BACKGROUNDS FOR READING THE BIBLE agint and of the New Testament dating from before the 4th century ce. More useful is the Vulgate, the translation prepared in the 4th century by the great biblical scholar and early church father Jerome. Jerome worked directly from the Hebrew text of the time, and his ver- sion therefore can be helpful in determining, how his Hebrew text might have read. It cannot be emphasized sufficiently that textual criticism is as much an art as a science. For this reason, and because the Masoretic ‘Text has been the favored Jewish text for the ESSAYS Bible for over a millennium (the consonantal basis for this text is clearly ancient—it is the predominant text-type found at Qumran), the translators of the NJPS have based their trans- lation on the MT. Yet the MT is not perfect, nor is it the only ancient reflection of the text that has come down to us. Therefore at times notes to the NJPS text and various annota- tions call attention to other possible ancient readings that deserve the reader's attention. [ADELE BERLIN AND MARC 2VI BRETTLER] The Canonization of the Bible Canonization, broadly construed as the pro- cess through which the Bible became the Bible, is only vaguely understood. We do not know exactly how various books were chosen to be part of the Bible to the exclusion of oth- ers, how these books were put into a particu- lar order, and how their text was established Since there are no contemporaneous docu- ments that describe this process, it needs to be reconstructed from indirect evidence, namely, from the variety of biblical texts from different periods and places that have survived, and from later traditions in rabbinic and other sources that discuss canonization. Thus, the reconstruction. suggested below should be viewed as tentative. Definitions “Canon” is a Greek word meaning “reed,” and came to refer to any straight stick that could be used for measuring. This basic meaning was extended to refer to any rule or standard by which things could be compared or judged. The Alexandrian grammarians, classical Greek writers who were not simply grammarians but also what we would call lit- erary critics, used. “canon” as their term for the list of standard or classic authors who were worthy of attention and imitation. This was not a closed category, and there were di putes about adding or removing works from the list. Furthermore, inclusion on the list merely recognized a work's quality; it did not confer upon it any new status. Nevertheless, a canon of writings came to denote those texts that were of central importance to a given group. The term is used somewhat impre- cisely for the Bible, since the earliest evidence we have for understanding the development of the Tanakh does not come from book lists. Furthermore, when used in reference to the Bible, canon has an even stronger sighifi- cance: Not only is a given set of texts in- cluded, but all other texts—no matter how worthy otherwise—are excluded. This sense is expressed in a rabbinic comment on Eccl. 12.12. The biblical text reads: Of anything beyond these [Heb meena], my child, beware. Of making many books there is no end, The rabbinic comment states: ‘Those who bring more than twenty-four books [the standard number in the Tanakh; see below] into their house introduce con- fusion [Heb mehumal] into their house (Eccl. Rab, 12:12). This suggests not only that the works in the canon are important, but that they, along with their authoritative interpretation, are suffi- =2072— ESSAY cient in a canon we to it or st books in | canons of thought c ‘The Tana It is extre ception ¢ connectec eventual: the mi that the ¢ at Yavnel ranean center of. of the Se this theo about go tain book meeting, supposed edged. thi wrong an of rabbini this are canonical flecting ci lar biblic which we canonical fortunate clear pict was form early Jew Scrolls, r2 historian ambiguot This m did not 6 but rathe ment that Bible toby as centra’ this hap had assox eeESSAYS cient in and of themselves. Once the biblical canon was fixed, there could be no additions to it or subtractions from it. More important, books in the biblical canon, unlike those in the canons of the Greek grammarians, came to be thought of as divinely inspired. ‘The Tanakh . It is extremely difficult to trace how this con- ception of canon developed, and how it is connected to related notions, such as the eventual stabilization of the biblical text. Until the mid-2oth century, many scholars thought that the canon of the Tanakh was established at Yavneh (Jamnia), a city near the Mediter- ranean coast, west of Jerusalem, that was a center of Jewish learning after the destruction of the Second Temple (70 cz). According to this theory, a group of Rabbis met there in about 90 ce and voted on whether or not cer- tain books are canonical; at the end of this ‘meeting, the official contents of the Bible were supposedly established. It is now acknowl- edged that this overly neat reconstruction is wrong and was based on a misunderstanding of rabbinic texts. The rabbinic texts that tell of this are no longer understood as granting canonical status, but are now viewed as re~ flecting certain ambivalences toward particu- lar biblical books, such as Song of Songs, which were already in the canon, and whose canonical presence needed to be justified. Un- fortunately, evidence is not available to offer a clear picture of how the canon of the Bible ‘was formed, since much of the material from early Jewish sources (including the Dead Sea Scrolls, rabbinic texts, and the 1st century cE historian Josephus) and Christian sources, is ambiguous or biased. ‘This much is clear: the canon of the Bible did not develop at a single moment in time but rather in stages. There is general agree- ment that the Torah was the first section of the Bible to be canonized, that is, to be recognized as central by the community. Exacily when this happened is uncertain. Many scholars had associated this development with Ezra, THE CANONIZATION OF THE BIBLE and they saw the “law of your God” (Ezra 7-14), with which Ezra was entrusted in the 5th century sce, as the Torah. We now recog- nize, however, that this assertion goes beyond the evidence of the text. Though the Jewish community had recognized the Torah as cen- tral to its identity by the Persian period (6th to 4th centuries), a conclusion suggested by cita- tions of Torah material as authoritative in bib- lical books from this period (for example, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah), it is unclear ex- actly how this happened, or whether this de- velopment should be associated primarily with a single individual such as Ezra, or should be seen as part of a larger, more com- plicated process that likely began during, the Babylonian exile. According to rabbinic tradition, the Torah is the first part of a tripartite (three-part) canon, followed by Nevi'im (Prophets) and Kethu- vim (Writings), forming a work that much later wes known by the acronym Tanak(h), Torah, Nevi'im, Kethuvim. Nevi'im is com- posed of Joshua, Judges, Samuel (seen as one book), Kings (seen as one book)—historical works known as “the former prophets”—and “the latter prophets,” consisting of Isaiah, Jer- emiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve minor proph- ets (Hosea through Malachi, seen as one book). The order of these eight books has been relatively stable. Kethuvim is composed of the following eleven books, which, by con- trast, appear in a wide variety of orders in various book lists and biblical manuscripts: Psalms, Proverbs, Job; the “five scrolls,” whose order has been especially variable, Ruth, Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Lamen- tations, and Esther; Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah (seen as one book), and Chronicles (seen as one book). The number of canonical books ac- cording to traditional Jewish sources is thus twenty-four (five in the Torah, eight in Nevi'im, eleven in Kethuvim). The time of origin of the name “Tanakh” is not clear. Rabbinic texts recognize a tripartite canon, where the names we know of, Torah, Nevi'im and Kethuvim, are used for each part of the canon. Their Aramaic equivalent ‘oraita, —2073—BACKGROUNDS FOR READING THE BIBLE nevi'ei ukdtived (b. Kid, 4ga) could be used as a general term for the Bible as a whole though in classical rabbinic literature this cumber- some locution is not generally employed for the Bible. (Rabbinic literature prefers the terms migra’ [that which is read] and kitvei hhakodesh [the holy writings}.) The acronym Tanakh is first found in Masoretic literature in the form of ’n”k (from the Aramaic ‘oraita, nevi'ei ullitivei—Masoretic notes are typically in Aramaic). Tanakh, a Hebrew reflection of this Masoretic term, is also found in Masoretic literature. It would thus seem that the term originates in the late first millennium, with the flourishing of the “Masoretic movement.” Incontrast to earlier Jewish terms for the Bible which did not explicitly distinguish between different parts of the canon, the term Tanakh may be understood as creating clearer divid- ing lines between the canonical sections, in some cases even (explicitly) suggesting prior- ity of Torah over Nevi'im and Neviim over Kethuvim. ‘The origin of the tripartite canon has been a topic of recent dispute, with several scholars suggesting that a two-part canon, the Torah and other works, was the original form, and that only later was it divided into three parts. It is more likely, however, that the tripartite canon is primary, and evidence for it appears in such sources as the prologue to the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach, which says that “many great teachings have been given to us through the Law and the Prophets and the others (or, other books) that followed them” and Luke 24.44, Which refers to “the law of Moses, the prophets, and thie psalms,” and in parallel ex- pressions in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The tripar- lite canon likely reflects the gradual nature of the canonization process, with Nevi'im can- onized before Kethuvim. This would explain why the Kethuvim contain the book of the prophet Daniel (dating from the 2nd century cE), and several late historical books, such as Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles, which would seem more appropriately to belong with simi- lar works such as Joshua and Kings. The tri- partite canon most likely suggests, therefore, ESSAYS that Torah was canonized in the Persian pe- riod, followed by the canonization of Nevi'im in the late Persian or early Greek period, while the Kethuvim were canonized last, around the time of the destruction of the Sec- ‘ond Temple (70 cr). The tripartite order is not the only one known in antiquity, nor is the number of twenty-four books the only number men- tioned in ancient Jewish sources. Josephus, the Jewish historian of the ast century cr, refers to twenty-two biblical books (Against Apion 1.42). It is not clear if he simply had a smaller canon or if, instead, his canon had the texts in a different order, combined in dif- ferent ways. Some traditions put Ruth after Judges and Lamentations after Jeremiah, treating these smaller books as appendices to the ones they follow, rather than as indepen- dent works. Such an arrangement would yield twenty-two books, a number which con- veniently corresponds to the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet; some early Christian sources also cite this as the number of books in the Bible. The arrangement of Ruth and Lamentations mentioned above is found in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Bible begun in Alexandria, Egypt, in the 3rd century ace (see “Jewish Translations: of the Bible,” pp. 2005-20). According to this origi- nally Jewish tradition, mentioned in some early church fathers and. reflected in. the arrangement of the earliest’ comprehensive Septuagint manuscripts (4th century ce), the Hebrew Bible is divided into four parts: Torah, Histories, Poetical and Wisdom books, and Prophets. This order continues to be used by Christians in their organization of the He- brew Bible (Old Testament) materials (see chart at the end of this essay). Older scholar- ship spoke of this four-part, twenty-two book arrangement as the Alexandrian canon, in contrast to the tripartite, twenty-four book Palestinian canon, but scholars now recognize that such a clear dichotomy never existed and therefore avoid the use of those terms. Scholars also now recognize that even ‘when canonization took place, the contents of ear ESSA the Bibl evidence the tex flected i this per early re suppost Second of the « caused sponsib These w to reme ideas at likely tl whose t diately Commo since nc been fo ments ¢ scripts ¢ and Exc work's Dead S canonice ture, the or Eccle: same for thus, in bis. The “the” ca there wa variabili This £ tensive ¢ ing of t scripts f Bible in to a less (see “Tex 72). The asa var often ma There are or more ferent ve merely ts pase —ESSAYS the Bible did not absolutely freeze. Yet, some evidence suggests that by the and century cE the text had largely stabilized—this is re- flected in the (few) manuscripts we have from this period, as well as the development of early rabbinic midrash, much of which pre- supposes a stable text. The destruction of the Second ‘Temple and the Hadrianic persecution of the early and century cz may have also caused a type of conservatism which was re- sponsible for establishing “the” biblical text: These were gradual processes. It is important to remember that other grouips, too, had their ideas about the canon; for instance, it is un- likely that the Qumran community, most of whose texts date from a century or so imme- diately before and immediately after the Common Era, viewed Esther as canonical, since no manuscript of that biblical book has been found among the thousands of frag- ments discovered. In contrast, many manu- scripts of jubilees, a work similar to Genesis and Exodus, have survived, and given this work’s affinities with the practices of the Dead Sea community, it was probably a canonical text for them. Within rabbinic litera- ture, the Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach (Sirach or Ecclesiasticus) is sometimes cited with the same formula used for biblical texts and was thus, in some sense, canonical for some Rab- bis. Therefore, although we may speak of ‘the” canon forming in the 1st century ce, there was a certain amount of flexibility or variability around the fringes. This flexibility may also be seen in the ex- tensive divergence with respect to the word- ing of the biblical text as shown in manu- scripts from Qumran, in translations of the Bible in the Septuagint and elsewhere, and to a lesser extent in early rabbinic citations (see “Textual Criticism of the Bible,” pp. 2067— 72). These differences are not just small, such as a variant spelling here or there, but are often major, and affect the meaning of the text. ‘There are cases where the text is found in two or more different recensions—identifiably dif- ferent versions, revisions, or critical texts, not merely two different copies of the same origi- THE CANONIZATION OF THE BIBLE nal with minor variants—which may simply vary the order of materials or may exhibit fundamentally different text-types (for exam- ple, short types versus expansive types, as with the text of Jeremiah; see the introduction to Jeremiah). This evicence suggests that, at least in the early stages of the canonization process, it was quite acceptable for a book to Circulate in different versions and that differ- ent communities may have canonized differ- ent versions of the same book. ‘The most basic question is why particular texts were canonized while others were not. Canonized texts within Jewish tradition were considered part of migra’ —"that which is read (eloud)” or kitvet ha-kodesh—"the holy Scrip- tures” (to use rabbinic designations). Ex- cluded texts in some cases had been trans- lated in the Septuagint and were therefore canonized in the Christian community; others were lost, or survived as pseudepigrapha (writings falsely attributed to major biblical figures), or were preserved only in fragmen- tary form in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some of these excluded texts date from after the Per- sian period (later than 332 BCE), and thus were seen as too recent to be eligible for inclusion in the canon In various ways, canonical status for a book or group of books has to do with the commu- nity's views of their centrality, authority, sa~ credness, and inspiration. Over time these characteristics have become connected, insep- arably so in some traditions; yet they are not identical, and though they overlap, they must still be viewed distinctly. The Song of Songs, for instance, was originally an erotic love poem; by the early rabbinic period, it came to be interpreted allegorically as a love poem be- tween God and Israel. It was also seen as the inspired composition of Solomon himself. Why was it canonized? Was it canonized be- fore it was seen as a holy, allegorical text? In that case, its canonization might reflect a cen- tral role that it held in culture or ritual. Or was it canonized only after it was viewed as alle- gorical and as a composition of Solomon? In that case its significance, whether of author-BACKGROUNDS FOR READING THE BIBLE ESSAYS CANONS OF THE BILE Jovan etait non Roman Cac Othdox Caan Teoh a ron cee Sots Conese Sear Beste Some cae te toto Nene ¢ ho Notes Bauer 5 Daten Devernony an rome) sero rerons ‘onan ora fos Jeaton fae Fags Jag Ios ft kak Seon a and 3 Samet and ame ng and TonlaRis Eon King fice ‘Ent Cen {aod Chis ar a in Jeemiah Noemi Neeriah el Cater tan The Twelve POETICAL/WISDOM BOOKS —_ ‘Hosen Job — is mt and Maca ‘ioe Prats somcat/ soon mom fman Exot is Fen one Son Prins Mon oven atm Conner Eecosistes tl Song! Saemon zaps ne Warf omon er Sine — Dene ane wat Hosea Isaiah tin eee) hea Jee rae Ice Corton Pov Oman fanch ke Jonah Ete! Eve Sool) Nah Dane Songot ngs um owe Pe Tabak fel Comets zaphanh ‘oot ecole fe Onn eter cetacich Fem brn Nabe a a Nehenah Nahum Chronicles (1 and 2) ae Habakkuk Undone “it Zehanah ‘There is no Apocrypha Judith, ages in the Hebrew Bible Esther (with additions) ar ‘Wisdom of Solomon ae eset eh) Binh sho aon annie LeterotfeemihGanahch6) Sanda Enis Freyerof shard Senge ewe Payere Monash Pe sed Sana Pratay Dane a este Shiatees Prayer of Manassch sand 2 Maceabees 14 Maccabees (aan Appendls) 2076— at ESSAYS ship or of ideas, coul portant part, There tween these two pa the resulting difficul problems in dealing tion in general. Despite such majo derstanding of the however, several pc First, it is likely that ization were a react the Second Temple is This crisis intensifie had begun over ha with the destruction ce). Through this d- ally became the Pec first found in the Qt and Christians). Sec The ‘The transmission of into four broad peric Grd century sce-ast the Sages until the century-8th/9th cer Masoretic codices century); (4)-the-ere (asth/6th century survey these period rizing the first two e the latter two, The Era of Qumran Our knowledge of transmission of the panded with the dis century in the Jude other sites) of Bible n the 3rd century wce 1 beyond); there are n fore this era, thoug date the actual QumESSAYS ship or of ideas, could have played a more im- portant part, There is no way to judge be- tween these two paths to canonization, and the resulting difficulty is characteristic of the problems in dealing with issues of canoniza- tion in general Despite such major uncertainties in our un- derstanding of the process of canonization, however, several points seem fairly certain. First, it is likely that the final stages of canon- ization were a reaction to the destruction of the Second Temple in 7o ce and its aftermath. This crisis intensified a development which had begun over half a millennium earlier, with the destruction of the First Temple (586 xce), Through this development Israel gradu- ally became the People of the Book (a term first found in the Quran in reference to Jews and Christians). Second, it is unlikely that THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MASORETIC BIBLE canonization represents a purely top-down process, through which a small group of lead- ers (Rabbis) determined the canon; instead, the designation of certain works as canonical ‘was more like the official recognition of the ‘works that a large segment of the community had already held to be central, holy, or author- itative. Finally, the act of canonization was re- mackably inclusive, creating a body of works richly textured by a wide variety of genres, ideologies, and theologies. This is, fundamen- tally, a typical ancient Near Eastern process: Instead of creating a small, highly consistent text, as we pethaps would now do, those responsible for the process made efforts to in- clude many of the viewpoints in ancient Israel, incorporating differing and even con- tradictory traditions into this single, and sin- gular, book. [Mare zvI BRETTLER] The Development of the Masoretic Bible ‘The transmission of the Bible may be divided into four broad periods: (1) the era of Qumran Grd century scz-ast century cx); (2) the era of the Sages ‘until the Masoretic codices (2nd century—8th/gth century); (3) the era of the Masoretic codices (gth/1oth centurya5th century); (4) the era of the printed editions (a5th/x6th century-aist century). We will survey these periods below, briefly summa- rizing the first two eras, and concentrating on the latter two. The Era of Qumran Our knowledge of the early history of the transmission of the Bible was greatly ex- panded with the discoveries in the mid-2oth century in the Judean Desert (Qumran and other sites) of Bible manuscripts ranging from the 3rd century sce to the 1st century ce (and beyond); there are no extant manuscripts be- fore this era, though some manuscripts pre- date the actual Qumran community. (See “The Bible in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” pp. 1920-28.) All the books of the Bible (except Esther) were found, typically in fragmentary manuscripts, with the books of Genesis, Exodus, Deuteron- omy, Isaiah, and Psalms most frequently rep- resented. These discoveries caused a reex- amination and reevaluation of other early witnesses of the biblical text, such as the text of the Septuagint (LXX; the Greek translation of the Bible) and the Samaritan Pentateuch. He- brew variants which had been surmised on the basis of the Greek in LXX were now shown to have actually existed. Many scholars tried to categorize the Qumran material in its relation- ship to these known versions, as well as to the current standard Bible text, MT (Masoretic Text). Some noted that the Qumran material does not always fit into the categories of the previously known witnesses. The Qumran era reflects a multiplicity of texts (i.e., of variants), with witnesses for all three of the previously Known text-types (MT [at that time: the proto- Masoretic text-type, which seems to have been ee