THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA AND THE
OLD TESTAMENT CANON*
ROBERT C. NEWMAN
Among those who believe the Old
Testament to be a revela-
tion from the
Creator, it has traditionally been maintained
that
the books composing this collection were in themselves
sacred
writings from the moment of their completion, that they
were
quickly recognized as such, and that the latest of these
were
written several centuries before the beginning of our era.
The
Jewish historian Flavius Josephus appears to be the earliest
extant
witness to this view. Answering the charges of an anti-
Semite
Apion at the end of the first century of our era, he
says:
We do not possess myriads of
inconsistent books, conflicting
with each other. Our books, those
which are justly accredited,
are but two and twenty, and contain
the record of all time.
Of these, five are the books of Moses,
comprising the laws
and the traditional history from the
birth of man down to the
death of the lawgiver. This period
falls only a little short of
three thousand years. From the death
of Moses until Arta-
xerxes. who
succeeded Xerxes as king of
subsequent
to Moses wrote the history of the events of their
own
tines in thirteen books. The remaining four books con-
tain hymns to God
and precepts for the conduct of human life.
From
Artaxerxes to our own time the complete history has
been
written. but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit
*The abbreviations of the names of tractates
in the Mishnah, Tosefta
and
Talmud follow Hermann L. Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and
Midrash. Other special or unusual abbreviations
are as follows:
BT - Babylonian Talmud
M - Mishnah
MR - Midrash Rabbah
SITM-Strack, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash (
Atheneum, 1969, reprint
of 1931 edn.)
Tos. - Tosefta
I thank Dr. Robert A. Kraft of the
helpful
criticisms. Naturally, I assume full responsibility for the final
form
of this article.
319
320
with the earlier records, because of
the failure of the exact
succession of the prophets.1
On the basis of later Christian
testimony, the twenty-two
books
mentioned here are usually thought to be the same as
our
thirty-nine,2 each double book (e.g., 1 and 2 Kings) being
counted
as one, the twelve Minor Prophets being considered a
unit,
and Judges-Ruth, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Jeremiah-Lamenta-
tions each being
taken as one book. This agrees with the
impression
conveyed by the Gospel accounts, where Jesus, the
Pharisees,
and the Palestinian Jewish community in general
seem
to understand by the term "Scripture" some definite body
of
sacred writings.
Rabbinical literature, though much
later, is also in agreement
with
this testimony. In the Babylonian Talmud, completed by
about
A.D. 550,3 we read: "Our Rabbis taught: Since the death
of
the last prophets, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachai,
the Holy-
Spirit
departed from
to
have ceased long before the beginning of the Christian era.
Among
earlier Talmudic material, there is a Baraitha5 (from
about
A.D. 2006) which likewise assigns the Scripture to ancient
authors,
but also explicitly names the books of the Old Testa-
ment and gives a
total of twenty-four books7 by using, the
scheme
mentioned above except for treating Judges and Ruth,
Jeremiah
and Lamentations as separate entities. As in Josephus,
the
books are also grouped in three classes. The first is the
Pentateuch,
as in Josephus, but the other two are different:
the
second section, called "prophets," contains Joshua, Judges,
Samuel,
Kings. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the twelve Minor
Prophets
in that order, whereas the third section, called "writ-
ings," contains
the remainder of our familiar Old Testament.
1 Josephus, Against Apion, 1,8 (38-41).
2 Ibid., Loeb Classical Library
edition, notes ad loc.; Otto Eissfeldt,
The Old
Testament: An Introduction, trans. by Peter R. Ackroyd
(New
3 SITM, p. 71.
4 BT, Sanh.,
11 a.
5 Eissfeldt,
op. cit., p. 563.
6 SITM, pp. 4, 20-25.
7
BT, B. B. 1.4b.
THE COUNCIL OF
JAMNIA 321
Although it is true that the pseudepigraphical work 4 Ezra
(probably
written about A.D. 1208) pictures a much larger
number
of sacred books,9 it is very significant that it admits that
only
twenty-four Scriptures have circulated publicly since Ezra's
time.
In recent centuries, another outlook
has arisen which is often
called
critical-historical. Denying that claims of God's miracu-
lous intervention in
the inspiration of such books are subject to
historical
investigation, this view sees the canonicity of the Old
Testament
merely as the result of a belief in inspiration which
grew
up around each book in the centuries after its publication.
This
critical or liberal view also commonly pictures the partic-
ular threefold
division of the Old Testament books found in the
Talmud
and in our oldest extant Hebrew Bibles (dating from
the
10th and 11th centuries10) as a sort of fossil of the canoniza-
tion process. Thus
H. E. Ryle, in his classic liberal work on the
Old
Testament canon, distinguishes three canons corresponding
to
the three sections in the Talmud: the first is the Law, finally
fixed
shortly before 432 B.C.;11 the next is the Law and the
Prophets,
established by 200 B.C. (before the critical date for
the
origin of Daniel, though after the dates of the excluded
Chronicles,
Ezra-Nehemiah, Psalms, Proverbs, Lamentations
and
Ruth);12 and the last is the Law, the Prophets and the
Writings
as we have them today,13 which canon was practically
completed
before 100 B.C.,14 but not officially recognized until
about
A.D. 100.15
More recent liberal scholarship has
modified Ryle's position,
especially
in regard to the last two divisions. Thus Eissfeldt
now
recognizes that there is historical evidence for Daniel
8 R. H. Charles, ed., The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha
of the Old
Testament (2 vols.;
9 4 Ezra 14:44-45.
10 R. K. Harrison,
Introduction to the Old Testament (
11 Herbert Edward Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament (
Macmillan
and Co., 1892), ch. 4, esp. p. 93.
12 Ibid., ch. 5, esp. p. 113.
13 Ibid.,
chs. 6-8.
14 Ibid., pp. 177-78.
15 Ibid., p. 172.
322
having
been in the second section, but suggests that this means
the
Prophets section must have been open until later:
Here too we cannot actually say that
at that time, i.e., about
200 B.C., the extent and the text of
the books reckoned in the
prophetic canon was already fixed. But
apart from Daniel no
new book has since then succeeded in
getting into this part of
the canon, and this book could not
maintain its place there
but found its final position among the
Writings.16
Fohrer
departs even further from Ryle, though a "natural
process"
view of canonicity is retained. For him there is no
canon
in any strict sense until the time of Ben Sira (c.
190
B.C.).
Even at the time of Ben Sira's translator-grandson
(117
B.C.),
Fohrer sees the first two sections of the canon as
still
open
to change and the third as just beginning to form:17
The canon was therefore completed
between 100 B.C. and
A. D. 100, and the so-called synod
held at Jamnia . . . ap-
parently made
some contribution to the process. Later dis-
putes about
individual books made no change in the canon.18
Popular liberal discussions of the
canon today speak rather
confidently
of the Council of Jamnia. For instance, the United
says:
Although the whole of the Old Testament
had been written by
150 B.C., the writings were not
declared authoritative until
90 A.D. by a council of rabbis at Jamnia. It was this group
which decided which of the later
writings should be included
in the Old Testament.19
Alice Parmelee,
in her popular-level Guidebook to the
Bible,
speaks
of the Writings as not being "clearly defined" until "the
Council
of Jamnia drew up a definite list of the sacred Scrip-
tures."20
Going into more detail, she says:
It was at Jamnia
in the famous
16 Eissfeldt,
op. cit., p. 565.
17 Georg Fohrer,
Introduction to the Old Testament,
trans. by David
E.
Green (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1968, from German, 1965), p.
486.
18 Ibid.
19 Carl E. Berges,
How the Old Testament Came to Be: Script
for
Adults (Philadelphia:
Christian Education Press 1958), p. 10.
20
Brothers,
1948), p. 138.
THE COUNCIL OF
JAMNIA 323
that the council met about A.D. 90 to
decide which books
belonged to the canon. Pointing, no
doubt, to the actual rolls
brought from the
council argued the merits of the
various books. At length,
they established the Hebrew canon in
which the Writings
were included, but the Apocrypha was
left out.21
Even the Encyclopaedia Britannica sounds a rather certain
note
on this subject:
After the destruction of
Jamnia
became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. A meeting
of Rabbis held there c. A.D. 100
discussed and settled the
final canon of the Old Testament.22
Somewhat
more cautiously:
The name canon may properly be applied
to the books that
seem to have been adopted by the
assembly of rabbis at
Jamnia about
A.D. 90 or 100 under the leadership of Rabbi
Akiba. Until
then, apparently, the status of Song of Solomon
and of Ecclesiastes remained doubtful,
but at Jamnia they
were definitely included in the canon
. . . Some of the Hagi-
ographa
(including apparently Daniel) were still in dispute
until the assembly at Jamnia.23
Among experts on canon, not even Ryle
is so definite about
Jamnia, however. He
says that Jamnia only put "an official seal
to
that which had already long enjoyed currency among the
people."24
Unfortunately Ryle does not seem to be entirely
consistent
here:
It was then that the Writings we have
called "Disputed
Books" (Esther, Song, Ecclesiastes,
Chronicles, possibly
Daniel), which, from the peculiarity
of their contents and
teaching, had previously exerted
little influence upon reli-
gious
thought, had been little used in public and, possibly,
little studied in private, seemed all
at once to receive an ad-
ventitious
importance. Doubts were expressed, when their
canonical position was finally
asserted. But no sooner were
such difficulties raised and scruples
proclaimed and protests
delivered against their retention in
the Canon, than eager
voices were lifted up to defend the
character of writings
21 Ibid., p. 149.
22 Edward Robertson, "Jamnia," Encyclopaedia
Britannica., 1970, XII,
p.
871.
23 Jaroslav
Pelikan, "Bible," Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1970, III, p. 576.
24 Ryle, op. cit., p. 173.
324
which, after all, had long been
recognized, although, in com-
parison with
the acknowledged books of the Kethubim, little
valued and rarely made use of.25
After
this detailed psychological analysis of the situation, one is
rather
astonished to find Ryle admitting that "the Synod of
Jamnia can be little
else to us but a name." In any case he
claims
that this name is "connected with the ratified canonicity
of
certain books" and that it symbolizes the rabbinical deter-
mination "to put an
end to the doubts about the 'disputed' books
of
the Hagiographa."26
Eissfeldt, by contrast,
sees Jamnia in a broader context:
Though unfortunately we know otherwise
very little about
this synod, it is at least clear that
it regarded its task as the
securing of the Jewish heritage, and
in this it succeeded.27
After
speaking of the threats to Judaism posed by the apocalyp-
tic
literature and by Christianity, he continues:
These threats . . . necessitated at
that time in particular the
formation of a normative canon of
sacred scriptures . . . So
now what had come into being as a
result of gradual growth
was formally declared binding and for
this purpose was also
undergirded with a dogmatic theory.28
The Danish scholar Aage
Bentzen speaks of the "synod of
Jamnia" as
"important for the definite fixing of the Canon
among
the Semitic speaking Jews."29 According to him:
The debate of the synod mainly centred on Ezekiel, Proverbs,
the Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and
Esther. There also seems
to have been some insecurity
concerning Chronicles. This
seems to indicate that only the Law
was really acknowledged
. . . in Palestinian circles, or at
least that Prophets and
Kethubim
were considered of secondary importance.30
Bentzen has previously
argued that the presence of Ezekiel in
25 Ibid., p. 178.
26 Ibid., p. 172.
27 Eissfeldt,
op. cit., p. 568.
28 Ibid.
29 Aage
Bentzen, Introduction
to the Old Testament (2 vols., 2nd edn.;
30 Ibid., p. 29.
THE COUNCIL OF
JAMNIA 325
these
discussions indicates that the second division of the canon
was
not yet fixed.31
From this necessarily brief and
selective survey of opinion
concerning
Jamnia and the Canon, a number of questions arise.
For
instance, was there a "council" of Jamnia?
What informa-
tion do we have
about it? When was it held? Who presided?
What
books were discussed? What arguments were presented?
What
conclusions were reached? How binding were these con-
clusions? Were they at
variance with popular opinion or pre-
vailing practice? It is
to an attempted solution of some of these
matters
that we now turn.
The Jamnia Material in Rabbinical Literature
The rabbinical activities at the city
of
us
only through rabbinical literature, where the more Hebraic
spellings
"Jabneh" or "Yabrieh"
are used. Little of this material
seems
to come to us in its present form from rabbis who were
alive
at A.D. 100.
The Mishnah,
which forms the basis for both the Babylonian
and
Palestinian Talmuds, was traditionally compiled by
Rabbi
(
A.D.
210.32 His work, however, was apparently based on earlier
compilations
by R. Meir and R. Akiba,33 the latter of whom
was
active at Jamnia. The Mishnah is available in English
in a
separate
form edited by H. Danby,34 as well as in the Soncino
edition
of the Babylonian Talmud, which will be cited here.35
Some of the rabbinical discussions
left out of the Mishnah
were
compiled in a work called the Tosefta. Although the text
of
the Tosefta
has probably been somewhat confused by influ-
ence from the Mishnah, it
presupposes the Mishnah
and is there-
fore
somewhat later. Strack suggests its author is Hiyya bar
31 Ibid., p. 25.
32 SITM, p. 118.
33 Ibid., pp. 20-25.
34 Herbert Danby, ed., The Mishnah (
Press,
1933).
35 Isidore Epstein, ed., The
Babylonian Talmud (35 vols.;
The
Soncino Press, 1935-52).
326
probably
from the early third century. Only three tractates of
the
Tosefta are
presently available in English.37
Some other early remarks left out of
the Mishnah
have found
their
way into the Gemara
of the Babylonian and Palestinian
Talmuds where they are
designated as Baraitha.
The Palestinian
Talmud
was completed early in the fifth century and therefore
contains
material up to that time.38 The Babylonian Talmud
was
not closed until the middle of the sixth century.39 As little
of
the Palestinian Talmud is available in English, it has not been
cited
here.
The rabbinical discussions which are
organized according to
the
biblical texts (rather than topically as in the previous ma-
terials) are known as Midrashim. Among
the extant Midrashim,
only
those compiled by the schools of Akiba and Ishmael
may
be
as old as the Mishnah.40
But of these, only one, Sifre on
Numbers,
is available in English, and that only in selection.41
The
works contained in the later Midrash Rabbah date from the
fifth
to the twelfth centuries.42 But,
since these are readily
available,
in English, they are occasionally cited in this study.43
We shall examine these sources for
references to Jamnia to
see
what can be learned about rabbinical activity there. Then
we
shall examine early rabbinical discussions relating to canon,
whenever
and wherever these have occurred. Little attempt will
be
made to criticize these materials as Neusner is now
doing,44
36 SITM, p. 75.
37 Herbert Danby, ed., Tractate Sanhedrin: Mishnah
and Tosefta
(London:
S.P.C.K., 1919) ; A. W. Greenup, ed., Sukkah: Mishnah and
Tosefta (London:
S.P.C.K., 1925) ; A. Lukyn Williams, ed., Tractate
Berakoth: Mishnah and Tosephta (London: S.P.C.K., 1921).
38 SITM, p. 65.
39 Ibid., p. 71.
40 Ibid., pp. 206--09.
41 P. P. Levertoff,
Midrash Sifre on Numbers:
Selections (
S.P.C.K.,
1926).
42 Encyclopaedia Judaica (16
vols.;
see
relevant articles.
43 H. Freedman and
Maurice Simon, eds., Midrash Rabbah (10
vols. ;
44 Jacob Neusner, Development
of a Legend: Studies on the Traditions
Concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai
(Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1970); Eliezer ben
Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man (2 vols.;
THE COUNCIL OF
JAMNIA 327
for
the author has neither the background nor inclination to
undertake
such a mammoth and problematical task. Naturally,
some
attempt will be made to estimate the date of various tradi-
tions, from which
perhaps one could get an idea of the relative
reliability
of each tradition,45 but anything further I leave to
others.
The ancient city of
south
of
mentioned
both in the Old Testament and in various records
of
the intertestamental period, Jamnia
was basically a gentile city
before
the Hasmonean period and did not become thoroughly
Jewish
until about the time of Tiberius.46 According to the
Talmud,
Jamnia was twice the home of the (Great) Sanhedrin,
which
moved there from
returned,
and then passed back to Usha.47 The ten locations of
the
Sanhedrin mentioned here are consistent with the list given
in
the sixth-century Midrash
Genesis Rabbah,48 although the
later
source does not mention the double sojourns at Jamnia
and
Usha.
R. Johanan ben Zakkai seems to have been
instrumental in
the
establishment of the Great Sanhedrin at Jamnia.
During the
siege
of
the
doomed city by having his disciples announce his death and
carry
him to safety in a casket. Once outside, he met the Roman
general
(soon to be emperor) Vespasian, who allowed him to
have
“Jabneh and its Wise Men.”49 Notice,
however, that this
passage
suggests there were already scholars at Jamnia when
ben Zakkai
arrived. This is further implied by the earlier
Mishnah:
He (the rebellious elder) was executed
neither by his local
Beth Din (i.e., court or Sanhedrin)
nor by the Beth Din at
Jabneh, but
was taken to the Great Beth Din in
1973);
A Life of Yohanan
ben Zakkai (2nd edn.;
1970);
The Rabbinic Traditions about the
Pharisees before 70 (3 vols.;
45 Neusner,
Development of a Legend, p. 10.
46 "Jabneh,"
Encyclopaedia Judaica, IX,
p. 1176.
47 BT, R.H. 31.
48 MR, Gen. 97.
49 BT, Git.
56.
328
and kept there until the (next)
festival, and executed
thereon.50
This
remark, attributed to R. Akiba, indicates an
important
Sanhedrin
at Jamnia even before the siege of
passage
throughout the land is assumed.
However, a discordant note is struck
by the much later
Midrash Ecclesiastes Rabbah (7th to 10th centuries),51 which
says:
R. Johanan ben Zakkai had five disciples,
and as long as he
lived they sat before him. When he
died, they went to
Jabneh.52
If
this tradition is correct, then ben Zakkai either was not a
permanent
resident of Jamnia or he left the city before his
death.
After ben Zakkai, R. Gamaliel II became
head of the rab-
binical activity at Jamnia. He was later forced to share his
authority
with R. Eleazar ben Azariah because he continually
insulted
R. Joshua.53 R. Akiba was already
important by this
time,
but he seems to have figured even more prominently in
later
activities there. In any case Jamnia was still the
center of
rabbinical
activity at the close of the second revolt in A.D. 135,54
in
which Akiba and many others died.
A number of scholars are mentioned in
connection with
Jamnia. Without
attempting to reassess the work of Talmudic
experts,
these rabbis can be classified roughly by age according
to
the scheme of Strack, which we shall follow here.55
Among
the
oldest rabbis at Jamnia (before A.D. 90), Johanan ben
Zakkai is frequently
mentioned,56 not only as founder but also
as
a participant and leader. R. Zadok is also mentioned
as a
contemporary
of ben Zakkai57 and (if the same person is
in
view)
also of Gamaliel II.58 Ben Bokri is mentioned once.59
50 M, Sanh.
89a.
51 Encyclopaedia Judaica, XI, p. 1512.
52 MR, Eccl. 7. 7.. 2.
53 BT, Ber.
27b.
54 Ibid., 48b.
55 SITM, pp. 109f-I.
56 E.g., M, R.H. 29b; BT, Git. 56, Men. 21b.
57 BT, Git.
56b.
58 Tos.,
Sanh. 8. 1.
59 BT, Men. 21b.
THE COUNCIL OF
JAMNIA 329
The next generation (c. A.D. 90-130),
overlapping to some
extent
with those that precede and follow, can be subdivided
into
an older and younger group. In the older group, R.
Gamaliel II is most
frequently mentioned, both as head of the
Beth
ha-Midrash at Jamni.60 as well as prince
of the San-
hedrin.61
His wealthy contemporary R. Eleazar ben Azariah was
elected
to replace him (at least in his former office) for a time,
after
which they shared the position.62 Other contemporaries
associated
with Gamaliel at Jamnia
were: R. Joshua, mentioned
above,
who was reputed to have spoken all the seventy lan-
guages guages of mankind63 and who, after much
argument, submitted
to
Gamaliel's decision on the date of Yom Kippur;64
R. Eliezer
ben Hyrcanus;65 R.
Levitas;66 Samuel the Little, a disciple of
Hillel
"deserving that the Shechinah should alight upon
him"
and
author of the benediction against heretics;67 and Simeon
the
Pakulite, who is said to have formulated the Eighteen
Benedictions.68
The younger group of this generation
is dominated by R.
Akiba, who is
important in the pre-history of the Mishnah. He
is
mentioned as early as the time of Gamaliel's
replacement by
Eleazar ben Azariah,69 and he was executed by the Romans
in
connection with the Bar Kochba revolt70
Frequently in argu-
ment with Akiba are R. Tarfon7l and R. Ishmael.72
The latter
founded
a school in competition with Akiba's, and these
schools
produced
the Tannaitic Midrashim.73 Two other
rabbis con-
temporary
with Akiba seem to be slightly younger (or at least
less
advanced in studies): R. Jose the Galilean74 and R. Simon
60 BT, Ber.
27b.
61 Tos.,
Sanh. 8. 1.
62 BT, Ber.
27b.
63 BT, Sanh.
17b.
64 M, R.H. 25a.
65 BT, Sanh.
17b.
66 M, Ab. 4. 4.
67 BT, Sot. 48b, Ber. 28b.
68 BT, Ber.
28b, Meg. 17b.
69 BT, Ber.
27b.
70 BT, Ber.
61b.
71 M, Ber.
28b; BT, Zeb. 57a, Kid. 66.
72 BT, Zeb.
57a.
73 SITM, pp. 206ff.
74 BT, Zeb.
57a.
330
the
Temanite.75 Besides these rabbis, a butcher I1a76 and a
physician
Theodos77 figured in rabbinical discussions at Jamnia,
apparently
in this period.
The third generation (after A.D. 130)
apparently consisted
only
of students or very young rabbis when the Sanhedrin left
Jamnia for good. Such
men only appear in Jamnia in the follow-
ing:
When our teachers entered the vineyard
at Jabneh, there
were among them R. Judah and R. Jose
and R. Nehemiah
and R. Eliezer
the son of R. Jose the Galilean. They all
spoke in honour
of hospitality and expounded texts (for that
purpose).78
Apparently,
then, the Sanhedrin left Jamnia the second time
shortly
after A.D. 135.
What sort of rabbinical activity went
on at Jamnia during
the
height of its fame? Jamnia is said to have had a Beth
Din
even
while the Great Beth Din continued to function in Jeru-
salem.79
It also seems to have been the principal
Beth Din in
the
time of ben Zakkai,80 Gamaliel
II,81 and Akiba.82 Similarly,
the
term "Sanhedrin," synonymous with all but the smallest
Beth
Din,83 is also applied to Jamnia in the
same period.84
According
to the Tosefta:
The Sanhedrin was arranged in the form
of a semicircle,
so that they might all see each other.
The Prince sat in the
middle with the elders on his right
and left. R. Eleazar, the
son of Zadok,
said: 'When Rabban Gamaliel
sat at Jabneh,
my father and another sat on his
right, and the other elders
on his left.'85
Jamnia was
also said to have had a Beth ha-Midrash during
this
period, in connection with which Rabbis Gamaliel, Eleazar
75 BT, Sanh.
17b.
76 M, Ber.
28b-29a, 40b.
77 M, Ber.
28b; IBT, Sanh. 33a.
78 BT, Ber.
63b.
79 M, Sanh.
89a.
80 M, R.H. 29b.
81 M, R.H. 25a.
82 M, Ber.
28b, 40b.
83 Encyclopaedia Judaica, IV, p. 720.
84 BT, R.H. 31, Sanh. 17b; Tos., Sanh. 8. 1.
85 Tos.,
Sanh. 8. 1.
THE COUNCIL OF
JAMNIA 331
ben Azariah,
Joshua, Akiba, Ishmael, Tarfon,
and Jose the
Galilean
are all named.86 During the somewhat later mishnaic
period
(c. A.D. 200), such an institution was a biblical study
center
independent of the synagogue and considered even more
holy.87
The Beth ha-Midrash at Jamnia
is explicitly connected
with
the so-called "vineyard" there.88 Although this place may
have
been an actual vineyard, the 4th century rabbi Hiyya ben
Nehemiah
speaks of a tradition that it was so named "because
of
the disciples who sat in tiers as in a vineyard."89 It is not
clear
whether the Sanhedrin met in the same place, although
the
semicircular form of the latter and the (presumably) recti-
linear
form of the former would seem to be against this. Among
references
to the vineyard, all are consistent with a Beth ha-
Midrash: several
involve exposition of Scripture,90 one speaks
of
teaching,91 and another, though mentioning a halakic
dis-
pute,92
which might equally well occur in a Sanhedrin, uses
the
term Beth ha-Midrash.
There were therefore at least two
different rabbinical institu-
tions functioning at Jamnia during this period, a Beth Din or
Sanhedrin
and a Beth ha-Midrash. Let us seek to catalogue the
activities
mentioned in reference to Jamnia to see if there is
anything
left over which would not fit one of these two insti-
tutions.
In later years, Jamnia
was especially remembered for the
wisdom
and piety of its rabbis. Although some of the incidents
reported
in this regard appear to be exaggerated, it seems clear
that
some facts lay behind this reputation. Thus Samuel the
Little
was probably an unusually pious man, whether or not a
Bath Kol ever indicated he was the only man of his
generation
deserving
to receive the Shekinah.93 Likewise the almost legen-
dary wisdom of the
"Sages of Jabneh"94 presumably has some
86 BT, Ber.
27b, Zeb. 57a.
87 Encvclopacdia
Judaica, IV, p. 751.
88 BT, Zeb.
57a.
89 MR, Eccl. 2. 8. 1.
90 BT, Ber.
63b, B.B. 131b; MR, Ecc1. 2. 8. 1.
91 BT, Yeb.
42b.
92 BT, Zeb.
57a.
93 BT, Sot. 48b, Sanh. 11a.
94 BT, Kid. 49b.
332
basis
in fact, whether or not they included four men who could
speak
the seventy languages of mankind.95
On a more prosaic level, we find that
the habits and sayings
of
the rabbis at Jamnia were long remembered. Thus the prac-
tice at Jamnia of removing the leaven on the 14th of Nisan even
when
it fell on a Sabbath contributes to a later discussion.96
Liturgical
customs are recalled,97 and the frugal example set
by
Gamaliel II at his own funeral reversed a prevailing
trend
which
was impoverishing the heirs.98
Among many sayings attributed to
various rabbis active at
Jamnia, one collective
remark occurs:
A favourite
saying of the rabbis of Jabneh was: I am God's
creature and my fellow is God's
creature. My work is in the
town and his work is in the country. I
rise early for my work
and he rises early for his work. Just
as he does not presume
to do my work, so I do not presume to
do his work. Will you
say, I do much and he does little? We
have learnt: One may
do much or one may do little, it is
all one, provided he
directs his heart to heaven.99
This exemplary material provides little
of real help for our
discussion.
Probably a school (Beth ha-Midrash) in prolonged
contact
with its students is more likely to produce such memo-
ries than a
combination court and legislature such as the Beth
Din.
But we have already shown that both existed at Jamnia.
No
third institution, such as a council or synod, is suggested
by
this material.
Other passages associate teaching and
exposition of Scripture
with
Jamnia. Recall the reference to students sitting in
rows like
a
vineyard.100 One particularly industrious student was remem-
bered for finding a
hundred and fifty reasons why a dead "creep-
ing thing" should be considered
clean.101 Likewise R. Johanan
and
R. Ishmael were spoken of as having been taught at Jamnia
regarding
the time a woman must wait before remarriage.102
95 BT, Sanh.
17b.
96 BT, Pes.
49a.
97 E.g., BT, R.H. 32a.
98 BT, Ket.
8b.
99 BT, Ber.
17a.
100 MR, Eccl. 2. 8. 1.
101 BT, Erub.
13b.
102 BT, Yeb.
42b.
THE COUNCIL OF JAMNIA 333
As
regards exposition, R. Eleazar ben
Azariah is explicitly
seen
interpreting Scripture,103 apparently as a teacher, whereas
Rabbis
Judah, Jose, Nehemiah, and Eliezer all speak on the
subject
of hospitality, perhaps as students fulfilling an assign-
ment in exegesis or
homiletics.104
Such materials also suggest the Beth
ha-Midrash rather than
the
Beth Din, although one may learn from a legal decision.
It
is certainly possible that the expository material could be
synagogue
sermons, but there does not seem to be any evidence
here
for a council or synod.
We also find considerable material
expressing differences of
opinion
among the rabbis at Jamnia. For instance, ben Bokri
and
ben Zakkai argue over the
necessity of priests to pay the
shekel
tax.105 Ila and the rabbis argue about
blemishes in ani-
mals.106
Rabbis Tarfon, Jose, Akiba,
and Ishmael disagree on
how
long a firstling may be eaten.107 Tarfon
and Akiba debate
the
cleanliness of objects immersed in a reservoir in which an
insufficiency
of water is discovered only later.108 Such argu-
ments could occur
either in the teaching situation of a Beth
ha-Midrash (which seems to have employed a seminar method)
or
in the controversies of a Beth Din. In fact, two such examples
explicitly
mention the latter109 and one the former.110 Though
a
council cannot be ruled out, it does not appear necessary to
postulate
any such rabbinic institution to explain. this material.
Another class of rabbinical activities
at Jamnia is binding
decisions,
whether of a judicial (fact-finding) or legislative
(rule-making)
nature. These activities seem to belong primarily
to
the Beth Din. Some are rather specialized decisions, such as:
the
exemptions of R. Tarfon and Ila
the butcher from certain
regulations
because they were experts for the Beth Din;111
setting
the dates for New Moon and Yom Kippur in a partic-
103 BT, B. B. 131b.
104 BT, Ber.
63b.
105 BT, Men. 21b.
106 M, Ber.
40b.
107 BT, Zeb.
57a.
108 BT, Kid. 66.
109 M, Ber.
28b, 40b.
110 BT, Zeb.
57a.
111 M, Ber.
28b-29a.
334
ular year;112
and determining the effect of an oven fire at Kefar
Signah on the
cleanliness of the bread baked in it.113 More gen-
eral decisions are
seen in the question of the fitness of a cow
whose
womb has been removed,114 or of an animal with a wormy
liver,115
or of a mixture which had come into contact with a
rope.116
Especially interesting in these last
two examples is the state-
ment that each
question was submitted to the rabbis at Jamnia
on
three (successive) festivals before their ruling was given.
Although
it is possible that this is mentioned merely because
festivals
were the most convenient time to bring questions from
afar,
it seems likely that the Beth Din met only at festivals.
This
seems to be supported by the report that "when Rabban
Gamaliel and his court
of justice were at Jabneh" they did not
even
take time off to recite the Shema or the Benedictions
for
fear
of being distracted in caring for "the needs of the congrega-
tion."117
A general, full-time exemption of the rabbis from these
duties
seems very improbable, considering the centrality of
such
observances to Jewish piety, but a suspension for judges
on
such occasions as the Great Beth Din was in session would
not
be unreasonable.
In contrast, then, the Beth ha-Midrash would be in view in
the
saying quoted above (note 99), apparently meeting daily
for
a full workday. The two examples above also suggest that
Jamnia succeeded
festivals
were held.
Still more general decisions at Jamnia include rules: e.g., for
recognizing
maturity118 or uncleanness119 in women, or for
blowing
the shofar.120 Another class of general decisions would
be
liturgical innovations. It is reported that the rabbis at Jamnia
instituted
a benediction (now the fourth one said in the grace
112 M, R.H.
24b-25a.
113 M, Kel. 5. 4.
114 BT, Sanh. 33a.
115 BT, Hul. 48a.
116 M, Par. 7. 6.
117 Tos., Ber. 2. 6.
118 BT, Nid. 48b.
119 BT, Nid. 15a.
120 M R. H. 29b.
THE COUNCIL OF
JAMZNIA 335
after
meals) on the 15th of Ab, the day on which permission
was
given to bury those who died at the Battle of Bethur
in
the
Bar Kochba War.121 Earlier, in the
presence of R. Gamaliel
at
Jamnia, Simeon the Pakulite
is said to have formulated
(composed,
or organized?) the Eighteen Benedictions in their
present
order, and Samuel the Little is supposed to have com-
posed
a nineteenth against heretics.122 However, the latest of
these
sources123 dates one of the benedictions later.
Although these references would seem
to refer to the Great
Beth
Din at Jamnia, one of them says "a hundred and
twenty
elders,
among whom were many prophets, drew up eighteen
blessings
in a fixed order."124 Since this is larger than the tradi-
tional size of the
Great Beth Din, it might refer to some special
council
called to institute certain liturgical reforms. However,
according
to another source:
Said Rabban Gamaliel to the Sages: Can anyone among you
frame a benediction relating to the Minim (heretics) ? Samuel
the Lesser arose and composed it. The
next year he forgot
it ...125
This
suggests an annual event, which would seem more likely
to
be the Beth Din than some sort of council.
Even before the fall of
a
Beth Din at Jamnia. Afterwards this became the Great
Beth
Din
and remained so, with perhaps one interruption, until
about
A.D. 135. Likewise the Beth ha-Midrash probably pre-
dates
dates A.D. 70 and continues after 135, but it would
not be
surprising
that its golden years coincide with the presence of
the
Great Beth Din.
From the evidence we have surveyed, it
would seem reason-
able
to suggest that the Beth ha-Midrash met daily and
involved
teaching,
exposition, and argumentation, for the purpose of
training
the next generation of rabbis. The Beth Din, on the
other
hand, probably met less frequently, either at every festival
or
annually at some particular festival, argued out questions
submitted
by various congregations or rabbis, kept an eye on
121 BT, Ber.
48b, Taan. 31a, B.B. 121b.
122 BT, Ber.
28b, Meg. 17b; MR, Num. 18.21.
123 MR, Num. 18. 21.
124 BT, Meg. 17b.
125 BT, Ber.
28b.
336
the
calendar, and instituted various practices as the need arose,
so
that a certain uniformity might exist at least in Palestinian
Judaism.
The distinction between these two
institutions may explain
the
peculiar remark in Ecclesiastes Rabbah noted above
(note
52).
Perhaps R. Johanan ben Zakkai was head only of the Great
Beth
Din at Jamnia and not of its Beth ha-Midrash. Then he
would
only visit Jamnia sporadically, and his five
disciples
could
have moved there permanently after his death.
Although a larger Jamnia
assembly, called for the purpose
of
instituting far-reaching rulings in worship and practice, can-
not
be ruled out altogether, there does not seem to be any real
evidence
for such a group in the data so far examined. Certainly
some
decisions made at Jamnia prevail to this day (e.g.,
the
benedictions),
but these appear to have arisen at different times
and
would necessitate several "councils" of Jamnia.
Probably
all
are the work of the Great Beth Din.
The Old Testament Canon in the
Rabbinical Literature
Turning now to rabbinical reports
regarding the extent of
Scripture,
let us consider first of all which books were explicitly
discussed.
Next we shall consider what sort of discussions the
rabbis
conducted regarding these books. Finally we shall attempt
to
date the discussions and consider to what extent their con-
clusions were binding.
Among the books for which we have
rabbinical discussion of
canonicity
none is more prominent than Ecclesiastes.126 Next in
frequency
of discussion is Song of Songs.127 Several others are
discussed
in a single passage (though not necessarily only once
in
rabbinic history): Ruth,128 Esther,129 Proverbs,130
and
Ezekiel.131
It is possible that Ezra and Daniel were also dis-
cussed,
although the only reference to them in this sort of ma-
126 M, Eduy.
5. 3, Yad. 3. 5; BT, Shabb.
30, Meg. 7a; MR, Lev. 28. 1,
Eccli. 1. 3. 1, Song
1. 1. 11.
127 M, Yad.
3. 5; BT, Meg. 7a; MR, Song 1. 1. 11.
128 BT, Meg. 7a. j
129 Ibid.
130 BT, Shabb.
30b.
131 Ibid., 13b.
THE COUNCIL OF
JAMNIA 337
terial does not seem
to deal with the question of whether or
not
they belong in Scripture.132 The only extra-canonical books
mentioned
in these contexts are the "books of Hamiram"
(Homer?)
mentioned below, but the context seems to imply
that
they are not under consideration for canonization.
In the rabbinical discussions of the
canonicity of the Old
Testament,
the term "canon" and its derivatives are only used in
periphrastic
English translations, as this is a later technical
term
developed in Christian circles. Although the word "Scrip-
ture" already
seems to be a technical term with the required
significance,
our extant reports usually give the discussions in
terms
of two other concepts: "uncleanness" and "hiding."
Those books which we would call
canonical or scriptural were
held
by the rabbis to confer uncleanness on the hands of those
touching
them.133 According to a late tradition, the rabbis de-
clared uncleanness
upon the Scriptures:
Because originally food of terumah was
stored near the Scroll
of the Law, with the argument, This is
holy and that is holy.
But when it was seen that they (the
Sacred Books) came to
harm (apparently because of mice), the
Rabbis imposed un-
cleanness upon them.134
From its context, this particular
distinction seems to go back
to
the period when the temple was still standing. This seems to
be
supported by the presence of Sadducees in a similar type of
passage
in the Mishnah:
The Sadducees say: We complain against
you, 0 ye Phari-
sees, because you say that the Holy
Scriptures render unclean
the hands, but the books of Hamiram do not convey unclean-
ness to the hands. R. Johanan ben Zakkai
said: Have we
nothing against the Pharisees
excepting this? Behold they
say that the bones of an ass are
clean, yet the bones of
Johanan the
High Priest are unclean. They said to him:
Proportionate to the love for him, so
is their uncleanness, so
that nobody should make spoons out of
the bones of his father
or mother. He said to them: So also
the Holy Scriptures
proportionate to the love for them, so
is their uncleanness.
132 M, Yad.
4. 5.
133 M, Eduy.
5. 3, Yad. 4. 5-6; BT, Shabb.
14a, Meg. 7a; MR, Song
1.
1. 11.
134 BT, Shabb.
14a.
338
The books of Hamiram
which are not precious do not convey
uncleanness to the hands.135
Such a passage also seems to indicate
virtual identity between
the
concepts “Holy Scripture” and "books which render the
hands
unclean." Certainly it is true that a book which is not
Scripture
does not defile the hands, but another passage shows
us
that the converse is not necessarily true:
If an Aramaic section was written
(translated) in Hebrew,
or a Hebrew section was written
(translated) in Aramaic, or
Hebrew (Phoenician) script, it does
not render unclean the
hands. It never renders unclean the
hands until it is written
in the Assyrian (square) script, on
hide and in ink.136
Thus
"defiling the hands" is a ceremonial concept which does
not
apply to translations. It would seem that the stipulations
regarding
type of script and writing materials indicate that only
scrolls
which would be fit for reading in a worship service can
defile
the hands. So "books which defile the hands" is a some-
what
narrower concept than "Scripture."
Another concept common to rabbinical
discussions on the
canon
is that of "hiding" certain works.137 Unfortunately this
concept
is not explained as thoroughly as that of "books which
defile
the hands," although it is clear that "hiding a book"
cates disapproval. It
is possible that a book is considered hidden
when
its reading in public worship is forbidden, but it may be
that
even private reading of the book is thereby discouraged.
R.
Akiba is reported to have denied a place in the
"world to
come"
to those who read non-canonical books.138 The connec-
tion of "hiding
a book" with the synagogue geniza (hiding
place,
at least for worn-out copies of Scripture) or with the term
"apocrypha"
(hidden books) is not clear.
Having looked at the terminology used
in discussing the ques-
tion of the
canonicity of various books, let us consider the argu-
ments presented for
questioning various books. Only one work
is
ever explicitly charged with heresy, the book of Ecclesiastes.139
135 M, Yad.
4. 6.
136 M, Yad.
4. 5.
137 BT, Shabb.
13b, 30b; MR, Lev. 28. 1, Eccl. 1. 3. 1.
138 M, Sanh.
90a.
139 MR, Lev. 28. 1, Eccl. 1. 3.
1.
THE COUNCIL OF
JAMNIA 339
The
third verse, "What profit has a man in all his labor which
he
does under the sun?" was thought to deny the value of
studying
the Torah. This was reconciled by suggesting that
man's
profit from Torah will be given him "above the sun."140
Similarly,
the writer's exhortation to a young man to "walk in
the
ways of your heart" (11:9b) seemed to violate God's com-
mand to follow His
law rather than one's own desire (e.g.,
Num.
15:39). These were brought into agreement by noting the
context
(Eccl. 11:9c): "for all these things God will bring you
into
judgment."141
Several books, however, are charged
with lesser or internal
contradictions,
namely Ezekiel, Proverbs, and Ecclesiastes. In
the
case of Ezekiel, the contradiction is said to be with the
Torah.142
No details are given, but the problematic material
seems
to involve the predicted temple and liturgy foreseen in
chapter
40 and following. Hananiah the son of Hezekiah is
blessed
for having expended three hundred barrels of "mid-
night
oil" successfully to reconcile them, but his arguments are
not
recounted.143
Proverbs was claimed to be
self-contradictory because of
Proverbs
26:4,5:
Answer not a fool according to his
folly
lest you also be like him;
Answer a fool according to his folly,
lest he be wise in his own
conceit.
Here,
too, the rabbis managed to find a way to bring these words
into
agreement.144
Ecclesiastes was seen as both
self-contradictory and in dis-
agreement
with other Scripture.145 In addition to the passages
mentioned
above, Ecclesiastes 4:2 and 9:4 seemed divergent,
as
did the former when set beside Psalm 115:17. R. Tanhum
of
Neway solved these
with a long explanation.146 Another rabbi
140 Ibid.
141 MR, Eccl. 1. 3. 1.
142 BT, Shabb.
13b.
143 Ibid.
144 BT, Shabb.
30b.
145 BT, Shabb.
30.
146 BT, Shabb.
30a.
340
explains
that Ecclesiastes was not hidden because "it began and
ended
with words of Torah."147
A third reason for rejecting a book is
charged against Ec-
clesiastes: it has only
Solomon's wisdom rather than God's.148
It
is significant that some Bible-believing Christians today say
the
same thing. But the "words of Torah" with which Ecclesi-
astes closes do not
allow them this solution:
The preacher sought to find out
acceptable words, and that
which is written is upright, even
words of truth (12:10).
The subject matter of Song of Songs
was apparently respon-
sible for the
questions raised regarding it. R. Akiba's reactions
suggest
the nature of the problem. "All the Writings are holy,"
he
says, "and this is the holy of holies,"149 implying that
some
felt
the Song of Songs was not so holy. Similarly, "he who, at
a
banquet, renders the Song of Songs in a sing-song way, turn-
ing it into a common ditty, has no
share in the world to
come."150
Again it is significant that, even today, some Bible-
believers
are embarrassed by this book, feeling that allegorical
exegesis
is necessary to justify its canonicity.
The only problem mentioned in
connection with Esther is its
post-Mosaic
establishment of a religious festival,151 although
both
Esther's Purim and 1 Maccabees' Hanukah were then
being
observed. Perhaps the lack of any specific reference to
God
was also a problem.
No discussion arises over Ezra and
Daniel, but the citation
given
above regarding translations and unclean hands (p. 26)
is
immediately preceded by the remark, "The Aramaic sections
in
Ezra and Daniel render unclean the hands."152 Apparently
the
presence of long Aramaic passages concerned some. But
the
Mishnah here seems to affirm the belief that Aramaic
was
the
original language of these passages, that therefore that lan-
guage was to be used
in their public reading, and that not even
a
Hebrew translation of such was an adequate substitute.
147 BT, Shabb.
30b.
148 BT, Meg. 7a.
149 MR, Song 1. 1. 11.
150 Tos.,
Sanh. 12. 10.
151 BT, Meg. 7a.
152 M, Yad.
4. 5.
THE COUNCIL OF
JAMNIA 341
For the book of Ruth, the remaining
work which may have
come
under discussion,153 nothing is said of the problem in-
volved. Perhaps the
difficulty was reconciling Deut. 23:3 with
the
fact that Ruth was a Moabite.
Let us now attempt to date these
rabbinical discussions on
the
canon. Although a number of the references are too vague,
saying
only that the "Sages" gave some opinion,154 others are
more
specific.
Even while the temple was standing
(before A.D. 70) it
seems
that the rabbis discussed the extent of the canon. Ac-
cording
to the Mishnah:
R. Ishmael cites three instances of
lenient rulings by Beth
Shammai and
rigorous rulings by Beth Hillel. The Book of
Ecclesiastes does not defile the hands
according to the opin-
ion of Beth Shammai;
but Beth Hillel says: It defiles the
hands.155
R.
Simeon, a student of Akiba,156 reports the same opinion,
adding
that Ruth, Song of Songs, and Esther are to be con-
sidered Scripture.157
As Hillel and Shammai were active at the
beginning
of our era, their schools were in existence before the
fall
of
here,
it is probable that these discussions pre-date Jamnia.
A stonger
evidence of early canon discussion is given in the
Gemara:
In truth, that man, Hananiah son of Hezekiah by name, is to
be remembered for blessing: but for
him, the Book of Ezekiel
would have been hidden, for its words
contradicted the Torah.
What did he do? Three hundred barrels
of oil were taken up
to him and he sat in an upper chamber
and reconciled them.158
According
to the Mishnah
at this point, eighteen halakoth
were
enacted
on one day in the upper chamber of Hananiah ben Heze-
kaih ben Garon when Beth Shammai outvoted Beth Hillel.159
The
Gemara
further informs us that one of the rulings was
153 BT, Meg. 7a.
154 BT, Shabb.
30b; MR, Lev. 28. 1; Eccl. 1. 3. 1.
155 M, Eduy.
5. 3.
156 SITM, p. 115.
157 BT, Meg. 7a.
158 BT, Shabb.
13b.
159 M, Shabb.
13b.
342
that
terumah is
made unfit by contact with Scripture.160 Since
this
ruling is presupposed in the argument between Johanan
ben
Zakkai and the
Sadducees quoted above (note 135), it was prob-
ably
enacted before Jamnia. Since also Hananiah
ben Hezekiah
is
connected with the authorship of Megillat Ta'anit,161
and the
appendix
of that work mentions his son Eliezer, who is thought
to
have been one of the leading rebels in the first revolt against
the
Romans,162 it appears that this discussion occurred in the
last
generation before the destruction of the temple.163
Thus it appears that there was at
least one discussion regard-
ing canon, involving two groups,
Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel,
and
one named individual, Hananiah ben
Hezekiah, which gives
every
indication of having occurred before the fall of
in
A.D. 70.
In the period of Jamnia's
prominence we also find such dis-
cussions. The most
specific statement comes from R. Simeon
ben Azzai,
a contemporary of Akiba,164 who says that he has a
tradition
"from the seventy-two elders on the day when they
appointed
R. Eleazar ben Azariah head of the Academy" that
both
Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes defile the hands.165 This
specific
(though undated) day166 seems to have occurred some
time
after the death of R. Johanan ben
Zakkai. The number
seventy-two
suggests that the action was taken by the Great
Beth
Din rather than the Beth ha-Midrash (presumably the
"Academy"
mentioned here) or the special (?) group of 120
elders
who drew up the Eighteen Benedictions.l67
R. Judah, a student of Akiba,168
reports that Samuel rejected
the
Book of Esther.169 Presumably this is Samuel the Little, a
contemporary
of Gamaliel and Eleazar ben Azariah,170 so this
could
easily be the same incident mentioned above. Strangely
160 BT, Shabb. 13b.
161 Ibid.
162 Josephus, Jewish War 2, 17, 2 (409).
163 See Encyclopaedia
Judaica, IV, p. 738; XI, p. 1230.
164 SITM, p. 114.
165 M, Yad.
3. 5.
166 Also mentioned in BT, Ber. 27b.
167 BT, Meg. 17b.
168 SITM, p. 115.
169 BT, Meg. 7a.
170 SITM, pp. 110-12.
THE COUNCIL OF
JAMNIA 343
enough,
Samuel did not deny that Esther was inspired by the
Holy
Spirit, but rather he felt that it was not supposed to have
been
written down, presumably remaining as oral tradition.
In addition to these, we have the
remarks of R. Akiba on the
Song
of Songs171 and his condemnation of those who read non-
canonical
books.172 As Akiba was already a prominent
rabbi
when
Gamaliel II was temporarily deposed,173
these statements
in
themselves need not imply any later discussion. Elsewhere,
however,
we have R. Akiba's statements on both Ecclesiastes
and
Song of Songs174 in a context which seems to be a discus-
sion between
himself, R. Simeon ben. Azzai
mentioned above,
and
three of Akiba's later students,
In
a sense this is a discussion about the two previously-men-
tioned discussions of
the canon, as the controversy between
Beth
Shammai and Beth Hillel, and the making of R. Eleazar
ben Azariah
head of the Academy are both mentioned. Yet the
disagreement
among these men on just what was disputed and
what
was decided in these previous discussions seems to belie
any
widely-publicized decision. Presumably this last discussion,
involving
Akiba and his students, is set in the Beth ha-Midrash
rather
than the Beth Din.
Thus Jamnia
saw at least one discussion of canon in the Beth
Din
and, later, another in the Beth ha-Midrash. Probably
there
were
even more discussions among the rabbis on these matters
during
the Jamnia period, but there is no indication of a
special
council
for this.
But discussions and even arguments on
canon did not cease
with
Jamnia. About A.D. 200,176 R. Simeon ben Menasia
claims
that Ecclesiastes is not Scripture, as it contains only
Solomon's
wisdom.177 R. Tanhum of Neway is still discussing
apparent
contradictions in Ecclesiastes178 a century and a half
beyond
this.179
171 Tos.,
Sanh. 12. 10; MR, Song 1. 1. 11.
172 M. Sanh.
90a.
173 BT, Ber.
27b.
174 M, Yad.
3. 5.
175 SITM, p. 115.
176 SITM, p. 117.
177 BT, Meg. 7a.
178 BT, Shabb.
30a.
179 SITM, p. 131; Encyclopaedia Judaica, XV,
793.
344
Likewise the inspiration of Esther,
though favored earlier by
such
as Eleazar, Samuel, Akiba,
and Meir, is still being argued
by
Raba, Rabina, Joseph, and Nahman
ben Isaac180 late in the
fourth
century of our era.181 It
does not appear, therefore, that
any
earlier rabbinical decisions were viewed as ending all dis-
cussion.
So far, we have seen that the
canonicity of from six to eight
books
was discussed by the rabbis, all but one of which are in
the
third of the present divisions of the Hebrew Bible. Unless
one
considers the books of Hamiram to have been real candi-
dates
for canonicity, only books in the present canon were even
mentioned.
The defensive nature of the discussion
suggests that the rabbis
were
trying to justify the status quo rather than campaigning
for
or against candidates for admission. There is no hint that
any
of the books discussed was of recent vintage or of any other
than
traditional authorship. The questions which are raised, in
fact,
are just the sort that are still being raised today among
people
with similar theology and interests. These involve inter-
nal considerations only, and it
appears that no other lines of
questioning
were pursued.
Although the rabbis occasionally refer
to "decisions" in re-
gard to the canon,
reported discussions of these matters go back-
ward
to early rabbinical times (before A.D. 70) and forward
nearly
to A.D. 400. The question therefore arises whether the
rabbinical
discussions really contributed decisively to the ac-
ceptance of the works
discussed as Scripture or whether the
rabbis
were merely seeking to understand and defend their prior
acceptance.
To attempt to answer this, let us consider other early
Jewish
and Christian evidence regarding the Old Testament
canon.
Other Evidence
on the Canon
We shall not here attempt to catalogue
the earliest Jewish
references
to each of the Old Testament books for which can-
onicity was later
discussed by the rabbis. Most scholars concede
180 BT, Meg. 7a.
181 SITM, pp. 130, 132.
THE COUNCIL OF
JAMNIA 345
that
all were in existence nearly two centuries before Jamnia.182
Instead
let us examine early statements regarding the extent
of
the canon and groupings of the books included in it.
Among the oldest sources which give
numbers for the books
in
the Old Testament, at least two different enumerations are
found.
A twenty-two book count is given by Josephus183 (see
above,
note 1) as well as by several church fathers (Melito,
Origen,
Eusebius, Cyril of
Augustine)
who seem to be reporting Jewish enumerations.184
On the other hand, 4 Ezra seems to
picture twenty-four
books185
as known to the Jewish public. Such a count is also
seen
in the Talmud186 and in the Midrash Rabbah on Num-
bers.187
It is probable that, as suggested by Bentzen:
The difference is accounted for by
assuming that Josephus
combines Ruth with Judges,
Lamentations with Jeremiah,
and takes Ezra and Nehemiah as one
book, while 4 Esdras
probably regards Ruth and Lamentations
as separate books.188
Whether
it is also probable that Josephus's count was artifi-
cially reduced to
twenty-two to match the number of letters in the
Hebrew
alphabet, as Bentzen further suggests,189
is not so clear.
The
Midrash Rabbah on Numbers
associates the twenty-four
books
with the twenty-four priestly divisions.190 Eissfeldt,
for
instance,
believes that the twenty-two book count is the older.191
A
third, rather peculiar numbering of twenty-seven is found
in
an eleventh-century Greek manuscript containing the Didache
and
2 Clement.192 Here the books of the Old Testament are
given
in Greek together with a transliterated name for each,
some
from Hebrew and some from Aramaic. A list with the
182 E.g., Ryle, op. cit., pp.
177-78; Bentzen, op. cit., I, p. 26.
183 Josephus, Against Apion 1.
8 (38-41).
184 Eissfeldt,
op. cit., p. 569.
185 4 Ezra 14:44-45.
186 BT, B. B. 14b.
187 MR, Num. 14. 4, 15. 22.
188 Bentzen,
op. cit., I, p. 26.
189 Ibid.
190 MR, Num. 15. 22.
191 Eissfeldt,
op. cit., p. 569.
192 Jean-Paul Audet,
"A Hebrew-Aramaic List of Books of the Old
Testament
in Greek Transcription," Journal of
Theological Studies, new
series,
I (1950), 135-54.
346
same
count and names, but a more usual order, is given by
Epiphanius.193
Audet argues rather convincingly that the list is
at
least as old as the first half of the second century and prob-
ably
as old as the last half of the first century of our era. If so,
it
must receive consideration along with Josephus and 4 Ezra.
In this list the double-books are
divided, as is Ruth from
Judges,
though the twelve Minor Prophets are one book. La-
mentations is not
mentioned, either being combined with Jere-
miah or left out
altogether. As Lamentations was not questioned
by
any rabbis and was included in the list in Baba Bathra,194 the
first
alternative is not unreasonable. The order of books in this
list
is peculiar. Joshua is mixed in with the Pentateuch; Ruth,
Job,
Judges, and Psalms precede the historical works 1 Samuel
through
2 Chronicles, which are followed by Proverbs, Ec-
clesiastes, Song of Songs,
Jeremiah, the 12, Isaiah, Daniel, 1
Ezra,
2 Ezra (Nehemiah ?), and Esther.
From these sources, as well as from
the statements in Jo-
Josephus, 4 Ezra and the Talmud regarding the
cessation of
prophecy
about the time of Ezra (cited above, notes 1, 4, 7, 9),
and
in view of the New Testament use of "Scripture" as though
it
were a recognized body of material, it seems that there was a
popular
consensus on the books belonging to Scripture even
before
the end of the first century A.D. This consensus did not
extend
to the question of how these books were to be ordered
or
counted, but it did seem to be combined with the belief that
these
books had been known publicly since the time of Ezra.
As indicated at the beginning, it is
common among liberals to
see
in the threefold grouping found in Baba Bathra and in
the
medieval
Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible a "fossil" of the
canonization
process. This has a certain plausibility, as one may
trace
three sections back from Baba Bathra (c. A.D. 200) to
the
prologue of Ecclesiasticus (before 100 B.C.). But a
careful
examination
of the materials involved raises questions about
the
identity of the threefold divisions in Ecclesiasticus
and in
Baba
Bathra.
For one thing, Josephus (cited above,
note 1) also has a three-
193 Epiphanius,
Weights and Measures, 23.
194 BT, B. B. 14b.
THE COUNCIL OF
JAMNIA 347
fold
division of the Old Testament, but it differs from that of
Baba
Bathra. Although his first division is the Torah and
his
second
could as well be called "Prophets" as the second division
in
Baba Bathra, his third division contains only four
books,
designated
"hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of
human
life." Presumably these four are the Psalms, Proverbs,
Ecclesiastes,
and Song of Songs, though some might prefer to
replace
one of these by Job. Since this arrangement differs from
that
in the Talmud, we must ask which (if either) of these divi-
sions is found in
even earlier statements.
In the prologue to Ecclesiasticus
or Ben Sira,195 a threefold
division
is mentioned in slightly different words on three oc-
casions. In Charles's
edition we have "the Law and the Proph-
ets and the others who followed
after them" (lines 1-2),
"the
Law and the Prophets and the other books of our fathers"
(lines
5-6), and "the Law itself, and the Prophecies and the
rest
of the books" (lines 13-14). These terms could equally
well
fit the divisions of Josephus or the 'Talmud.
In Philo's discussion of the Theraputae, he mentions a room
for
contemplation into which members never take food or
such
things, but only "laws and oracles delivered through the
mouth
of prophets, and psalms and anything else which fosters
and
perfects knowledge and piety.”196 Here, if Scripture is in
view,
Colson's translation suggests a threefold division in which
the
third section is called "Psalms" (actually "hymns"). If one
were
to choose between the two, this would fit Josephus's classi-
fication better than
that of the Talmud. It is equally possible to
translate
the last part "psalms and other (books) which foster
and
perfect knowledge and piety," which would then yield either
a
fourth division or a twofold name for the third division. This
phrase
is in fact remarkably like Josephus's "hymns to God
and
precepts for the conduct of human life."
We have also Jesus' remark in Luke
24:44, where he refers
to
prophecies fulfilled in himself: "all the things written in the
law
of Moses and the prophets and psalms." If this is a state-
ment about the
grouping of books in the Old Testament rather
195 Charles, op. cit., I, 316-17.
196 Philo, Contemplative Life, 25 (475).
348
than
a list of those particular books which prophesied His
ministry,
then it fits Josephus's grouping far better than that
of
Baba Bathra.
In addition to these citations, the
Greek-Hebrew-Aramaic
list
mentioned above and the ordering of books in the lists of
the
church fathers and early uncial Greek manuscripts197 should
warn
us against too facile assumptions regarding some definite
grouping
being preserved through more than three centuries
from
Ben Sira's grandson to Baba Bathra,
particularly when
codices
do not begin to replace scrolls until about the end of
the
first century A.D. It is quite possible, as suggested by Bloch,
Bleek,198
Wilson,199 and MacRae,200 that the Talmudic division
is
a later development related to synagogue usage: only those
books
read at Sabbath services in conjunction with the Torah
were
retained in the second division; the others were moved
to
the third section.
Conclusions
In
this paper we have attempted to study the rabbinical activ-
ity at Jamnia
in view of liberal theories regarding its importance
in
the formation of the Old Testament canon. I believe the
following
conclusions are defensible in the light of this study.
The city of
Midrash) and court
(Beth Din, Sanhedrin) during the period
A.D.
70-135, if not earlier. There is no conclusive evidence for
any
other rabbinical convocations there.
The extent of the sacred Scriptures
was one of many topics
discussed
at Jamnia, probably both in the school and in the
court,
and probably more than once. However, this subject was
197 Henry B. Swete
and Richard R. Ottley, An Introduction to the Old
Testament in
Greek (New
York: KTAV, 1968, reprint of 2nd edn., 1914),
pp.
201-14.
198 William Henry Green, Introduction to the Old Testament: The
Canon (New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1898), p. 90.
199 Robert Dick Wilson, Studies in the Book of Daniel (2 vols.;
Grand
Rapids,
1938),
II, 61, 64.
200 Allan A. MacRae,
unpublished class notes in Old Testament Intro-
duction, Faith
Theological Seminary, Fall, 1967.
THE COUNCIL OF
JAMNIA 349
also
discussed by the rabbis at least once a generation earlier
and
also several times long after the Jamnia period.
No books are mentioned in these
discussions except those
now
considered canonical. None of these are treated as candi-
dates
for admission to the canon, but rather the rabbis seem to
be
testing a status quo which has existed beyond memory. None
of
the discussions hint at recent vintage of the works under con-
sideration or deny them
traditional authorship. Instead it ap-
pears
that the rabbis are troubled by purely internal problems,
such
as theology, apparent contradictions, or seemingly unsuit-
able
content.
The books discussed are not all in the
present third division
of
the Hebrew Bible known as the Writings, Kethubim, or
Hagiographa, and therefore
it does not appear that the distinc-
tion between the
second and third division has anything to do
with
the history of the Old Testament canon. In fact, it is not
clear
that the present threefold division goes back into the first
century
A.D. At the least, such an arrangement faced strong
competition
from other groupings in this period. The suggestion
of
Wilson and others for a later origin of this grouping seems
to
fit the available evidence better than that of a three-stage
canonization.
The decisions of the rabbis in the
canonical discussions at
Jamnia and elsewhere
doubtless had some influence in what
became
orthodox Judaism, for these discussions, together with
thousands
on a vast array of other subjects, eventually became
a
part of the Babylonian Talmud and other early rabbinical
literature.
But no text of any specific decision has come down
to
us (nor, apparently, even to Akiba and his students).
Rather,
it
appears that a general consensus already existed regarding the
extent
of the category called Scripture, so that even the author
of
4 Ezra, though desiring to add one of his own, was obliged
to
recognize this consensus in his distinction between public
and
hidden Scripture.
Biblical
:
Chestnut
Hill
|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| The Orthodox Faith (Dogma) || Family and Youth || Sermons || Bible Study || Devotional || Spirituals || Fasts & Feasts || Coptics || Religious Education || Monasticism || Seasons || Missiology || Ethics || Ecumenical Relations || Church Music || Pentecost || Miscellaneous || Saints || Church History || Pope Shenouda || Patrology || Canon Law || Lent || Pastoral Theology || Father Matta || Bibles || Iconography || Liturgics || Orthodox Biblical topics || Orthodox articles || St Chrysostom ||
|| Bible Study || Biblical topics || Bibles || Orthodox Bible Study || Coptic Bible Study || King James Version || New King James Version || Scripture Nuggets || Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus || Index of the Miracles of Jesus || Index of Doctrines || Index of Charts || Index of Maps || Index of Topical Essays || Index of Word Studies || Colored Maps || Index of Biblical names Notes || Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids || New Testament activities for Sunday School kids || Bible Illustrations || Bible short notes|| Pope Shenouda || Father Matta || Bishop Mattaous || Fr. Tadros Malaty || Bishop Moussa || Bishop Alexander || Habib Gerguis || Bishop Angealos || Metropolitan Bishoy ||
|| Prayer of the First Hour || Third Hour || Sixth Hour || Ninth Hour || Vespers (Eleventh Hour) || Compline (Twelfth Hour) || The First Watch of the midnight prayers || The Second Watch of the midnight prayers || The Third Watch of the midnight prayers || The Prayer of the Veil || Various Prayers from the Agbia || Synaxarium