted it was liable to objection. These objections were usually based on the ground of some supposed defects in the books themselves. The depended, in short, on internal, never on external, evidence. Thus Ec 8 seemed to contradict 27, and 4? seemed to contradict 95. Proverbs was by some withdrawn, in common with the Song of Songs, because they spoke in parables, —an interesting proof of the interpretation put upon the latter, and, in point of fact, probably the cause of its recognition as canonical. The far more serious objection was raised to Ecclesiastes, that it betrayed an Epicurean tinge, and tended to favour the Sadducean scepticism. Thus 1* seemed to suggest a denial of the future state; 117 encouraged worldly pleasure, and, moreover, it contradicted the stern precepts of Nu 153, On this book we learn that there was, or had been, a difference of opinion between the rival schools of Hillel and Shammai, the former accepting, the latter rejecting, the book. Even Ezekiel was at one time objected to on the ground that some of the provisions of the concluding chapters were contrary to those of the Levitical law. Some of these objections and discussions, interesting as showing the extreme views of inspiration then
* Baba Bathra, fol. 14b-15a, quoted in Ryle, Exc. B. The separate books of the Pentateuch are not mentioned, nor more than four of the Minor Prophets but the former are, of ovurse, implied by the ‘ Torah’ and the latter by ‘the Twelve.’
OLD TESTAMENT CANON
current, belong probably to an earlier date than the 2nd cent. A.D., but we must discount to some extent the common tendency of tradition to ascribe stories and sayings to well-known men, especially those of an earlier period. There is sufficient evidence to show that such discussions were by no means uncommon after the Council of Jamnia, to which we must next refer. They show that during the 2nd cent. A.D. several books, of the Hagiograplia especially, were still the subject of free and frequent discussion. This was not inconsistent with their being in a general way recognized as canonical. But such a qualified canonicity, if we may call it so, is hardly the same conception as we find at a later date. It was at this time neither irreverent nor disloyal to diapnte a canonical book (see ayes ch. x.).
(c) Council of Jamnia.—It may be asked, When was this qualified canonicity conferred? Both the Midrash and the Talmud point very definitely to the close of the Ist cent. A.D. In the former a saying of R. Simeon ben-Azai is quoted: ‘I have heard from the 72 elders, on the day when they gave R. Eleazar the presidency of the school (of