In 1871, H.H. Graetz (a Jewish writer) propounded the theory that the Jewish canon closed at Jamnia in AD 90.[1] After the destruction of the Temple in AD 70, Jewish religious leaders relocated to a town on the Judean coast called Jamnia (a.k.a. Yavneh). Some critical scholars claim that the OT was finally canonized in AD 100 at the Council of Jamnia.
Even though the story about a council at Jamnia is widely repeated in college textbooks about the Bible, the truth is, there is no evidence to support that a council was ever convened! The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church explains,
The suggestion that a particular synod of Jamnia, held c. 100 AD, finally settled the limits of the OT Canon, was made by H.E. Ryle; though it has had wide currency, there is no evidence to support it.[2]
Scholars did gather at Jamnia over a long period of time to discuss many things, but to call this a “council” is really a misnomer. Critical scholars read a “religious council” into this meeting. However, many meetings were held at Jamnia, and these were certainly not a “council” in the sense people think of church councils. The concept of a Jamnia Council has suffered from a “complete refutation” from scholars like J.P. Lewis and S.Z. Leiman.[3]
Furthermore, the rabbis at Jamnia never discussed adding books to the canon, but whether or not they should remove certain books: namely, Song of Songs, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Ezekiel, and Esther. Geisler and Nix write, “The discussion was confined to the question whether Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs (or possibly Ecclesiastes alone) make the hands unclean. i.e. are divinely inspired… The decision reached was not regarded as authoritative, since contrary opinions continued to be expressed throughout the second century.”[4]
Beckwith states that the main reasons for challenging these five books was due to (1) their secular nature or (2) the presence of apparent contradictions.[5]
(1) Song of Songs. This book was quoted at banquets and sung at secular events (Tos. Sanhedrin 12.10; Bab. Sanhedrin 101a). Rabbi Nathan also pointed out the erotic and hedonistic passages from these books, which made it seem uninspired (Prov. 7:7, 10-20; Eccles. 11:9; Song of Sol. 7:10-11).[6] (For further reading on the canonicity of Song of Songs, see “Introduction to Song of Songs”).
(2) Proverbs. Rabbis pointed to the apparent self-contradictions in the book of Proverbs.[7] (For further reading on the canonicity of Proverbs, see “Introduction to Proverbs”).
(3) Ecclesiastes. Regarding the book of Ecclesiastes, Beckwith writes that the “sages sought to store away the book of Ecclesiastes, because they found words in it which tend to heresy.”[8] Rabbis debated this: “The Song of Songs makes the hands unclean [i.e. inspired] because it was spoken in the Holy Spirit. Ecclesiastes does not make the hands unclean [i.e. uninspired] because it is [merely] Solomon’s wisdom.”[9] (For further reading on the canonicity of Ecclesiastes, see “Introduction to Ecclesiastes”).
(4) Ezekiel. Rabbis questioned the inspiration of this book because “its words contradicted the words of the Law.”[10] Specifically, the rabbis had difficulty harmonizing Ezekiel’s vision of the third Temple with the second Temple. (For further reading on the canonicity of Ezekiel, see “Introduction to Ezekiel”).
(5) Esther. The rabbis questioned Esther because the book was so secular in nature, and probably because the protagonist marries a Gentile king.[11] (For further reading on the canonicity of Esther, see “Introduction to Esther”).
The rabbis eventually did affirm all of these books as canonical. Yet in addition, Beckwith makes an astute observation: “If the books had not been canonical, why should the rabbis have bothered to point out contradictions in them, since in uninspired books such contradictions were not surprising?”[12] He also writes, “Thus, there is sufficient evidence, both indirect and (in most cases) direct, to show that the five disputed books of the Hebrew Bible were canonical from a much earlier date than has been supposed. The disputes were of limited significance. In most cases they only arose after the recognition of the books as canonical, and they did not seriously interfere with that recognition, which survived the challenge and has continued as before.”[13]
[1] Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1986), 4.
[2] F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, Second Edition (Oxford, Great Britain: Oxford University Press, 1985) p. 726. For more on what did and did not happen at Jamnia, see Jamnia Revisited, by Jack P. Lewis in Lee Martin McDonald & James A. Sanders, eds., The Canon Debate, (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2002) pp. 146-162.
[3] Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1986), 276.
[4] Geisler, Norman & Nix, William. A General Introduction to the Bible: Revised and Expanded. Chicago, IL. Moody Press. 1986. 238-240.
[5] Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1986), 2283-284.
[6] Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1986), 284.
[7] Bab. Shabbath 30b. Cited in Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1986), 284.
[8] Pesikta of Rab Kahana 68b; Leviticus Rabbah 28.1. Cited in Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1986), 287.
[9] Tos. Yadaim 2.14. Cited in Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1986), 284.
[10] Bab. Shabbath 13b. Cited in Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1986), 284.
[11] Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1986), 288.
[12] Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1986), 286.
[13] Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 1986), 323.