THE JEWISH BIBLE VS. THE PROTESTANT CANON
THE JEWISH BIBLE VS. THE PROTESTANT CANON
Let’s look at the Jewish canon issue from a different perspective—in fact a different Bible, the Jewish Study Bible.[1] “Nearly forty scholars worldwide contributed … representing the best of Jewish biblical scholarship available today. A committee of highly-respected biblical scholars and rabbis from the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Judaism movements…”
Of course, the Biblical books are actually the same as the Old Testament of a Protestant Bible—but my goodness, how different are the study notes.
Compare, for example, the (Christian) Apologetics Study Bible, which includes the essay “How Can We Know the Bible Includes the Correct Books?” from Norman L. Geisler. Geisler/the Apologetics Study Bible make the following factual claims:
(2) They [the Apocrypha] were written between 250 BC and the first century AD, but according to Judaism, the Spirit of prophecy had departed from Israel before that time, by about 400 BC.[2]
Actually, the Jewish Study Bible says Scripture was being written long after 400 BC. The first sentence of the commentary on the Book of Daniel says that it was “probably written in its final version in 164 BCE.” [p. 1635].
That is after the Book of Sirach, which had a known author and date (around 180 BC) and is roughly contemporaneous with the date ranges of all the other Apocrypha except the Book of Wisdom (50 BC is the guess I use for that one).[3]
(3) The Jewish historian Josephus gave the names and numbers of the authentic Jewish Old Testament, which correspond exactly with the thirty nine books of our Old Testament (Against Apion 1:8).
First, no, Josephus most certainly did not do that. He does not name anything, and he just said there were 22 books, not 39. Here is the full quote from Josephus:
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us … but only twenty-two books, which contain the records of all the past times; which are justly believed to be divine; and of them five belong to Moses … the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life.[4]
A reader has to add a lot of guesses to get from the number 22 to the modern Jewish (24 Books)/Protestant (39 Books) canon. From the Jewish Study Bible: “Josephus is often cited as evidence for the Jewish canon in the 1st c. CE, but there may have been several competing notions of canon in this period, and he should not be taken as normative for all of Judaism in his time. He is, however, apparently the earliest source to suggest a closed canon, consisting of twenty-two biblical books … Since he does not list his twenty-two books, it is not clear if he simply had a smaller canon than the rabbinic list of twenty-four books …” [p. 2156].
Moreover, if you actually intend to follow exactly what Josephus said, then you would also need to add Josephus’ books to your canon. According to the Jewish Study Bible, Josephus “understood himself to be exercising this priestly and prophetic office, carrying on the work of Scripture transmission through his own inspired interpretations” (citing Jewish Wars 3.392-408 and Antiquities 10.78-79). [p. 1850]. Indeed, the Josippon (a medieval copy, of sorts, made from the works of Josephus) has been considered canon by some Orthodox Churches.[5]
Back to Geisler/the Apologetics Study Bible:
And [4] Judaism, which produced these books, has never accepted them into its Bible (the Hebrew Scriptures, corresponding to our Old Testament).
The Jewish Study Bible: “… the biblical scrolls found at Qumran [abandoned 68 AD, after Christ] do bear on the question of the growth of the Hebrew canon, which was, according to many scholars, fixed only at a later period. The presence at Qumran of all of the books found in the Hebrew canon (with the exception of Esth.) may support the inference that these books already had canonical status. What was not yet agreed upon was the exact boundaries of the canon as well as the final textual form of the individual works.” [p. 1858].
The Jewish Study Bible: “It is important to remember that different Jewish groups from the early first millennium CE may have had different ideas of what comprised scripture…” [p. 2157].
The Jewish Study Bible: “… several points seem fairly certain. First, the process of canonization was gradual and it began long before the Rabbis. It is likely that its final stages were reached by (if not before) the 1st c. CE, perhaps as a reaction to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE and its aftermath.” [p. 2158].
The Jewish Study Bible: “In rabbinic literature, the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach … a book in the Apocrypha but not in the Hebrew Bible, is occasionally cited with the same formula used for introducing biblical texts[6] and was thus, in some sense, canonical for some Rabbis. Therefore, although we can probably speak of “the” canon having formed by the 1st C. CE, there was a certain amount of fluidity or variability around the fringes.” [p. 2157].
The Jews completely disagree with the Catholic and Orthodox canons. And yet, the Jewish Study Bible rejects the claims made by what would seem to be their “allies” in the argument with the Catholics and the Orthodox. The Jewish Study Bible rejects the claim that the Jewish canon was firm and established by the time of Christ.
Gallagher and Meade agree with the Jewish Study Bible, as well, p. 25: “It would appear that in the era before the canon lists, there was a limited set of books that was a functional collection of authoritative texts’ on which all or most Jews could agree. … Neither can we say for sure that no other book was received as Scripture … we might say that Josephus was half-right, or even three-quarters: while every Jew (more or less) had for so long considered the twenty-two books to be divinely authoritative, some Jews may have attributed the same status to certain other books, as well. In the period before lists, we can still be confident about the reception of the core books—the Torah, the prophets, the Psalter-but the books at the fringe of the canon remain in uncertain territory.” They cite to VanderKam 2012: 55; cf. Alexander 2007: 65: ‘What the Rabbis were doing was defending a canon which they had received already more or less defined (save for a little fuzziness around the edges) from the pre-70 [AD, after Christ] period.’
For a specific example, focus just on Daniel, starting with the Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture (Volume 13: Daniel), “Both Theodotion Daniel and the Septuagint contain material that was excluded from the Jewish canon, perhaps as early as the end of the first century A.D.”
The Jewish Study Bible confirms that this occurred after Christ and that “because prefigurations of Jesus and Christian resurrection were seen in Daniel by the early church, the rabbinic tradition hesitated to embrace the visions of Daniel.” [p. 1637].
It is the final decision of those Rabbis—they who were hesitating to embrace a book that the Christians already considered Prophecy and Scripture—that led to the modern Jewish canon. So sayeth the Jewish Study Bible.
The Rabbis were considering abandoning a book that Jews had accepted as Divinely-inspired Prophecy and Scripture for centuries (“Daniel was evidently considered a prophet at Qumran and elsewhere in early Judaism (Ant. 10.266-68 [Josephus]).” [p. 1636]). But despite this, Daniel was not included in the Prophets section of the Tanakh in the Rabbis’ final decision—apparently, he was demoted after Christ in such a way that he is no longer seen in quite the same light as a full “Prophet.”
That the Rabbis could even conceive of not accepting Daniel is an enlightening detail. Moreover, to this day, the Jews follow the decision of those Rabbis and do not include Daniel among “the Prophets,” and “the book of Daniel has not held central importance in Jewish tradition” [p. 1637]—and, of course, the Jews, following the decision of those Rabbis, excluded Susanna as well: “perhaps as early as the end of the first century A.D.”
Even getting from Josephus’ number (22 Books) to the modern Jewish/Protestant canon (24 Books to the Jews, 39 to the Protestants—i.e., the same books, just split up and organized differently) requires several steps of suppositions and guesses, with competing theories of how to bridge the gap. The first clear evidence of the modern arrangement (which is tripartite with 24 books) comes centuries after Josephus (who was writing almost a full century after Jesus). The only question is how many centuries. From Gallagher and Meade:
The Hebrew Bible today consists of twenty-four books divided into three sections… This arrangement is attested by the Masoretic manuscripts from around the year 1000 CE, but we can trace the tripartite division and the number of books back much earlier than that. A passage of the Talmud … affirming the three divisions and the twenty-four books, dates no later than the redaction of the Talmud in the sixth century, and most scholars would date it well before then, perhaps as early as the second century…. We can thus confidently date to the fourth century or earlier (depending on the date of the Talmudic list) the Jewish enumeration of the Hebrew Bible as twenty-four books divided into three major sections.[7]
Dating is always debated, and Gallagher and Meade may very well be right in picking early dates (I generally go with their dating herein), but the progression from “no later” to “most scholars would date” to “confidently date” is a noteworthy example of “certainty inflation.” Their final guess when they turn to the actual list is “circa 200”—the earliest date in the range.
Meanwhile, there are early Church Fathers who list variant Jewish canons. We only have two “truly Jewish” lists (meaning a list compiled by a Jew, not a Christian listing what the Jews accept) in our “early Church” time frame, one being Josephus (not really a list at all, just the number), and the other being the list Gallagher and Meade are referring to from the Babylonian Talmud (which is, indeed, a list of the modern Jewish/Protestant canon).
The lists of the alleged Jewish canon provided by the Fathers all disagree with each other and with the Talmud. Sometimes Esther is excluded (as with Melito—and note that Melito seems to have written his list before the list in the Talmud was created), the Maccabees may have had some sort of status (via Origen, writing a few years after the earliest part of the date range for this Talmud list), Baruch (and the Epistle of Jeremiah) may be included (as per Origen, Epiphanius, the Apostolic Canons, etc.), Wisdom and Sirach are disputed (and thus, some Jews did accept them—per Epiphanius), etc.
In addition, the earliest date for the Talmud’s list is during Origen’s lifetime, and it is he who tells us that the Jewish leaders “pretended to the Jews … deceived the wives of their countrymen. … hid from the knowledge of the people … took away from the people every passage … concealed and removed from the Scriptures…”
Moreover, the Talmud list is of 24 Books, not 22; and yet, around 391 AD, Jerome writes that the 24 enumeration is still a minority view and most Jews keep to the 22 number[8]—which would make the Talmud version a minority view to Jerome’s understanding when he is living and writing in Jerusalem/Bethlehem. Jerome believes the numbers add to the same 39 Books as modern Protestants number them. However, at roughly the same time, Epiphanius gives us his 27 number, with the claim that some Apocrypha are accepted in the Jewish canon.
Even accepting the date of 200 AD for the Talmud’s list, that is still two centuries after Christ and is roughly contemporaneous with other lists that disagree on the Jewish canon, plus Origen’s claims of deletions that he heard of from the Jews themselves. In addition, even the 200 AD earliest date of the Talmud’s list comes after Christians are expressly citing to all of the Apocrypha as Christian Scripture.[9]
In fact, the Talmud itself cites to Sirach as Scripture in several places (See www.sefaria.org/Yevamot.63b.13?lang=bi. Search for “Sira,” and you will see two examples), evidencing that even as this first truly “Jewish” list is being developed, and for many centuries after, there are actually Jews holding to different canons.[10]
We also have a Christian Father who was writing in 385 AD and claimed that at that late date the Jews still accepted Baruch, with Sirach and Wisdom “in dispute.” But in that case, that is just one Father making a claim. When judging these things, we have to look at more than the existence of evidence; the quality of the evidence matters, too.
Thus, the importance of Jerome, who clearly limits the Jewish canon to the modern Jewish list (his continued acceptance of Susanna is for Christians, not Jews). After all, Jerome lived in Bethlehem, and was a friend to the Jews—so much so that he even became fluent in Hebrew as an adult so that he could better understand the Jewish Scriptures (and, thus, become a valued translator for the Church). It is hard to be more knowledgeable about the true Jewish situation than that! Therefore, we can have certainty that Jerome knew of what he wrote and gave us accurate information.
Now, just try comparing Jerome to that other guy telling us that there was a different Jewish canon in 385 AD! Who was that clown?
He was Epiphanius, a Jewish Christian.[11] Either his parents had converted before he was born, or when he was a child.
He was born and raised just outside of Jerusalem.
He “was an extremely well-educated scholar who had deep knowledge of ancient languages.”[12] He was praised by Jerome for knowing five languages—including Hebrew, of course.[13]
He “travelled widely to combat differing beliefs.” He researched and wrote a great treatise (the Panarion), which enumerated all the sects of Judaism and all those derived from Judaism.[14]
So, Epiphanius was a Jewish Christian from Judea, fluent in Hebrew. He was an expert on the ins and outs of Judaism and all its varieties and variants. And it is this expert on Jews, working on the ground in 385 AD, that is the source that says the Jews still accepted Baruch and that some of the Jews still accepted[15] Sirach and Wisdom, as late as 385 AD, and those who did accept them were still considered mainstream Jews and not some variant sect.
And there is corroborating evidence that Epiphanius is the one who was correct, not Jerome: Rabbis were still citing to Sirach as Scripture all the way until the tenth century AD, 600 years after Jerome told us that “the” Jewish canon did not include Sirach. Some of them did so in the Talmud itself. In addition, the Apostolic Constitutions of 380 AD reports that the Jews still read Baruch on the tenth day of the month Gorpiaeus, when they assembled together.[16] In other words, there are three reports at the end of the Fourth Century on what the Jews accept, and two of the three say they accept Baruch, with Jerome outvoted.
[1] www.amazon.com/Jewish-Study-Bible-Publication-Translation/dp/0195297547. My edition is Oxford University Press 2014.
[2] In case you are wondering what item (1) said: “(1) Unlike the canonical books, the apocryphal books do not have either an explicit or implicit claim to be inspired by God…” But of course the Book of Wisdom makes such claims, as already discussed. For another example, see Sirach 24: 32-33: “I will yet make doctrine to shine as the morning, and will send forth her light afar off. I will yet pour out doctrine as prophecy, and leave it to all ages for ever.”
[3] Note that accepting a later date for Wisdom would have ancillary implications, given that New Testament Books seem to have relied upon it. I.e., you might not be able to accept an early date for some of the New Testament Books if Wisdom was not written well before then. Notably there are quotes of Jesus that seem to be referencing Wisdom, which means (if so) that the Book would have to be from a period well before He was talking to His audience.
[4] www.earlyjewishwritings.com/text/josephus/apion1.html.
[5] There are many other potential disconnects between Josephus’ number and the Books of the modern Jewish canon, including that Josephus (a) cites to the Apocryphal additions to Esther, (b) cites a lamentation from Jeremiah that does not seem to be the Book of Lamentations as we have it and he may, therefore, include a Book we do not, and (c) also says that Ezekiel wrote two Books but the modern Jews only accept one (for discussion of which the second might be, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocryphon_of_Ezekiel or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Ezekiel, etc.). I discuss the first reference above; see Antiquities, X, 5 for the last two: www.gutenberg.org/files/2848/2848-h/2848-h.htm.
[6] See www.sefaria.org/Yevamot.63b.13?lang=bi – search for “Sira” and you will see two examples from the Talmud; https://intertextual.bible/text/sirach-13.15-bava-kamma-92b notes a third. Such citations were still being written centuries after Christ.
[7] The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity, p. 3.
[8] See his Preface to the Book of Kings, quoted at www.bible-researcher.com/jerome.html.
[9] Or, at the latest, they do so by 203 AD: it depends on the dating of one of Clement of Alexandria’s books citing to the last few Apocrypha. Some date it as late as 203 AD, others as early as 190 AD. In any event, Gallagher and Meade’s “circa 200 AD” for the Talmud is not just the early end of the date range but also not meant to be an exact number.
[10] Also, note that some of the Apocrypha “reappear” later in Judaism, such as Judith (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Judith). Meanwhile, the Ethiopian Jews accepted all the Apocrypha—and still do. All of that might help make the case for Apocrypha as Scripture stronger, but this book will ignore those arguments.
[11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epiphanius_of_Salamis
[12] biblecanon.org/lists/ (click on “Panarion”).
[13] Absolutely every detail about everything on the canon is disputed, and Epiphanius is no exception. You can find people who argue that maybe Jerome meant it as an insult or a joke, and for all I know, they are right. Regardless, a Jewish Christian from Jerusalem is a very good source, since we are not talking about a detailed understanding of nuances in Jewish thinking, just a list of Books they accept (in fact, if there had been a clear Jewish canon of only 22 Books, would that not have been exactly the sort of basic fact that every Jew would know?). His lists may have antecedents elsewhere, but even if he copied them, he would be someone with independent knowledge “authenticating” the correctness of what he copied, not a mere copyist repeating something without personal knowledge.
And bear in mind that some of Jerome’s peers considered him a gullible gentile sucker being fooled by the Jews on the canon question. So, we look for corroborating evidence. The lists and other data on the Jewish canon are an inconsistent mess, which supports the claim that the Jewish canon was not settled and had “fuzzy edges.” (Which, after all, is also the view of the Jewish Study Bible.)
[14] As well as the heresies derived from Christianity—and other religions, as well.
[15] Epiphanius says it is disputed, which means some accept it. That is what people tell us when the topic is the New Testament canon: e.g., “church fathers occasionally acknowledge that a particular book is “disputed” by some. … the implications of Origen’s comments [are]…that apparently most Christians do consider them genuine— including Origen himself…” – Kruger, Michael J. (p. 265-266).
[16] Book 5, 3, 20. www.newadvent.org/fathers/07155.htm.
