The Jewish Canon of Scripture (Tanak) was written over a period of Millennia, and was most likely recognised as Scripture in various stages.
It is reasonably clear that 'the Law' (Genesis - Deuteronomy) was the first to receive popular recognition as Scripture, and did so before c.170 BC, perhaps even as early as or earlier than c.450 BC. The set of Books known as 'the Prophets' were probably recognised c.170 BC but definitely recognised as authoritative by the early 1st Century AD. 'The Writings' were the last to receive popular recognition as a distinct group, but probably achieved this during the 1st Century AD, perhaps earlier.
The first exact time we can give as to an 'official canon' will most likely be c.100 AD at the Councils of Jabne (or Jamnia), where it is widely believed that doubts over Ecclesiastes and Song of Solomon were put to rest and the Canon set and recognised by most Jews.
While it is impossible to directly ascertain the criteria for acceptance into the canon, it seems that canonisation was a result of authorship by a recognised Prophet (implying Divine inspiration) and a self-evident authority derived from within the text itself.
The Christian Old Testament is a direct result of the Formation of the Jewish Canon of Scripture: the Tanak. The word "Tanak" (TNK) itself stands for the division of the Hebrew Bible into Torah (or Law), Nebhi'im (or Prophets) and Kethubhim (or Writings). As discussed in the "Evidence from the New Testament" section below, the Jewish Canon was adopted as part of the Christian canon, and as such, the below traces the history of the formation of the Jewish Canon of Scripture.
A canon is a fixed list of books that are each considered by a community to be “authoritative” in some way and “complete”, that is, not open to modification (except in the circumstance where a more accurate rendering of the text has been found). The term ‘canon’ is of Greek origin, and means “straight rod” or “rule”, and to Christians came to mean “the rule of faith” and represented the authoritative word of God also known as the Holy Bible.
It appears that the Jews of antiquity had no equivalent term to ‘canon’, as it is not until the rabbis of the First Century AD and following that a somewhat equivalent meaning is found in the expression ‘renders the hands impure’ or ‘defiles the hands’. It is inferred that the Scriptures that were suitable to be read in the Synagogue were said to ‘defile the hands’ as their holiness made them somewhat taboo (just as the high priest was to wash before and after putting on the holy garments of his office on the great Day of Atonement in Leviticus 16:24). That the Jews of Antiquity did not have a special term for their authoritative Scriptures does not mean that there was not a distinction made between authoritative texts and non-authoritative texts; it is reasonably clear that throughout the history of the Jews certain works have enjoyed differing levels of authority while clearly, others received none at all.
The OT itself does not present us with any detailed information regarding its canonisation, however, certain passages serve to indicate the respect the Jewish people of the time had for the Law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy). For example, according to 2 Kings 22, when the young king Josiah heard from the Book of the Law found while repairing the temple, he ‘tore his robes’ and instituted a reform among his people based on the laws he found within. Similarly, Nehemiah 8-9 records Ezra reading from “the Book of the Law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded for Israel” and the subsequent repentance of the Israelites. From these two (and other) examples (especially the latter which is dated at 444 BC) we see evidence of a general respect for the five Books of the Law, and a certain authority placed upon them which could only indicate an unofficial canonisation of the five.
The next extant evidence pertaining to our study is that of the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Scriptures. It is said that Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-247 BC) initiated the work of translating the Jewish Scriptures into the Greek Septuagint, as he was incredibly fond of books and sought to build up a library. It appears Ptolemy received only a translation of the five Books of the Law, and that the rest of the Tanak was translated over the following century, as there seems to be a lack of unity in the plan for the rest of the translation, indicating many different translators.
It is not totally clear today what the original contents of the Septuagint were, as the earliest copy extant can be dated to c.350 AD, five hundred years after the original translation was made. Today’s Septuagint contains canonical and Apocryphal books in an order (or lack of order) indicating that no distinction was made between them, and it is entirely possible that the content changed significantly since the days of Ptolemy. Further to this, Ptolemy was interested in the translation for purely literary reasons; he probably in no way represented a Jewish opinion of the texts, therefore the evidence of the Septuagint can only conclusively tell us that a ‘process of canonisation’ was occurring, but was not yet complete; that is, the Jews certainly had a body or collection of texts (the Law probably being “unofficially canonised”), each with a certain amount of authority, but definitive conclusions had not been reached concerning many if any of them.
In approximately 170 BC, Jesus ben Sirach produced a book of wisdom entitled “Ecclesiasticus” in which a hymn is recorded that mentions and esteems the heroes of Israel. This is important to our study as the author makes explicit reference to the twelve prophets and indeed to most of the famous men of the OT, indicating that the minor prophets were already recognised in his day as a special group and that the majority of texts that would form the OT had been recognised and set apart in some way by the Jews. However, it also seems apparent from his writing that he sees his own work on a similar level to these, indicating either that the canon was not closed or that only parts of the canon were closed (for example, the Law and the Prophets), but there was other authoritative work similar to his own that had not yet received this authority.
The work of Ben Sirach was later translated by his grandson c.132 BC into Greek, at which time he also added a preface or prologue of his own. This preface becomes our first evidence for a “tripartite division” (that is, “three part division”) of the Tanak (OT), as he refers to “the Law and the Prophets and the others that have followed them”, “the Law and the Prophets and the other books of our ancestors”, and “the Law and the Prophecies and the rest of the books.” Roger Beckwith notes that although the third section had not yet been given a definite name, the use of the definite article and the expression “the rest of” suggests that it already had fixed content.1 So we see that by c.130 BC we have the appearance of a canon (albeit as far as we can tell ‘unofficial’), probably closed with respect to the Law and the Prophets, and perhaps closed or nearing closure with the “other” literature.
The Christian New Testament offers great insight into the then-current acceptance of the Jewish texts. Scholars differ over the time period within which the New Testament was written, but most remain within the latter First and very early Second Century AD. Various passages within the New Testament speak of “the scripture”, “holy scriptures”, and “sacred writings”2 indicating again the existence of some body of recognised text, although no mention is made specifically of what texts form this body, and why they and not others are considered authoritative. Further references to “the Law”, “the Law and the Prophets”, and especially to “the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms”3 indicates the division of the Tanak (OT), and Jesus’ statement in the Gospel According to John, that “the scripture cannot be broken”4 certainly indicates that the scripture was held in the highest authority - whatever that scripture was.
We also notice in the New Testament that the titles “the Law” and “the Prophets” often did not just refer to the sections in the Tanak which carry those names; that is, “the Law” often referred to the whole Tanak, and “the Law and the Prophets” often incorporates “the Writings” as well. For example, in John 10:34; 11:34 and 15:25, texts from the Prophets and Psalms are quoted as from “the Law”; similarly, in 1 Corinthians 14:21 Paul speaks of Isaiah 28:11 as part of “the Law”. It is also important to note that the New Testament writers never apply such titles to texts that form the Apocrypha.
Another indication from the New Testament that the Tanak was closed by the time of writing, is a passage in the Gospel According to Matthew (mirrored in the Gospel According to Luke), where Jesus speaks of “all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah”5. Clearly Jesus, when beginning his list of the murdered prophets with Abel and ending with Zechariah, is implying the complete history of the Israelites as recorded in the Scriptures. This can be inferred as the Tanak begins with the book of Genesis, which records the murder of Abel, and ends with Chronicles, in which Zechariah’s murder is the last to be recorded; but these are not chronologically correct. (If Jesus were attempting to cover chronological history, he would have listed Uriah son of Shemiah last instead of Zechariah.) The only logical explanation for this is that the canon existed at the time of Jesus and ended with Chronicles (as it does today), and as such Jesus listed the first and last prophets in the canon to be murdered. From this we can reasonably deduce that the canon existed in a widely recognised form by the time of Jesus, though probably not “officially”.
While the Christian Church largely adopted the Hebrew Scriptures as canonical, it is most important to note as Christians that the Old Testament was 'vouched for' by Jesus and the Apostles. They considered it Scripture, therefore we should too. The canonisation of the Old Testament to Christians is, in fact arguably the 'easiest' canonisation process of either the New Testament, Old testament or the Tanak to the Jews because of this. The question remains, "to what were Jesus and the Apostles referring when they mentioned 'the Scriptures'?" and "which Scripture was it that Jesus said 'could not be broken'?".
It seems that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament quoted from most non-Apocryphal Old Testament books giving them authority, but did not quote from Apocryphal books at all. However, some New Testament Books (such as Jude) make allusions to Apocryphal works, though do not quote them. It is for this reason that the Roman Catholic Church and Protestant churches are in divide over the contents of the Old Testament, as Protestants follow the Hebrew Bible (which does not contain the Apocrypha), whereas Roman Catholics follow the Greek version of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Septuagint mentioned above), which does contain the Apocrypha. (Some Protestant Churches allow the Apocrypha as 'a guide to daily living', but not to alter or guide belief or theology.)
Further evidence for a closed canon comes with the First Century AD text of 2 Esdras. While the claims of 2 Esdras chapter fourteen are generally recognised to be legendary rather than factual,6 the contents are nevertheless important. The text teaches that Ezra was directly responsible for the “twenty-four” texts that made up the Jewish canon, as well as seventy others that ‘remain hidden except to those worthy to read them’. The importance to our study is the set number of texts (twenty-four) that the author obviously expected his audience to associate with the Jewish canon. Regardless of whether the story is fictional or not, this is clear evidence that a canon was at least recognised by the Jewish people consisting of twenty-four books by the end of the First Century AD. It can be reasonably assumed that these twenty-four are the same twenty-four7 recognised as the Tanak (& OT) today.
Flavius Josephus, the Ancient Jewish historian, also provides us with evidence of a closed canon by the end of the First Century AD. In his work Against Apion, he writes as follows:
For we have not an innumerable multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradicting one another, [as the Greeks have,] 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, which contain his laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. This interval of time was little short of three thousand years; but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, 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. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like authority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath not been an exact succession of prophets since that time; and how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own nation is evident by what we do; for during so many ages as have already passed, no one has been so bold as either to add any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any change in them; but it is become natural to all Jews immediately, and from their very birth, to esteem these books to contain Divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion be willingly to die for them.8
From this passage we can take several points of interest; first, that the number of books that Josephus recognised numbered twenty-two (which is probably equivalent to the twenty-four of 2 Esdras9, with Ruth and Judges counted as one Book and similarly Lamentations and Jeremiah counted as one) and classifies them according to a three-fold division. We also read that the Prophetic canon was ‘closed’ to him, as ‘there hadn't been a true Prophet since the time of Artaxerxes.’ This isn't to say that the canon was officially closed, but that it was essentially treated as such by the Jewish people. Further, Josephus recounts the utter respect with which the Jews held those texts: ‘no one has made any changes to any of them, all hold them to contain Divine authority and would be willing to die for them.’ From Josephus’ account then, we can conclude that the canon surely existed unofficially and had not been altered for some time, by the end of the First Century AD.
Finally, according to the Mishnah, two councils were held at Jabne (or Jamnia) in 90 and 118 AD at which the books of the Tanak were discussed, and by many reports “canonised”. While it is not clear what exactly occurred, it appears that a century-long dispute between the Jewish parties of the Hillel and Shimmai over the Song of Solomon and the Book of Ecclesiastes was resolved and the Tanak as we know it was agreed upon. Thus for the first time we have an official decision regarding the Tanak which will be the closest we can come to finding the point at which an ‘agreed’ canon was born; although in all likelihood the canon existed unofficially among the Jewish people for centuries previous.
The Canon since the Councils at Jabne has by no means enjoyed complete acceptance. The Jews of the Second Century argued over the need to remove Proverbs, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes and Esther; and today the Hebrew canon is followed not only by the Jews but by Protestants and some Orthodox Churches; whereas the Septuagint version (which includes the Apocrypha) is followed by Roman Catholics and some Orthodox Churches; which together shows the lack of conformity over those texts.
The above evidences also fail to mention reasons for canonicity. While it is clear that such works as the Five of the Law enjoy authority derived from Moses, and similarly the texts that make up the Prophets and the Writings are held in high esteem due to their authorship, there is not much documentation underlining this supposition. In addition to these factors, Beckwith also cites a self-evident spiritual authority of the texts themselves as contributing towards their recognition, as well as the possibility that the books had come to be laid up in the Temple as sacred influencing the view of the general Jewish congregation.10
We see from reading of the evidence as presented above that any conclusions made as to the formation of the Tanak in a specific time period will be rather spurious; the evidence presented in no way conclusively finds the time in which the Tanak was first recognised as Scripture.
Indeed, while we can say that certainly by the time of Jabne the Tanak had been canonised, we equally say that in the congregation of Jews, those books which would make up the Tanak had already been accepted as authoritative Scripture previously.
As regards the timing of the formation of the Hebrew Scriptures and the “unofficial canon” then, we can at best surmise that the ‘canon’ of the Law was established before the time of Ben Sirach and his Ecclesiasticus (170 BC), perhaps even as early as the mid-Fifth Century BC; and the set of ‘Prophets’ was generally established, or at least in good order by the time of Ben Sirach (c.170 BC) and certainly widely accepted as authoritative by the time of the writing of the Gospels (mid-First Century AD); and finally that the Wisdom literature was the last to receive wide acceptance, perhaps still being discussed in the First Century AD, although certainly receiving completion by the end of that Century.
As regards the Official recognition of these as canonical Scripture, we can at best record this as accomplished at the Councils of Jabne by the beginning of the Second Century, and was recognised by most Jews. While it is impossible to directly ascertain the criteria for acceptance into the canon, it seems that canonisation was a result of authorship by a recognised Prophet (implying Divine inspiration) and a self-evident authority derived from within the text itself.
1 Roger T. Beckwith, "Canon: Canon of the Hebrew Bible and the Old Testament" article in Metzger, B.M. & Coogan, M.D. (Eds.), The Oxford Companion to the Bible, Oxford University Press, 1993, p.101. (jump back to text)
2 Matthew 22:29; John 10:35; 19:36; Acts 18:24; Romans 1:2; 2 Timothy 3:15; 2 Peter 1:20 (jump back to text)
3 John 10:34; 12:34; 15:25; Luke 24:44 (jump back to text)
4 John 10:35 (jump back to text)
5 Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:51. (jump back to text)
6 2 Esdras 14 contains the story of Ezra the Prophet seeking to restore the lost Scriptures of his people and so praying to God, who agrees and gives Ezra a drink of ‘something like water, but that looked like fire,’ after which he talked for forty days straight, dictating the Scriptures to five scribes. After the forty days were complete, God told him to make public the twenty-four books written first (thus replacing what had been lost), but to hold onto a further seventy he had written, and give them only to the truly wise. (jump back to text)
7 The number ‘twenty-four’ is the result of one of arguably the principal of three ways of counting the texts in the Tanak. The Law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) consisted of five books, there are also the four books of the so-called “Former Prophets” (Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel [counted as one book], 1 & 2 Kings [counted as one book]), the four so-called “Latter Prophets” (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the twelve ‘minor’ prophets [counted as one book]); the Writings consisted of eleven books (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Solomon, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah and 1 & 2 Chronicles [counted as one book]), giving a total of twenty-four. The number twenty-two was sometimes used as a representation of the same texts with Ruth appended to Judges and Lamentations appended to Jeremiah (it is suggested that this number was sought-after in order to align with the number of letters in the Jewish alphabet [22]). Still others divided Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah and Jeremiah-Lamentations to get twenty-seven texts. (jump back to text)
8 Josephus, Against Apion, 1.viii. (jump back to text)
9 See foot. 7, above. (jump back to text)
10 Beckwith, op. cit., p.100. (jump back to text)