Some Considerations on the Categories “Bible” and
“Apocrypha”
Michael E. Stone
Hebrew University of
Jerusalem
In the course of teaching
the introduction to Jewish literature of the Second Temple period during past
decades, I often devoted a segment to Bible and Canon. The present meeting is devoted to "Biblical
Interpretation" and so some attention to the term "Bible" is
appropriate.
I argued that of the
tripartite Hebrew Bible, while the collections of Torah and Nevi'im were firmly
established in
the first century BCE and CE, the collection of Ketubim was not yet closed,
though its central works had come together.[2]
There exist mentions or implications of distinct
collections in
MMT from Qumran, the Prologue of the grandson of ben Sira to his Greek
translation in 132 BCE, the reference to the Law,
Prophets and Psalms in Luke 24:44, and less convincingly the implications of the
passage on holy books of the Therapeutae in Philo's Contempl. 3.25.[3]
That there was a fixed number by the turn of the first
century was clear from Josephus' mention of 22 books in his treatise Against Apion 1.37-38 and 4 Ezra's 24 revealed and
exoteric books noted in chapter 14:44-45.[4]
This is evident from the variation of:
i. books included in the Old Testament in Patristic
lists,[5]
ii. of the contents of the oldest Christian Greek manuscript
copies of the
Bible,
iii. from the diversity of works cited using "scripture" formulae
by authors as late (from the point of view of this discussion) as Clement of Alexandria
(latter part of the second century CE).[6]
iv. Likewise, even in Rabbinic literature, there are
indications that the issue of a closed collection was not completely resolved
in the second century.[7]
Behind these simple
statements, lie issues in the history of the growth and development of the
collections of literature that eventually constituted the Hebrew Bible. These
seem to me to centre on the following matters, and may I stress that my remarks
are relevant to the period before the destruction of the Temple.[8]
a. Torah
When did the five books of Moses, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and
Deuteronomy come to be designated by the name "Torah" or "Law of
Moses", with special status and standing?
b. Nevi'im
When did the collection now known as "Prophets" or Nevi'im come
together and when did it gain special standing?
c. Collections
Since these two collections came together sequentially, what was their
standing in various circles in second Temple Judaism and among the Dead Sea
community?
d. The
evolution of the concept of canon. It is clear that, even if the concept of
Canon, meaning the unique fixed collection of books containing divine
revelation, closed and exhaustive of God's word to humans, existed in
antiquity, which I rather doubt, there is no way that such a Canon and,
consequently, the very concept of Canon, could have existed before the
collections that constituted it had grown and evolved. For the Hebrew Bible
this is at the end of the Second Temple period.
Our questions, however,
bear on the period before the destruction: was there a collection of books that was regarded as being the revealed word
of God? If there was such a collection, was it thought to be closed
and finally
defined? exactly what was its status? For example, was it alone considered to
contain authentic divine revelation from which all knowledge about the divinity
derived? or were there other
works that were considered also to be divinely inspired but were not in this
special collection?
a. Status
of Torah and Nevi’im. There was a group of five books of Moses in pride of
place as books by the fourth century BCE. They embodied the standard, national
tradition. These books never lost their position as the most significant
embodiment of inspired writing.[9]
The prophetic writings, which had become a fixed corpus between 400 and 200
BCE, held a somewhat subordinate position and, by the way, have continued to do
so. These two fixed collections must have existed in the Second Temple period.
Otherwise we cannot explain the move to a clearly defined corpus of 22 or 24
books, which may be assumed to have been tri-partite, within 30 years of the
destruction. I think it wisest, therefore, to distinguish between (1) the
process of literary genesis and development of the books and collections; and
(2) the issue of their role and / or status.
b. Revelation
was multiform. In the period of the Second Temple, as far as is represented
at Qumran and by certain other sporadically surviving sources, these two
collections of books were not regarded as the sole fruits of divine revelation,
as the only significant and revealed writings, or even as the exclusive
embodiment of the ancient, national tradition.[10]
But they did hold a specially revered position and for that reason so much
Second Temple literature was written in conversation with them or derived from
them.
b.1 Non-biblical
revelation. Other channels were also considered to transmit revealed
information. In some circles this continued revelation was ongoing and
self-authenticating such as in some Qumran works or in early Christian
writings. Thus writings could be inspired and venerated and not be
"biblical".[11]
The instances of the role of 1 Enoch
and Jubilees among the Dead Sea
Scrolls are well-known ones,[12]
but the 70 additional books, regarded as the true source of wisdom by the
author of 4 Ezra (see 14:47), constitute another and the remarks of ben Sira
about his writing and those of his grandson yet a third.[13]
b.2 Revelation derivative from Torah and
Nevi'im. In other circles, revealed information was in some way or another
derivative from Torah and sometimes from Nevi'im. Such instances are
pseudepigraphic apocalypses (books of visions) or inspired pesharim
(commentaries written by the Qumran sect).[14]
One further remark is appropriate. There is no
reason to assume that the Torah and the pre-exilic prophetic writings were the
only traditions of the First Temple period that were transmitted down the
centuries. Other traditions, some in forms fuller and perhaps older than those
in the Torah, came to be incorporated in various works written down in the
Second Temple period, such as Enoch and
Jubilees.
The long and short of this then is that the
term Canon and all it implies should be set aside when considering Jewish
writings from before 70 CE. Moreover, with its implication of deliberate
decision of an authoritative or legislative body, it is probably completely
inappropriate to assign it to Jewish usage at any time. As for the term
"Bible"—a similar but not identical problem arises, and there does
not seem to have been "a Bible" in the period under discussion, but
it seems to me that, lacking a better term, we are impelled to use the
adjective biblical (somewhat anachronistically) to designate works that later
became part of the Hebrew Bible. However, collections of Torah and Nevi'im and
an emerging Ketubim did exist, with the first and second holding specially
revered role and status. Different groups used, in addition to them, certain
other writings that they considered authoritative, but that were not part of
these two collections, partly at least because their emergence was the result
of a different literary history.
When modern scholars, referring to the Second
Temple period, talk of a corpus of writing being "biblical" or
"canonical", or refer to
the "biblical canon", or a book being "non-canonical", or being a
"biblical paraphrase", they are applying to the past,
later concepts and terminology that only came into being after a long process
of evolution. These terms, “Bible” and “Canon”, were used chiefly on the Christian part not the Jewish,
and certainly not in the Second Temple period. At the end of the first century
CE, thirty years after the destruction of the temple, Josephus and 4 Ezra know
a collection of 22 or 24 books, the number usually reckoned in the Hebrew
Bible. Earlier, in the pre-Christian period, the grandson of ben Sira, MMT, and
so forth mention Law, Prophets and a third book or books, which perhaps
indicates that distinct
groups
of books existed with their own names and special role, position and status
(see above). But these distinct groups of books did not combine to form a canon
of scripture or a Bible. It is clearly misleading to apply later terminology that refers to the
collection as a whole to periods before that collection had completely come
into existence. However, it is equally inadequate to take a minimalist
position, underplaying the existence or significance of such collections of books as had developed. It is
precisely at this point that further, nuanced, scholarly consideration is
demanded.
1. The second temple period shows varying
tendencies with regard to inspired writings – they may be more or less in
number, in accepted corpora or outside them, their authority may be drawn from
their belonging to the accepted corpora or, less often, from other sources such
as direct revelation. It would be unwise to take either an extremely
conservative or a completely revolutionary position on the question of
authoritative books, either to insist on the early formation of a tripartite
closed canon or to deny the relative antiquity of the process of
crystallization of the three collections that eventually constituted the Hebrew
Bible. Instead, we must strive to perceive the tensions that are expressed in
diverse strategies of authoring, different techniques for claiming authority,
and variations of content and function. These tendencies are keys to varied
self-understandings of different groups and varying periods of ancient Judaism.
2. Furthermore, we should also remember that
the Qumran sectarian writings and collection(s), about which we know most, very
probably represent only one of a number of attitudes that existed and other
views may have been cultivated in other loci in ancient Jewish society.
3. Finally, we must consider the role of the destruction
of the Temple in 70 CE in precipitating a crystallization of various aspects of
Judaism and Jewish society, the building of new barriers to protect and define
different aspects of the threatened, national heritage. This process may be
observed in the textual history of the biblical books, with the disappearance
of variant textual forms so striking at Qumran. Socially, the disappearance of
most sects should be remarked; [15]
in literature there was a concern for delimitation of authoritative books.[16] After the destruction of 70, a shift in
genre took place that resulted in the disappearance of books written by a
single author that continued down to the middle of first millennium CE (except,
perhaps in the mystical tradition).[17]
This process of stabilization also implies the enhanced fixedness of the
collections of books that came to make up the Hebrew Bible.
Now, here I cannot provide
the full argumentation to substantiate all these claims for reasons of space nor
can I add an exposition of all the further permutations of these corpora of
material and data about their existence. All I can do in
the compass of this paper is to add some remarks bearing on certain aspects of
the above principles.
a. A gradual growth of the attribution of
special role, authority and standing to the Torah and perhaps to the Prophets
as THE divine revelation took place during the Second Temple period. The
identification of Torah with Wisdom is full-blown in Sir 24:23 (early second
century), but was already foreshadowed in Bar 4:1. This gave Torah a cosmic
dimension, for wisdom is associated with God in creation. Therefore, Torah
became not just the specific revelation to Moses on Sinai, but the pattern
according to which the universe was created.[18]
b.
After the return from the Babylonian exile, there was a public reading
of the Torah under Ezra's tutelage (Neh 8). It has been suggested that this was
the Pentateuch but other possibilities have also been vetted with some
plausibility, particularly that it was Deuteronomy.[19]
It has also been observed that under the Persians, Jewish religious law was
given state backing and that law was most probably the Pentateuch, as we shall
show soon.
c. Further developments affected this, notably
the growth in the prestige of antiquity. This process is well-known in history
of religions and even in historiography: golden age devolves to iron mixed with
clay; the generations degenerate (m. Soṭah 9.9-16); "For the age has lost its youth, and the times
begin to grow old" (4 Ezra 14:10).
1. I would customarily remark that the idea of
"canon" as such did not exist in Judaism, that the Synod of Jamnia (a
scholarly construction designed to correspond to Nicea and Ephesus, etc.) never
happened,[20]
and that there was no central authority in Judaism that could decide or decree
which works were "canonical" and which were not. Indeed, it is a
truism that down to this day there is no Hebrew word for "Canon".
Judaism's authority structures were and still are different from those of Christianity and it
did not have an ecclesiological view that attributed divine authority to an
assembly of Bishops or Rabbis or anything analogous to that.
2. It does seem, however, that by the time of the destruction of the
Temple, Judaism was well on the way to an accepted
corpus of authoritative writings that were written "be-ru'aḥ haqqodeš",
that is “with/in the holy spirit”.[21]
Not only the numbers of sacred books given by Josephus and 4 Ezra -- the difference between
which (24 and 22) can be resolved by a little ingenuity -- but a number of baraitot in Tannaitic sources[22]
are strong indications in this direction, and this idea is clearly known in
second-century canon lists in Patristic writings.[23]
Before we discuss the implications of the Dead Sea Scrolls for Canon
we should emphasize that they are a special and unique case. First, the very
survival of the Scrolls is almost unique. Second, they were a collection of
books that belonged to a specific, sectarian group holding very distinctive views. Thus, the situation at
Qumran was not
necessarily identical with that obtaining among other contemporary Jews in the land of Israel
or the Greek- or Aramaic-speaking Diasporas (or perhaps even among the "marrying
Essenes"). Who knows? There is no evidence either way.
It is well known that all the books that came in
later times to be in the Hebrew Bible are represented at Qumran, except for
Esther.[24]
Moreover, because of the technology available, usually each book was written on
a single scroll. For the codex, the assembly of sheets into gatherings and the
sewing together of the gatherings like in a modern book, had not yet been
invented. Until the development and diffusion of the codex, it was physically
impossible to include all the writings of the Hebrew Bible in a single
artefact. Only the invention and the subsequent development of the large codex
made collections of numerous books within one single manuscript possible.[25]
It is worth considering how far our modern questions about canon are determined
by the question: what should be put between two covers? In antiquity, the
actual physical presentation of the books in itself could provide little
evidence for how they were regarded.[26]
1. Some scholars have made
the point that when the term "Torah" or "Law of Moses" is
used, it cannot be proved that this was the Pentateuch, the Five Books of Moses
as we have them. Do our remarks on the technology of book production bear upon
this question? Modern and medieval Jewish usage is to write the whole
Pentateuch in a single scroll, but as anyone can attest who, after reading the
early chapters of Genesis, then wishes to consult the last chapters of Deuteronomy,
rolling a whole Pentateuch from beginning to end is a major task.
In view of this we must question
what can be learned from the instances at Qumran of more than one book written
in a single scroll. There are not many such; a few cases of two books of the
Pentateuch and two of two and one of three or four books of Enoch.[27]
The Torah manuscripts are 4QGen-Exoda
“approximately 125-100 BCE”;[28]
perhaps 4Q[Gen-]Exodb ;[29]
4QLev-Numa – “from approximately the middle or latter half of the
second century BCE”;[30]
4QExod-Levf – “mid-third century BCE”;[31]
4QpaleoGen-Exodl – it is dated “the first half or first
three-quarters of the first century BCE”.[32] Three points
should be made. (1) In all instances books of the Torah occur in their
conventional order. (2) It is noteworthy that 4QExod-Levf is from
the third century BCE.[33]
(3) There are no combinations of one Pentateuchal book and one non-Pentateuchal
book. Thus, judging from the codicology it seems that we have Genesis to
Numbers in overlapping manuscript attestation, though Deuteronomy does not
happen to occur. This adds prima facie
corroboration to the occurrence of the five books together at the beginning of
the Septuagint, to be discussed directly.
2. A further consideration indicating the
early crystallization of the Pentateuch is the following. The history of the
growth of the Pentateuch impels historical scholars to see in it edited
deposits of earlier traditions,[34]
probably reaching much its present form by the time the Chronicler wrote or
somewhat later. Whether P precedes or follows D is under discussion, but both
views imply the existence together of what became Genesis to Numbers. The idea
of fluidity of the contents of the Torah of Moses would imply that these works
were open to flexibility, yet that sits ill with literary history. The Torah,
moreover, was translated rather quickly into Greek.
According to the tradition preserved in the Epistle of Aristeas, the LXX of the
Torah was translated at the time of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE). Aristeas, however, is largely fictional
and cannot be used for dating the translation.[35]
The earliest external use of the Septuagint appears to be in Demetrius the
Chronographer, who has been claimed to know Gen 30:14-15.[36]
He probably wrote shortly before 200 BCE and so we can say that the Greek
translation of the Torah was made before that date, i.e., in the third century,
consequently not so far from the date given by Aristeas. It would be
hypercritical to claim, it seems to us, that this only shows that Genesis was
translated into Greek and that this happened immediately before Demetrius wrote
(220-210).[37]
It is at least as likely to be somewhat earlier. In any case, even if
Demetrius' evidence is discounted (and why should it be?), there is no doubt
that the Jewish philosopher Aristobulus (early part of the second century BCE)
asserted that the Law was completely translated by the time of Ptolemy
Philadelphus.[38]
Indeed, Dorival would date the translation at the latest in 282.[39]
Whether his arguments are accepted or not, it seems not unlikely that the
Pentateuch was translated into Greek early in the third century BCE.
It is increasingly the view
of Septuagint scholars that the Septuagint was made initially in order to be used
"in concert with the Hebrew". As Wright points out, the relationship
of the Septuagint to the Hebrew was originally a dependent or subservient one.[40]
Indeed he argues with considerable plausibility that the function of Aristeas was not to provide an ideology
for the creation of the Septuagint, but for a subsequent event, i.e., the
inception of its use as a self-standing work, not dependent on the Hebrew text.
This implies a period of time during which the Septuagint changed its character
and became independent of the Hebrew. Wright and others regard this has having
happened between the early third century BCE and the composition of Aristeas. John Wevers pointed out that,
not only are the oldest surviving papyri of the Greek of some Pentateuchal
books of the second century, but also that the Greek of the Torah shows some
grammatical and orthographic features that were lost from Hellenistic Greek of
the papyri by the second century.[41]
All of these indications lead us to prefer a third century date for the Greek
of the Torah and thus the Septuagint provides direct support for the existence
of the Five Books of Moses as such in the third century.
It is significant that
while the order of most books in the Septuagint has been rearranged by genre,
in it the five books of Moses are in the same order and position as in the
Rabbinic Hebrew lists and, as far as such exist, as in the Hebrew texts
themselves. The Rewritten Pentateuch texts discovered at Qumran witness to the
same books and order.
On various grounds, Jubilees is attributed to the first third of the second century
BCE.[44]
Scholars have maintained that Jubilees
was composed in dialogue and tension with the Torah and that it often resolves
exegetical difficulties in the Pentateuchal text.[45]
In this respect, it both serves to show that Genesis and part of Exodus stood
before it and also that Genesis had such standing as to demand resolution of
difficulties in its text. But, equally truly, Jubilees incorporated some independent ancient traditions stemming
back into pre-exilic times and not found in the Pentateuch.[46]
For decades now a number of
scholars have maintained that traditions and material from the period of the
First Temple or even before, not included in the works that came to be the
Hebrew Bible, reappear in the Second Temple period in apocryphal works. It is
also the case that Jubilees, the
Enochic Book of the Watchers and Book of the Luminaries and Aramaic Levi Document, as well as other
works, incorporated traditions and conceivably literary tradition units,[47]
originating in periods prior to the crystallization of the Pentateuch. To
choose obvious examples, not everything stated or claimed in the Second Temple
period about Enoch is derived exegetically from Gen 5; nor is all the material
about the Watchers from Gen 6; nor that about Behemoth and Leviathan from
scattered traditions particularly in prophets and Psalms.[48] The exile did not wipe the collective
consciousness of Judea clean of everything but the material in Genesis or in
the prophets or the Psalms.
Some have questioned
whether at Qumran, Genesis in particular, but in principle the other four
Pentateuchal books as well, were regarded as uniquely belonging to "the
Torah of Moses", and whether those five books had a special status
distinct from other retellings of the early history and law of Israel such as
the Book of Jubilees, Temple Scroll and the works named
"Rewritten Pentateuch" or "Parabiblical Writings".[49]
Such scholars would level the playing field.
However, for the reasons
stated above, the present writer would maintain that the expression "Torah
of Moses" designated the Pentateuch from about the time of Ezra on. (Of
course, he is far from the first to do so.) He would also maintain that there
was a set corpus of works called "Prophets" that existed by the second century BCE, while
the collection of books called "Writings" was not fixed or finalized
until after the destruction of the Temple and after the point at which
Christianity split from Judaism.
Consequently, the issues
that have been discussed turn out to be in good measure due to asking questions
in the wrong terminology, or rather posing questions that involve applying
modern presuppositions to ancient textual reality.[50]
Two central problems seem
to remain:
1. What was the status or type of authority
accorded to the accepted collections of Torah and Nevi'im? The idea of
"Bible" did not exist, for no Bible existed, as is clear from the
fluidity of Ketuvim on the one hand, and the lack of an unambiguous term
meaning "Bible" on the other. So the option of these books being a
final and closed collection of the unique, unchangeable and exclusively
inspired, revealed and authoritative word of God does not exist. Canonicity
and
Bible are meaningless terms for the Second Temple period. Yet it is equally
clear that Torah and Nevi'im existed and were particularly venerated, as is already to be seen in ben Sira and the
grandson, not to speak of the LXX and MMT.[51]
Among the Qumran manuscripts there is quite a
lot of evidence for Jubilees having a
special status. It exists in an exceptionally large number of copies and is
cited (pace Devora Dimant) in
sectarian works.[52]
Similar, but less persuasive evidence exists for a like status of 1 Enoch (or rather, parts of it) and
less probably for Aramaic Levi Document.
It appears that these works at least were accorded a very high standing by the
sectarian community. The Temple Scroll
and MMT may also have held a special position in the eyes of the Qumran
community.[53]
Moreover, 1QH, for example,
or 1QpHab's statements on the Righteous Teacher's instructions show them also
to have been considered inspired (1QpHab 7:1-5). Because at Qumran inspiration
or revelation and "biblical" status were not identical (scriptural
books were inspired and sacred, but not all inspired or sacred books were
scriptural), there is no real reason to disregard literary history and the
evidence we have mentioned above relating to the Torah of Moses. There seems to
be no contradiction between the view that the Pentateuch gained a special role
or position, and the claim of Jubilees
to be written at divine dictation.[54]
1. We may thus conclude that the use of the
terms Canon and Bible is inappropriate in the Second Temple period. Yet, the
collections that eventually constituted the Hebrew Bible, Torah, Nevi'im and
perhaps Ketubim were in the process of coming into being and had gained a
special status. Indeed, it appears to be the case that the collection of
Prophets must have been brought together after the Torah. This is so because of
the presence in it of the Deuteronomic History and of prophetic books, Haggai
and Zechariah, whose composition may be dated clearly enough to the
fifth-fourth centuries. By the second century, a literary corpus that was
entitled "the Prophets" was in existence and was well known by that
name. Finally, a body of what were called "the other books" seems to
have existed, but not as a finalized corpus before the separation of
Christianity from Judaism.
2. It is not certain that the attitude to
authoritative writings discernable at Qumran was held universally in Second
Temple Judaism. But it seems that the Essenes and perhaps other groups,
regarded certain "non-biblical" works as authoritative. They also did
not think that biblical and inspired were identical. Inspired books were not
necessarily biblical.
3. Consequently, we must be open to a much
more complex situation relating to authoritative books than we might have
thought. Above all, we should remember that our task is that of the historian
of Judaism. Recognition of the complexity of Judaism in the Second Temple
period has been growing and the questioning of terms like Bible and Canon
derives from that.
[1] D. M.
Carr, Writing on the Tablet of the Heart:
Origins of Scripture and Literature (New York: Oxford University Press,
2005) suggests that "prophets" in the references
to "Torah and Prophets" designated "all non-Torah,
pre-Hellenistic works included in the Hasmonean collection" (p. 264) of
the Hebrew Scriptures, which corpus he understands to have been established by
the Hasmoneans. For a summary of some earlier views, supporting the tripartite
division as also current in Alexandria, see A. C. Sundberg, The Old Testament of the Early Church (Harvard Theological Studies
20; Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1964), 207-09.
[2] A much more
conservative point of view is argued by S. Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture: The Talmudiic and Midrashic
Evidence (Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and
Sciences 47; New Haven, CN: Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1976). He
dates the closing of what he calls "the Prophetic canon" about 400,
and the Hagiographa shortly after the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (164/163),
see pages 25-33. His perspective leads him to argue for the maximal antiquity
for each piece of evidence. The so-called "Alexandrian Canon hypothesis”, first postulated by John Grabe (1666-1711) and John
Semler (1752-1791) has been thoroughly refuted by A. C. Sundberg, "The Old
Testament of the Early Church (A Study in Canon)," in Studies in Early Christianity: A
Collection of Scholarly Essays (ed. E. Ferguson, D.M. Scholer, and
P.C. Finney; New York & London: Garland Publishing Inc., 1993), 63-84
(based on his thesis) as by Leiman, Canonization, 5, though Leiman disagrees emphatically
with Sundberg on many other matters.
[3] Leiman, Canonization, 31 says, "The
correspondence to the tripartite division of the canon is obvious." This
is denied, however, emphatically by others such as E. Ulrich, “The
Non-attestation of a Tripartite Canon in 4QMMT,” CBQ 65 (2003), 202-214, esp. 205-214.
[4] This is the number of books of the Bible in Canon lists such as H. B.
Swete, An Introduction to the Old
Testament in Greek (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 200-22,
see note 23. The evidence conventionally used is reviewed by J. C.
VanderKam, "Revealed Literature in the Second Temple Period," in From Revelation to Canon: Studies in the
Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature, (ed. J. C. VanderKam;
Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill,
2000), 1-10.
[5] Sundberg,
The Old Testament of the Early Church,
55-60.
[6] Sundberg, The
Old Testament of the Early Church, 129-72; M. R. James and A.-M. Denis give numerous such
citations; see M. R. James, The Lost
Apocrypha of the Old Testament: Their Titles and Fragments. (Translations
of Early Documents 1; London: SPCK, 1920) and A. -M. Denis. Fragmenta Pseudepigraphorum quae supersunt
graeca una cum Historicorum et
Auctorum Judaeorum Hellenistarum Fragmentis. (PVTG 3; Leiden: Brill, 1970).
[7] t. Yad.
2:13,14; 3:5, m. Šabb. 15:2, 6,
Ezekiel ("they sought to hide Ezekiel", b. Ḥag 3a). For a critique
of the theories of Leiman and Beckwith, who would view the closing of the three
parts of the Hebrew Bible and even of the whole corpus as have taken place in
the second century BCE, see VanderKam,
"Revealed Literature," 12-18.
[8] Shmaryahu Talmon strongly denies the relevance of the concept of Canon
for the Qumran Community who, he says, regarded themselves as still living in
the biblical period: S. Talmon, "The Crystallization of the 'Canon of
Hebrew Scriptures' in Light of Biblical Scrolls from Qumran" in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the
Judaean Desert Discoveries, (ed. E. D. Herbert, and E. Tov; London &
New Castle, DE: British Library & Oak Knoll Press, 2002), 21-20. If so,
different attitudes may have obtained among the Qumran sectaries and other
contemporary Jewish groups.
[9] Ben Sira
considered the Torah to be identified with Wisdom, and
it held a special place in his consciousness. On the privileging of the Torah
at Qumran, see Carr, Writing
238-39.
[10] R. A. Kraft,
"Scripture and Canon in the Commonly Called Jewish Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha and in the Writings of Josephus" in Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation (ed. M. Saebø; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996),
199-216, on pp. 208-09 remarks on
the range and number of books, presumably authoritative, that are mentioned in
ancient sources.
[11] Leiman, Canonization, 15-16, basing himself on
Rabbinic literature, would distinguish between "canonical" books,
i.e, "books accepted by Jews as authoritative for religious practice
and/or doctrine, … binding for all generations" and inspired books
"believed by the Tannaim and Amoraim to have been composed under divine
inspiration."
[12] Kraft, "Scripture
and Canon," 204-5 note 15 remarks that some "('marginal')" early Christian representatives included parts of the Enochic
material "among 'Scriptures'." In contrast, Leiman, Canonization, 100-02 speaks of sectarian "veneration" of
ben Sira, though the evidence he adduced (see especially note 475) does not
show that the sectarian attitudes to ben Sira were such as to make it
imperative for the Rabbis to assert its
non-canonical status.
[13] See Prologue; compare also ben Sira's remarks on his own
learning in chapter 24:30-34. Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha are categorized according to their
attitudes to "scriptural materials" by Kraft, "Scripture and
Canon," 204 and he sets forth the evidence ibid., 204-15.
[14] Kraft, ibid., 204
remarks on the high estimation that many apocalypses and cognate works have of
their own status. He provides a substantial list of instances in n. 14. See
also Stone, "Pseudepigraphy Reconsidered," Review of Rabbinic Judaism 9 (2006), 1-15.
[15] Of course,
this may be an "optical illusion" caused by the nature of the data
preserved: see the author’s forthcoming paper entitled "The Prism of
Orthodoxy".
[16] Compare Josephus, Against Apion,
1:39-41; 4 Ezra 14:41-46; see Leiman, Canonization,
60-63.
[17] This may be
because the mystical experience bore within itself authentication and
authority. The antiquity of the mystical tradition is debated. See most
recently P. Alexander. The Mystical Texts. Songs of the Sabbath
Sacrifice and Related Manuscripts (Companion to the Qumran Scrolls 7; Library of Second Temple Studies 61; London:
T&TClark, 2006).
[18] G. W. E. Nickelsburg
and M. E. Stone, Faith and Piety in Early
Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 203-19. See Carr, Writing, 225-26 for a different
perspective on the reapplication of wisdom terminology.
[19] The reading “from early morning until midday” suggests that it was
not the whole Pentateuch: compare, however, Neh 8:18.
[20] See Swete, Introduction, 440 for a very standard
exposition of this view. It is assumed as factual by Sundberg, The Old Testament, 211-13. We do not
deny that discussion took place at Jamnia (Yavneh), but we assert that this was
not a "Synod" with synodical authority to make decisions accepted in
general Jewish usage.
[21] See ,e.g.
t. Yad. 2:14; Meg. 7a.
[22] b. B. Bat. 14b; b. Ber. 57b.
[23] Swete, Introduction, 220-2,
cf. Epiphanius, haer. 1.1.8; a later
source is published in M.E. Stone, "Armenian Canon Lists IV: The List of
Gregory of Tathew (14th Century),” HTR
72 (1979), 241.
[24] There are
a number of references to Esther being odd; see Sundberg, The Old Testament of the Early Church, 56-57. Sidnie White Crawford has ably
summarized the situation with respect to the work that Milik claimed to be
"proto-Esther". See S. White Crawford, "4QTales of the Persian Court
(4Q550A-E) and its Relation to Biblical Royal Courtier Tales,
Especially Esther, Daniel and Joseph" in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries
(eds. E. D. Herbert, and E. Tov.; London & New Castle, DE: British Library
& Oak Knoll Press, 2002), 121-37.
[25] See
Kraft, "Scripture and Canon,” 202 and n. 7.
[26] J. C.
Greenfield and M. E. Stone, "The Enochic Pentateuch and the Date of the
Similitudes," HTR 70 (1977),
51-65, especially pp. 51-55 = M.E. Stone. Selected
Studies in the Pseudepigrapha with Special Reference to the Armenian Tradition
(SVTP 9; Leiden: Brill, 1991), 198-202; J. C.
VanderKam, From Revelation to Canon:
Studies in Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Literature (JSJSup 62;
Leiden-Köln-Boston: Brill, 2000), 358-62.
[27] See J. T. Milik, The
Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumrân Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1976); VanderKam, Revelation to
Canon, 358-59. See also Stone and Greenfield, "The
Enochic Pentateuch”. Carr, Writing,
230, suggests that such scrolls with more than one Pentateuchal book might even
have contained originally "copies of broader part of the Torah, if not the
entire Torah". According to Milik, The Books of Enoch, Table on p. 6, 4QEnd and e have both Watchers and
Dream Visions and 4QEc has Watchers, Dream Visions and Epistle.
[28] E. Ulrich and F. M. Cross, et al., Qumran Cave 4. VII: Genesis to Numbers (DJD 12; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1994; reprinted 1999), 8.
[29] E. Tov. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (STDJ, 54; Leiden/Boston: E. J. Brill, 2004), 165.
[30] DJD 12, 154.
[31] DJD 12, 134.
[32] E. Ulrich, F. M. Cross, et al., Qumran Cave 4. IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (DJD 14; Oxford:
Clarendon, 1995; reprinted 1999), 21.
[33] Further evidence for the Pentateuch in its present order is 4QReworked
Pentateuch. We base our remarks on the article "Reworked Pentateuch"
by S. White Crawford in Encyclopedia
of the Dead Sea Scroll (ed. L. H. Schiffman, and J. C. VanderKam; New York:
Oxford University Press, 2000), 2.775-77. She says, "unlike the other Torah manuscripts from Qumran … the Reworked Pentateuch copied
all five books on one scroll" (p. 775). She does not date the work, but
the earliest manuscript is "middle to late Hasmonean". She thinks it
might be dependent on Jubilees but
also admits that Jubilees might
equally be dependent on it. The work is not decisively sectarian or non-sectarian.
Its Numbers text belongs to the Proto-Samaritan family. See on Reworked Bible
manuscripts from Qumran G. J. Brooke, "The Rewritten Law, Prophets and
Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible" in The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the
Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E. D. Herbert, and E. Tov.; London &
New Castle DE: British Library & Oak Knoll Press, 2002), 31-40.
[34] On the various nuances that most recent scholarship would add to the
assessment of the contents of the Hebrew Bible, see J. J. Collins, The Bible after Babel: Historical
Criticism in a Postmodern Age (Grand Rapids, MI - Cambridge, UK:
Eerdmans, 2005).
[35] See the remarks of B. G. Wright, III, "Translation as Scripture: The
Septuagint in Aristeas and Philo" in Septuagint
Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures
(ed. W. Kraus, and R. G. Wooden; Septuagint and Cognate Studies 3; Atlanta:
SBL, 2006), 47-61, esp. 50-57.
[36] Swete, Introduction, 17-18.
[37] See in
detail G. Dorival, M. Harl and O.
Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante:
du judaisme hellenistique au christianisme ancien (Initiations au christianisme
ancien; Paris: Editions du Cerf -- Editions du CNRS, 1988), 57.
[38] See Dorival, Harl, Munnich, La Bible grecque, 4.
Dorival rejects Aristobulus's implication that there was a partial translation
earlier than that, see 51-54.
[39] Ibid., 58
and 76-77.
[40] Wright, “Translation as Scripture,” 49, building on A. Pietersma, "Exegesis in the Septuagint: Possibilities and
Limits (The Psalter as a Case in Point)" in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek
Jewish Scriptures (ed. W. Kraus, and
R. G. Wooden; Septuagint and Cognate Studies 3; Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 33-45.
[41] See J. W. Wevers, Text
History of the Greek Deuteronomy (Mitteilungen
des Septuaginta-Unternehmens (MS U) XIII; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und
Ruprecht, 1978), 99-100.
[42] Kraft, "Scripture
and Canon," 203, n. 11 justly expresses dissatisfaction with the term
"rewritten scriptures" or "Bible" because of the assumptions
it makes about existence of "particular 'Scriptures' in roughly the forms
that have been transmitted in our Bibles, and the presence of developed
attitudes … that roughly approximate 'Scripture consciousness'."
[43] A number of these issues have been reviewed recently by S. White
Crawford, "The Rewritten Bible at Qumran" in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls, Volume One, Scripture and the
Scrolls (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2006), 131-48. She maintains that Temple Scroll and
Jubilees draw on 4QRewritten Pentateuch and that Genesis Apocryphon knew
Jubilees. Thus, considering these four major texts at Qumran, she concludes
that "the manuscripts from Qumran are not eclectic, but a collection,
reflecting the theological tendency of a particular group" (147).
[44] See G. W. E. Nickelsburg. Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah, (2nd
ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005), 73-74 and notes 19-26 on p. 362 for an
excellent bibliography. Most
recently Martha Himmelfarb has advanced the view that Jubilees was written
towards the end of the second century, see M. Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism (Jewish
Culture and Contexts; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006),
77. As we write, her proposal has not yet elicited any
responses.
[45] The common and
widely accepted view is that Jubilees
is a rewritten and ideologically expanded version of Genesis and the beginning
of Exodus. An early protagonist of this view was G. Vermes,
"Bible and Midrash: Early Old Testament Exegesis," CHB 1 (1970), 199-231 (repr., in G. Vermes, Post-Biblical Jewish Studies [Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity;
Leiden: Brill, 1975], 59-91). See also B. Halpern-Amaru, The Empowerment of Women in the Book of
Jubilees (Leiden: Brill, 1999) particularly chapter 7. See also J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten, Primaeval History Interpreted: The Rewriting
of Genesis 1-11 in the Book of Jubilees (JSJSup 66; Leiden: Brill, 2000)
and others. The Temple Scroll similarly is in dialogue with Numbers and
Deuteronomy. The literature surrounding this scroll is vast, and will not be
discussed here: see Carr, Writing,
232. Tov sets forth his research on text types at Qumran in: E. Tov, "The
Biblical Texts from the Judaean Desert -- An Overview and Analysis of the
Published Texts" in The Bible as
Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries (ed. E.D.
Herbert, and E. Tov; London & New Castle DE: British Library & Oak
Knoll Press, 2002), 139-67, especially 156-57.
[46] VanderKam, Revelation
to Canon, 306-10 and 325 argues that Jubilees
knows a series of sources from all parts of 1 Enoch except Similitudes
and it knows as number of Enochic sources, including some Noachic ones, that
are not included in Genesis. His analysis is one among a number relating to
Second Temple writings that show them using extra-pentateuchal sources. See
further note 48.
[47] This was early argued
by D. Dimant, The Fallen Angels in
the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Apocryphal and Pseudepigraphic Books Related to
Them (in Hebrew), (Ph.D. dissertation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
1974), 22-23 and p. iii. Many scholars have taken this position.
[48] See P. Grelot, "La légende d'Hénoch
dans les apocryphes et dans la Bible: origine et signification," RSR 46 (1958), 5-26, 181-210 and idem,
"Hénoch et ses écritures," RB 82 (1975), 481-500; H. L. Jansen, Die Henochgestalt; eine vergleichende religionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung (Oslo: J. Dybwad, 1939); H. S. Kvanvig, Roots of Apocalyptic: The Mesopotamian Background of the Enoch Figure
and of the Son of Man (WMANT 6; Neukirchen: Neukirchner Verlag, 1988); K.
W. Whitney, Two Strange Beasts: Leviathan
and Behemoth in Second Temple and Early Rabbinic Judaism (Harvard Semitic
Monographs 63; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006);
VanderKam cited above, n. 46.
[49] Such
scholars stress that the Torah of Moses is not listed in terms of books until
rather late and ask why should Jubilees
not have been considered part of the Mosaic Torah instead of Genesis? See,
however, the recent article by White Crawford, quoted in note 43 above.
[50] White
Crawford, in the context of Reworked Pentateuch, remarks "The words canon and scripture are anachronisms in regard to the Qumran texts" (p.
776). She goes on to distinguish books that were authoritative at Qumran,
remarking (ibid.) "Many of the
books that seem to be authoritative at Qumran later became part of the Jewish
canon". Yet this levelling of the field at Qumran seems to us to side-step
the issue of the Torah and its position in Jewish use from well before the
foundation of the Qumran sect, and also the distinct character of Nevi'im.
[51] E.
Ulrich, "The Non-Attestation” argued that the reading of MMT C 9-11 in
fact refers only to Torah and Nevi'im, while the references commonly used to
prove the existence of the collection of Ketubim in the second century are in
fact simply references to other esteemed or significant works. K. Berthelot,
"4QMMT et la question du canon de la Bible hébraïque" in From 4QMMT to Resurrection;
mélanges qumraniens en hommage à Émile Puech. (ed. F. García Martínez, A. Steudel, and E. Tigchelaar;
Leiden: Brill, 2006), 1-14, maintains, with some plausibility, that Torah and Nevi'im in MMT
indicate not the collections but, like "David", specific works, respectively. Ulrich is, in our view,
quite convincing when he says that in ben Sira Prologue, the text means exactly
what it says and it reflects a distinction between two established corpora,
Torah and Nevi'im, and "books that are not scriptural but are valued
works" (p. 212).
[52] A number of
works written after the style of Jubilees
were identified, which shows it was an exemplar for emulation.
[53] See White
Crawford cited in note 43 above.
[54] See David
Lambert, "Did Israel Believe
That Redemption Awaited Their Repentance?: The Case of Jubilees 1." CBQ 68, 4 (2005), 631-50.