About The Canon - Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol. III)

bible
THE CANON, TEXT, AND EDITIONS oral form in which the rabbinic teachings were transmitted. In
the same way, Mikra (Miqraʾ; lit. “reading”), another term for
canon the Bible current among the rabbis, serves to underline both
General Titles the vocal manner of study and the central role that the public
There is no single designation common to all Jews and em- reading of the Scriptures played in the liturgy of the Jews. The
ployed in all periods by which the Jewish Scriptures have been designation is found in tannaitic sources (Ned. 4:3; Avot 5:21;
known. The earliest and most diffused Hebrew term was Ha- TJ, Ta’an, 4:2, 68a), but it may be much older, as Nehemiah 8:8
Sefarim (“The Books”). Its antiquity is supported by its use in suggests. It is of interest that Miqraʾ as the Hebrew for “Bible”
Daniel in reference to the prophets (Dan. 9:2). This is how the achieved wide popularity among Jews in the Middle Ages The
sacred writings are frequently referred to in tannaitic litera- acronym ‫( תנ״ך‬TaNaKh), derived from the initial letters of the
ture (Meg. 1:8; MK 3:4; Git. 4:6; Kelim 15:6; et al.). The Greek- names of the three divisions of the Bible (Torah, Neviʾim, Ketu-
speaking Jews adopted this usage and translated it into their vim), became similarly popular.
vernacular as τἁ βιβλία. The earliest record of such is the Letter Still another expression for the Scriptures is *Torah,
of *Aristeas (mid-second century B.C.E.) which uses the sin- used in the widest sense of the term as the revelation of reli-
gular form (v. 316, ὲν τῇ βίβλε) for the Pentateuch. The trans- gion. While it is only occasionally so employed for the Bible
lator of The Wisdom of *Ben Sira into Greek (c. 132 B.C.E.) in rabbinic literature (cf. MK 5a with respect to Ezek. 39:15;
similarly employs “The Books” to designate the entire Scrip- Sanh. 91b citing Ps. 84:5; PR 3:9, in reference to Eccles. 12:12),
tures (Ecclus., prologue, v. 25 “καὶ τἁ λοιπἁ τῶν βιβλίων”). It is the fact that νóμος, the Greek rendering of Torah, is found in
from this Hellenistic Jewish usage of τἁ βιβλία, which entered the New Testament in the same way (John 10:34, quoting Ps.
European languages through its Latin form, that the English 82:6) indicates that it may once have been in more common
“Bible” is derived. use among Jews.
The term Sifrei ha-Kodesh (Sifre ha-Qodesh; “Holy Thoroughly Christian is the characterization “Old Tes-
Books”), although not found in Hebrew literature before the tament” (i.e., Covenant; II Cor, 3:14; cf. Heb. 9:15–18). This
Middle Ages, seems to have been used occasionally by Jews term is used to distinguish the Jewish Bible from the “New
even in pre-Christian times. The author of I Maccabees (12:9), Testament” (i.e., Covenant; I Cor. 11:25; II Cor. 3:6; Christian
who certainly wrote in Hebrew (c. 136–135 B.C.E.), speaks of interpretation of Jeremiah 31:30–32). At the same time, it is
“the Holy Books”. In the early first century C.E., the Greek possible that the designation “Testament” (i.e., “Covenant,”
writer of II Maccabees 8:23 mentions “the Holy Book” (… Gr.: διαθήκη) may have been a reflection of an extended use
τὴν ὶερἁν βίβλον) and toward the end of that century, both among Jews of the Hebrew berit (“covenant”) or Sefer ha-Berit
Josephus (Ant., 20:261) and Pope Clement I (First Epistle, (“Book of the Covenant”; Ex. 24:7; II Kings 23:2, 21). Jeremiah
43:1) refer to “the Holy Books” (αὶ ὶεραὶ βὶβλοι). The appela- (31:30–32) himself uses “covenant” and “Torah” synonymously,
tion is rare, however, since the increasing restriction of sefer and the “Book of the Torah” found in the Temple (II Kings
in rabbinic Hebrew to sacred literature rendered superfluous 22:8, 10) is alternatively styled the “Book of the Covenant”
any further description. On the other hand, Kitvei ha-Kodesh (ibid. 23:2, 21). The Wisdom of Ben Sira (24:23) actually uses
(Kitve ha-Qodesh; “Holy Writings”), is fairly common in tan- the latter term βιβλως διαθήκης) parallel with Torah (νóμος),
naitic sources as a designation for the Scriptures (Shab. 16:1; and a similar usage is found in I Maccabees 1:56–57.
Er. 10:3; Yad. 3:2, 5; 4:6; BB 1:6; Par. 10:3). Here the definition is [Nahum M. Sarna]
required since the Hebrew ‫( כתב‬ktb) did not develop a special-
ized meaning and was equally employed for secular writing The Canon
(cf. Tosef., Yom Tov 4:4). The title “Holy Writings” was also The term as applied to the Bible designates specifically the
current in Jewish Hellenistic and in Christian circles, appear- closed nature of the corpus of sacred literature accepted as
ing in Greek as αὶ ὶεραὶ γραφαὶ (Philo, Fug. 1:4; Clement’s First authoritative because it is believed to be divinely revealed.
Epistle 45:2; 53:1), as τἁ ἱερἁ γράμματα (Philo, Mos. 2:290, 292; The history of the word helps to explain its usage. “Canon”
Jos., Ant., 1:13; 10:210; et al.). Closely allied to the preceding is derives ultimately from an old Semitic word with the mean-
the title Ha-Katuv (“The Scripture”; Pe’ah 8:9; Ta’an. 3:8; Sanh. ing of “reed” or “cane” (Heb. ‫)קנה‬, later used for “a measuring
4:5; Avot 3:7, 8, et al.) and the plural Ha-Ketuvim (“The Scrip- rod” (cf. Ezek. 40:5), both of which senses passed into Greek
tures”; Yad. 3:5 et al.). These, too, were taken over by the Jews (κάννα, κανών). Metaphorically, it came to be used as a rule or
of Alexandria in the Greek equivalent, probably the earliest standard of excellence and was so applied by the Alexandrian
such example being the Letter of Aristeas (vv. 155, 168, διἁ τῆς grammarians to the Old Greek classics. In the second century,
γραΦῆς). This term was borrowed by the early Christians (ὴ κανών had come to be used in Christian circles in the sense of
γραΦή John 2:22; Acts 8:32; II Tim 3:16 et al.; αὶ γραφαί Mark “rule of faith.” It was the Church Fathers of the fourth century
12:24; I Cor. 15:34 et al.; τἁ γράμματα John 5:47). C.E. who first applied “canon” to the sacred Scriptures.
These uses of the Hebrew root ktb (“to write”) to specify No exact equivalent of this term is to be found in Jew-
the Scriptures have special significance, for they lay emphasis ish sources although the phrase Sefarim Ḥ iẓ onim (“external
on the written nature of the text in contradistinction to the books”; Sanh. 10:1), i.e., uncanonical, is certainly its negative
574 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3

bible
formulation. However, tannaitic literature does employ the 14:19, 29; I Chron. 9:1; II Chron. 16:11; 20:34; 27:7; 32:32; 33:18)
phrase mettame et ha-Yadayim (“rendering the hands un- all bear witness to royal annalistic sources no longer extant. A
clean”) to convey what is commonly understood by “canoni- category of literature called “Midrash” (II Chron. 13:22; 24:27)
cal.” According to rabbinic enactment, hands that came into is also ascribed to the times of the monarchy, and a book of
direct contact with any biblical book contracted uncleanness dirges to the end of that period (II Chron. 35:25). While it is
in the second degree, so that if they then touched terumah true that in many of these instances it is possible that the same
without prior ritual washing they rendered it unfit for priestly work has been referred to under different titles and that the
consumption (Kelim 15:6; Yad. 3:2; 4:6). Whatever the true ori- caption sefer might indicate a section of a book rather than the
gin and purpose of this legislation (Yad. 3:3–5; Tosef., Yad. 2:19; whole, it cannot be doubted that numerous other works must
Shab. 13b–14a; TJ, Shab. 1:6, 3c), the effect was to make the have existed which were not mentioned in the Bible. In fact,
phrase “rendering the hands unclean” synonymous with ca- the very concept of a scriptural canon presupposes a process
nonical. Hence, rabbinic discussions about the full canonicity of selection extending over a long period.
or otherwise of Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs (Eduy. 5:3; Yad. 3:5; The quantitative disproportion between the literary pro-
Tosef., Yad. 2:14), Esther (Meg. 7a), Ben Sira, and other books ductions and the literary remains of ancient Israel is extreme.
(Tosef., Yad. 2:13) are expressed in terms of this formula. The main factor at work was the natural struggle for survival.
The absence of mass literacy, the labor of hand copying, and
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CANON. The concept enshrined the perishability of writing materials in an inhospitable cli-
in the “canon” is distinctively and characteristically Jewish. mate all combined to limit circulation, restrict availability, and
Through it the canonized Scriptures were looked upon as the reduce the chances of a work becoming standard. In addition,
faithful witness to the national past, the embodiment of the the Land of Israel was more frequently plundered and more
hopes and dreams of a glorious future, and the guarantee of thoroughly devastated than any other in the ancient Near East.
their fulfillment. They constituted, in time, the main source At the same time, in the historical realities of the pre-Exilic
for the knowledge of Hebrew and typified the supreme stan- period Israel’s cultural productions had scant prospects of be-
dard of stylistic excellence. Through the instrumentality of the ing disseminated beyond its natural frontiers. Developments
Oral Law they represented the force of truth, wisdom, law, and within Israel itself also contributed. The change of script that
morality. In short, the development of the canon proved to be occurred in the course of Persian hegemony doubtless drove
a revolutionary step in the history of religion, and the concept out of circulation many books, while the mere existence of
was consciously adopted by Christianity and Islam. canonized corpora almost inevitably consigned excluded com-
positions to oblivion.
THE PROCESS OF CANONIZATION. It should be noted, how- Certainly there were other books, including some of
ever, that the above refers to the canon solely in respect of its those cited above, which were reputed holy or written under
religious connotation. There is evidence that as early as the the inspiration of the divine spirit, but why they did not enter
second half of the second millennium B.C.E., the classical liter- the canon cannot be determined. The possibility of chance as
ary texts of Mesopotamia were beginning to assume standard- a factor in preservation cannot be entirely dismissed. Some
ized form. There emerged a widely diffused, recognizable body works probably survived because of their literary beauty
of literature with fixed authoritative texts, the sequence and alone. A very powerful instrument must have been scribal and
arrangement of which were firmly established. This discovery priestly schools which, by virtue of their inherent conserva-
is significant because it provides an important precedent for tism, would tend to transmit the basic study texts from gen-
the external features of canonical literature, and it means that eration to generation. Similarly, the repertoire of professional
the process of canonical development could have begun quite guilds of Temple singers would be self-perpetuating, as would
early in Israel’s history. Unfortunately, there is no direct infor- the liturgies recited on specific occasions in the Jerusalem
mation about the origins of the canon, nor can the criteria of Temple and the provincial shrines. Material that appealed to
selectivity adopted by those who fixed it be ascertained. national sentiment and pride, such as the narration of the great
It is clear that the books that make up the Bible can- events of the past and the basic documents of the national re-
not possibly have contained the entire literary production ligion, would, particularly if employed in the cult, inevitably
of ancient Israel. The Scriptures themselves bear testimony achieve wide popularity and be endowed with sanctity. Not
to the existence of an extensive literature which is now lost. everything that was regarded as sacred or revealed was can-
The “*Book of the Wars of the Lord” (Num. 21:14) and the onized; but sanctity was the indispensable ingredient for can-
“*Book of Jashar” (Josh. 10:13; II Sam. 1:18) are certainly very onicity. It was not, in general, the stamp of canonization that
ancient. Prophetic compositions are ascribed to Samuel, Na- conferred holiness upon a book – rather the reverse. Sanctity
than, and Gad (I Chron. 29:29) of the early monarchy period antedated and preconditioned the formal act of canonization,
and to Ahijah, Jedo/Iddo, and Shemaiah from the time of the which in most cases, simply made final a long-existing situ-
division of the kingdom (II Chron. 9:29; 12:5; 13:22). The refer- ation. Of course, the act of canonization, in turn, served to
ences to the chronicles of King David (Chron. 27:24), of Solo- reinforce, intensify, and perpetuate the attitude of reverence,
mon (I Kings 11:41), and of the Kings of Israel and Judah (ibid. veneration, and piety with which men approached the Scrip-
ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 575

bible
tures, and itself became the source of authority that generated (“Prophets”), later subdivided into “Former Prophets” and
their unquestioned acceptance as the divine word. “Latter Prophets.” This distinction, one of convenience only,
serves to differentiate between the narrative, historical works –
CONTENTS AND TITLES OF THE BOOKS. The Jewish Bible is Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings – and the (largely poetic)
composed of three parts, designated in Hebrew: Torah (‫)תורה‬, literary creations of the prophetic orators Isaiah, Jeremiah
Neviʾim (‫)נביאים‬, and Ketuvim (‫)כתובים‬. The earliest name for and Ezekiel, and the Twelve “minor” prophets – Hosea, Joel,
the first part of the Bible seems to have been “The Torah of Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habbakuk, Zepha-
Moses.” This title, however, is found neither in the Torah itself, niah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The popular epithet
nor in the works of the pre-Exilic literary prophets. It appears “minor” in connection with these twelve has a solely quanti-
in Joshua (8:31–32; 23:6) and Kings (I Kings 2:3; II Kings 14:6; tative connotation and is no indication of relative importance.
23:25), but it cannot be said to refer there to the entire cor- The names of the books are based upon the central figure or
pus. In contrast, there is every likelihood that its use in the reputed author. The subdivision of the Prophets into “Former”
post-Exilic works (Mal. 3:22; Dan. 9:11, 13; Ezra 3:2; 7:6; Neh. and “Latter” was not known in the modern sense in talmu-
8:1; II Chron. 23:18; 30:16) was intended to be comprehensive. dic times. The rabbis employed “former” in reference to the
Other early titles were “The Book of Moses” (Ezra 6:18; Neh. prophets up to the destruction of the First Temple (Sot. 9:12;
13:1; II Chron. 35:12; 25:4; cf. II Kings 14:6) and “The Book of Ta’an. 4:2; Sot. 48b; cf. Zech. 1:4; 7:7, 12), and reserved “latter”
the Torah” (Neh. 8:3) which seems to be a contraction of a exclusively for the postexilic prophets; Haggai, Zechariah, and
fuller name, “The Book of the Torah of God” (Neh. 8:8, 18; Malachi (Tosef., Sot. 13:2; Sot. 48b).
10:29–30; cf. 9:3). The Ketuvim (“Writings,” Hagiographa), the third di-
With the widespread dissemination of the Torah in the vision of the Bible, is a varied collection composed of litur-
generations following the activities of *Ezra and *Nehemiah, it gical poetry – Psalms and Lamentations; secular love po-
became customary, for strictly nonliturgical purposes and for etry – Song of Songs; wisdom literature – Proverbs, Job, and
convenience of handling, to transcribe the work on five sepa- Ecclesiastes; and historical works – Ruth, Chronicles, Ezra,
rate scrolls; hence the Greek name ή πεντάτευχος (βίβλος), Nehemiah, Esther, and a blend of history and prophecy in
“the five-volumed [book],” which has passed into English as the Book of Daniel.
Pentateuch. In rabbinic literature the Hebrew equivalent is This tripartite division of the Scriptures is simply a mat-
“The Five Books of the Torah” (Ḥ ameshet Sifrei Torah; TJ, Meg. ter of historical development and does not, in essence, repre-
1:7, 70d; Ḥ amishah Sifrei Torah; TJ, Sot. 5:8, 20d), or “The Five sent a classification of the books according to topical or sty-
Fifth-parts of the Torah” (Ḥ amishah Ḥ omshei (popularly, but listic categories. The Hellenistic Jews, apparently sensitive to
inaccurately called Ḥ umshei) Torah; Ḥ ag. 14a; TJ, Sanh. 10:1, the more or less random nature of the organization of biblical
28a; Sanh. 44a). literature, attempted to effect a more systematic arrangement
The English names for the books of the Torah – Genesis, (see Hellenistic Canon, below).
Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy – derive from
those of the Latin Bible which, in turn, have their origins in The Tripartite Canon
titles current among the Greek-speaking Jews, who translated The earliest sources consistently refer to the three corpora of
Hebrew designations in use among their coreligionists in Pal- scriptural books. *Ben Sira, approximately 180 B.C.E., speaks
estine. These titles are descriptive of the contents or major of “the Law of the Most High,” “the wisdom of the ancients,”
theme of the respective books and they have partly survived and “prophecies” (Ecclus. 39:1). His grandson who wrote the
in rabbinic literature and medieval Hebrew works in these Prologue to the Book of Ben Sira (c. 132 B.C.E.) refers explic-
forms: Sefer Beriʾat ha-Olam (“The Book of the Creation of itly to “the Law and the Prophets and the others that followed
the World”); Sefer Yeẓ iʾat Miẓ rayim (“The Book of the Exo- them,” “the law and the prophets and the other books of our
dus from Egypt”); Torat Kohanim (“The Book of the Priestly fathers,” “the law…, the prophecies and the rest of the books.”
Code”); Ḥ omesh ha-Pekuddim (Ḥ omesh ha-Pequddim; “The The author of II Maccabees (2:2–3, 13) mentions “the Law,” “the
Book of the Numbered”), Mishneh Torah (“The Repetition of kings and prophets, the writings of David….” *Philo is familiar
the Torah”; cf. TJ, Meg. 3:7, 74b et al.). Another method of nam- with the Law, the “Prophets and the Psalms and other Writ-
ing was to entitle a book by its opening word or words, or by ings” (Cont. 25). Josephus knows of the “five books of Moses,”
its first significant word; cf. the Babylonian “When on High” “the Prophets” and “the remaining… books” (Apion, 1:39–41).
and “Let me Praise the Lord of Wisdom.” This was common The same threefold arrangement is specified in the New Testa-
in rabbinic sources (Elleh ha-Devarim; “These Are the Words” ment. To the author of Luke (24:32, 44) the Scriptures consist
= Deuteronomy, Sot. 7:8; Gen. R. 3:5; TJ, Meg. 3:1, 74a) and has of “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms.”
remained the most popular mode of designation in Hebrew From these sources it becomes clear that the third collec-
to the present time. Finally, there is also evidence that ordinal tion of Scriptures was not known by any fixed name. In fact,
numbers were used (cf. Gen. R. 3:5; TJ, Meg. 3:1, 74a). it was often not referred to by any name at all. IV Maccabees
The second division of the Bible is known as Neviʾim (18:10) mentions simply the “Law and the Prophets” even

bible
though Daniel, Psalms, and Proverbs are included in the des- Genesis 50 Chapters
ignation (18:13–16). It must have been a widespread practice
Exodus 40
to refer to the entire Bible in this manner for it is encountered The Law
in the most diverse sources, rabbinic (Tosef., BM 11:23), New Torah Leviticus 27
Testament (Matt. 5:17 7:12; 11:13; 22:40; Luke 16:16; John 1:45; Pentateuch
Numbers 36
Rom. 3:21), and the Scrolls from the Judean Desert (1QS 1:2–3).
Deuteronomy 34
All this can mean only one thing: the Ketuvim were canon-
ized much later than the Prophets and the tripartite canon
Joshua 24
represents three distinct and progressive stages in the process
Judges 21
of canonization. This is not to say, however, that there is any
Former Prophets
necessary correlation between the antiquity of the individual I Samuel 31
The Prophets
books within a given corpus and the date of the canonization Nevi’im II Samuel 24
of the corpus as a whole. Further, a clear distinction has to be
I Kings 22
made between the age of the material and the time of its re-
daction, the period of its attaining individual canonicity and II Kings 25
the date that it became part of a canonized corpus.
*Isaiah 66 Hosea 14
Later Prophets
Joel 4
Jeremiah 52
THE CANONIZATION OF THE TORAH (PENTATEUCH). Where Amos 9
is this differentiation more applicable than in respect of the Ezekiel 48 Obadia 1
Jonah 4
Torah. A clear distinction must be made between the litera- Micah 7
The Twelve Prophets
ture of the Torah and the Torah book. Whatever the details of Nahum 3
the incredibly complex history of the pentateuchal material, it Habakkuk 3
Psalms 150 Zephaniah 3
is beyond doubt that much of it is of great antiquity and was Haggai 2
venerated at an early period. The traditional doctrine of Mo- Proverbs 31 Zechariah 14
saic authorship of the entire Torah has its source in Deuter- Job 42
Malachi 3
onomy 31:9–12, 24, more than in any other passage. But the
Song of Songs 8
reference here seems more likely to be to the succeeding song Five Scrolls
(Deut. 32), as is indicated by verses 19 and 22. The Torah it- Ruth 4
Megilot
self contains no explicit statement ascribing its authorship to The Writings

Lamentations 5
Ketuvim
Moses, while Mosaic attribution is restricted to legal and ritual
Hagiographa Ecclesiastes 12
prescription and is hardly to be found in connection with the
narrative material. Moreover, the term “Torah” (which means Esther 10
“teaching,” as well as “rule” and “law,” has to be examined in Daniel 12

each case in its own context and in no instance can it be un-
Ezra 10
equivocally understood in its later, comprehensive sense. In
fact, the phrase “Torah of Moses” is not pentateuchal. Nehemiah 13
An important stage in the history of the pentateuchal I Chronicles 29
canon is the tale of the chance finding of the “book of the
II Chronicles 36
Torah” in 622 B.C.E. as described in II Kings 22–23; II Chron-
icles 34. It is highly significant that there is no suggestion that
the book is new. Indeed, given the renewed interest in antiq- The first report of the reading of the Torah in public as-
uity, and the veneration of the past that marked the Near East sembly subsequent to Josiah comes from the post-Exilic pe-
of the seventh century B.C.E. and the following two or three riod, namely, the ceremony conducted in Jerusalem by Ezra,
centuries, newness would have been no virtue. The enquiry approximately 444 B.C.E. (Neh. 8–10). This ceremony cannot
of the prophetess Huldah and her reply serve to authenticate be the occasion of the canonization of the Pentateuch, as has
the book and its message. The “Torah” was publicly read and often been claimed, since the initiative for the public reading
accepted as binding in a national covenant ceremony. The comes from the people and there is no hint that the promulga-
identity of the book is not given, nor is it termed Mosaic in tion of a new law is involved. The book is called “the book of
direct speech (II Kings 23:25 and II Chron. 34:14 are editorial the Torah of Moses which the Lord commanded Israel” (Neh.
remarks). Yet insofar as the ensuing reform of the cult ex- 8:1) and the emphasis is on its dissemination and exposition.
presses precisely the leading motifs of *Deuteronomy, it may It would appear that the Torah, or at least some form of it, had
be assumed that the ceremony described represents the be- achieved canonical status.
ginning of the formation of the Pentateuch, not as literature, Further evidence that the Torah had already been canon-
but as a sacred book. ized by this time is provided by the Chronicler and by Samari-

bible
tan tradition. The former, writing approximately 400 B.C.E., about Ezekiel (Ḥ ag. 13a) have nothing to do with the history
frequently appeals to the “Torah of Moses” and shows famil- of canonization. The suggestion to relegate the book to the
iarity with every book of the Pentateuch. The Samaritans bibliocrypt (lignoz) was intended solely to remove it from
adopted the entire Torah together with the belief in its Mosaic common use. In fact, only sacred things could be so treated.
authorship. Since hostility to the Judeans was already acute Apparently, some time must have elapsed between the canon-
in Ezra’s time and since the Samaritan-Jewish schism could ization of the Torah and that of the Prophets, since only the
not have taken place much after this, it follows that the can- former and not the latter were publicly read at the great as-
onization of the Pentateuch could not then have been a very semblies described in Nehemiah 8–10, while the Samaritans,
recent event. who became schismatic in the days of Ezra or soon after, re-
It may safely be assumed that the work of collection, fix- ceived the Torah but not the Prophets.
ing, and preservation of the Torah took place in the Babylo-
nian exile (cf. Ezra 7:14, 25). But our extant sources preserve THE CANONIZATION OF THE KETUVIM (HAGIOGRA-
no recollection of a formal canonization. PHA). The third collection of biblical books does not con-
stitute a unified entity either contextually or ideologically.
THE CANONIZATION OF THE PROPHETS. The existence of Many of the books were certainly written while prophets were
the Torah Book served as a stimulus to the collection and or- still active and the books were individually canonized quite
ganization of the literature of the prophets. A consistent tradi- early. They were excluded from the prophetic collection be-
tion, repeatedly formulated in rabbinic sources, regards Hag- cause their inspiration appeared to be human rather than Di-
gai, Zechariah, and Malachi as the last of the prophets, the vine, or because they did not otherwise conform to the spe-
“divine spirit” having ceased to be active in Israel with their cial ideological content or historical-philosophic framework
death (Tosef., Sot. 13:2; Sot. 48b; Yoma 9b; Sanh. 11a). Indeed, of that corpus. This would be true of such works as Psalms
the absence of prophecy was regarded as one of the features and Proverbs. Other books, like Ezra, Chronicles, and Daniel,
that characterized the Second Temple period as opposed to the must have been written too late for inclusion in the Prophets.
First (TJ, Ta’an. 2:1, 65a; Yoma 21b). Josephus, too, reflects this They were certainly canonical, as was Job too, by the genera-
same tradition (Apion, 1:39–41). By the middle of the second tion before the destruction of the Second Temple (Yoma 1:6).
century B.C.E., the institution was accepted as having lapsed At the same time, there is plenty of evidence to show that the
(I Macc. 9:27; cf. 4:46; 14:41). collection of the Ketuvim as a whole, as well as some individual
That contemporary prophecy was falling into discredit books within it, was not accepted as being finally closed until
soon after the return from the exile is clear from Zecha- well into the second century C.E. As noted above, the prac-
riah 13:2–5, and it is quite likely that the closing verses of the tice of calling the entire Scriptures the “Torah and Prophets”
last prophetic book (Mal. 3:22–24) are actually an epilogue presupposes a considerable lapse of time between the can-
to the entire collection indirectly expressing recognition of onization of the second and third parts of the Bible. The fact
the cessation of prophecy and the hope of its eschatologi- that the last division had no fixed name points in the same
cal renewal (cf. I Macc. 4:45; 14:41; 1QS 9:11). The cessation of direction. Even the finally adopted designation “Ketuvim” is
prophecy could thus be understood ideologically as part of indeterminate, since it is also used in rabbinic Hebrew in the
the spiritual punishment that Israel must endure for its sins two senses of the Scriptures in general and of individual texts
(Jer. 18:18; Ezek. 7:26; Amos 8:11–12; Micah 3:6–7). More im- in particular.
portant was the ironic fact that once the writings of the great Other indications of lateness in Ketuvim are that the Song
prophets of the past became immortalized in written form, of Songs contains two Greek words (3:9, ‫ = ַא ּ ִפ ְריוֹ ן‬palanquin;
it became increasingly difficult for living prophets to com- 4:4, ‫ = ַּתלְ ּ ִפיוֹ ת‬τηλῶπις = far-off), as does Daniel (3:5, 15, ‫סו ְּמ ּפֹנִ יָ ה‬
pete with them. = συμφωνία = bagpipe; 3:5, 7, 10, 15, ‫ = ּ ְפ ַסנְ ֵת ִרין‬Ψαλτήριον),
The tradition declaring the prophetic canon to have been ‫ = קיתרס‬κίθαρις which even refers to the break-up of the Greek
closed during the era of Persian hegemony, i.e., by 323 B.C.E., empire (by name 18:21; 11:2) and which most likely did not
can be substantiated by several unrelated facts. That Chron- achieve its final form before approximately 167 B.C.E. (For the
icles belongs to the Ketuvim and neither displaced nor sup- influence of Persian and Greek on the Book of Ecclesiastes see
plemented Samuel-Kings in the Prophets is best explained on *Ecclesiastes.) Ben Sira (c. 180 B.C.E.), who shows familiarity
the assumption that the latter were already sealed at the time with all other biblical books, does not mention Daniel or Es-
Chronicles was canonized. Similarly, the omission of Dan- ther. The latter book, in fact, seems not to have been accepted
iel from the Prophets (cf. Sanh. 94a) would be inexplicable if among the sectarians of Qumran; at least no fragments of it
their canonization occurred in Hellenistic times. The absence have yet turned up among the scrolls from the Judean Des-
from the Prophets of Greek words or of any reference to the ert. Indeed, that there was once a certain reserve in respect of
historical fact of the downfall of the Persian empire and the the sanctity of the Book of Esther is apparent from rabbinic
transition to Greek rule provides further evidence. Notwith- discussion (Meg. 7a; cf. Sanh. 100a).
standing assertions to the contrary, the tannaitic discussions The ambivalent attitude on the part of the rabbis to the

bible
Wisdom of Ben Sira is highly significant. The fact that in the Minor Prophets invariably appear as a unit, though in slightly
middle of the second century C.E. it was necessary to empha- different order (Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah,
size the uncanonical status of this book (Tosef., Yad. 2:13) and etc.) and frequently preceding the three major prophets. Lam-
to forbid its reading (TJ, Sanh. 10:1, 28a) proves that the corpus entations is affixed to Jeremiah, its reputed author. Of those
of Ketuvim was still fluid at this time, and that Ben Sira had ac- books excluded from the Hebrew canon but included in the
quired a measure of sanctity in the popular consciousness. De- Greek Bibles, the number varies, but the following are found
spite the ban, the book continued to achieve wide circulation. in the fullest collections: I Esdras (Ezra), Wisdom of Solomon,
The amoraim even quote from it, employing the introductory Wisdom of Ben Sira, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, the Letter of Jer-
terminology otherwise exclusively reserved for Scripture (cf. emiah, I–IV Maccabees, and the Psalms of Solomon.
Nid. 16b di-khetiv; Ber. 55b she-ne’emar). In one instance, a The order of the books in the Greek Bibles is illustrated
third-generation Babylonian amora actually cites Ben Sira as in the table below:
Ketuvim as opposed to Torah and Prophets (BK 92b).
Order of the Books in the Greek Bibles
It is true that in the generation after the destruction
(the Hebrew Codex Aleppo is given for comparison)
of the Temple the author of IV Esdras 14:41–46 (cf. Joseph.,
Apion, 1:39–41) seems to imply a closed biblical canon of 24 CODEX CODEX CODEX
books; nevertheless, tannaitic and amoraic disputes about VATICANUS (B) ALEXANDRINUS (A) ALEPPO (C)
the canonicity of Proverbs, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes
(Eduy. 5:3; Yad. 3:5; ARN 1:2), as well as of Esther (Meg. 7a), 4th century 5th century 10th century
show that the widely held, though unsupported, view that the Genesis-Judges Genesis-Judges Genesis-Judges
Ruth Ruth I–II Samuel
formal and final canonization of the Ketuvim occurred at the
I–IV Kings I–IV Kings I–II Kings
Synod of Jabneh (c. 100 C.E.) has to be considerably modi- (Samuel, Kings) I–II Chronicles
fied. More probably, decisions taken on that occasion came I–II Chronicles Isaiah
to be widely accepted and thus regarded as final in succeed- I Ezra (apochryphal) Hosea Jeremiah
ing generations. II Ezra Amos Ezekiel
(Ezra-Nehemiah) Micah Hosea
The Hellenistic Canon Joel Joel
The needs of the Hellenistic Jews, whether of Alexandria in Psalms Obadiah Amos
particular or of the Greek-speaking Diaspora in general, led Proverbs Jonah Obadiah
to the translation of the Bible into Greek. Beginning with the Ecclesiastes Nahum Jonah
Torah about the middle of the third century B.C.E. the process Song of Songs Habakkuk Micah
Job Zephaniah Nahum
took many centuries to complete. The formation of much of
Wisdom of Solomon Haggai Habakkuk
the Greek canon was thus coeval with the emergence of the
Wisdom of Sirach Zechariah Zephaniah
Hebrew Bible as a sealed collection of sacred literature. The fi- Esther Malachi Haggai
nal product, however, diverged from the Hebrew – apart from Judith Isaiah Zechariah
the problem of the text – in two important respects. It adopted Tobit Jeremiah Malachi
a different principle in the grouping and sequence of the bibli- Baruch
cal books, and it included works not accepted into the norma- Hosea Lamentations I–II Chronicles
tive Hebrew canon. It must be understood, however, that, with Amos Letter of Jeremiah Psalms
the exception of a few fragments, all extant manuscripts of the Micah Daniel Job
Greek Bible are of Christian origin, and while it is reasonable Joel Ezekiel Proverbs
to assume a Jewish prototype, the content and form of the Hel- Obadiah Ruth
Jonah Esther Ecclesiastes
lenistic Jewish canon cannot be known with certainty.
Nahum Tobit Lamentations
The Greek Ben Sira (prologue) clearly shows that the
Habakkuk Judith Esther
Palestinian tripartite division of the Bible was known in Alex- Zephaniah I Ezra Daniel
andria in the second century B.C.E.; yet the Greek Bible does Haggai II Ezra Ezra
away with the Ketuvim as a corpus and redistributes the books Zechariah I–IV Maccabees
of the second and third divisions according to categories of lit- Malachi Psalms
erature, thus creating a quadripartite canon of Torah, history, Isaiah Job
poetic and didactic writings, and prophecy. The sequence of Jeremiah Proverbs
books in the Greek Bible varies greatly in the uncial manu- Baruch Ecclesiastes
scripts and among the different patristic and synodical lists Lamentations Song of Songs
of the Eastern and Western churches. The Torah, however, al- Letter of Jeremiah Wisdom of Solomon
Ezekiel Wisdom of Sirach
ways takes priority, followed by the Former Prophets. Ruth is
Daniel Psalms of Solomon
attached to Judges, sometimes before, sometimes after it. The

bible
The Number of Books cific sequence, two distinct problems have to be differentiated.
By dividing Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles into two books The first relates to the very meaning of “order,” the second to
each, and by individually enumerating Ezra, Nehemiah, and the underlying rationale of the diverse arrangements found
the twelve minor prophets, English Bibles usually list 39 books. in literary sources and manuscripts. The earliest list of bibli-
This reckoning, however, is not traditional, for the twelve were cal books is that preserved in an anonymous tannaitic state-
written on a single scroll and counted as one; Ezra and Ne- ment (BB 14b):
hemiah were likewise treated as a unit, and the convenient Our Rabbis taught: the order of the Prophets is Joshua, Judges,
bisection of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles was unknown in Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Twelve…; the
Hebrew Bibles before the Bomberg edition of 1521 (see Edi- order of the Ketuvim is Ruth, the Book of Psalms, Job, Proverbs,
tions, below). In this way the traditional total of 24 books is Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Lamentations, Daniel, the Scroll
obtained. of Esther, Ezra, and Chronicles.
This number is consistently specified in the literature
The question of “order” would normally apply to books
of the amoraim (cf. Ta’an. 5a) and is implicit in the tannaitic
produced as codices, rather than scrolls. However, the above-
listing of the biblical books (BB 14b). It must be quite ancient
cited baraita cannot be later than the end of the second
for it is expressly mentioned as something well understood
century C.E., whereas the codex was not accepted by Jews
n IV Ezra 14:45, a passage deriving from about 100 C.E. From
until many centuries later. Sarna seeks the solution in the
about this same period derives a variant tradition of Josephus
library practices of the Mesopotamian and Hellenistic
limiting the canon to 22 books (Apion 1:39–41). It is possible
worlds.
that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes were not yet included
The steady growth of collections, whether of cuneiform
in Josephus’ Bible. More likely, however, the difference is
tablets or papyrus rolls, necessitated the introduction of
to be explained by the practice of attaching Ruth to Judges
rationalized and convenient methods of storing materials in
or Psalms, and Lamentations to Jeremiah. Since many of
ways that facilitated identification and expedited usage. At the
the Church Fathers also mention a 22-book canon (cf. Origen
same time, the requirements of the scribal schools engendered
in Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica 6:25, 1), it must be assumed
an established sequence in which the classic works were to
that the observation of Josephus reflects a fairly widespread,
be read or studied. This combination of library needs and
if minority, Jewish scribal tradition that persisted for several
pedagogic considerations would then be what lies behind
centuries. Either way, the specified number really refers to
the fixing of the order of the Prophets and Ketuvim as re-
the sum of separate scrolls used in transcribing the corpus of
corded in the list above. The reference would be to the order in
canonized literature. The artificiality of the number 24 and
which the individual scrolls in these two corpora were shelved
the absence of any authentic tradition to explain its origin
and cataloged in the Palestinian archives and schools. Haran
are clear from the homiletics of the amoraim, who variously
has challenged Sarna’s theory on the grounds that the small
connected it with the like number of ornaments in Isaiah
number of the books of the Bible made literary cataloguing
3:18–24 (Ex. R. 41:5; Song. R. 4:11; Tanḥ . B., Ex. 111–117), of
unnecessary. It would have been simple to follow Roman
priestly and levitical courses in I Chron. 23:28; 24:4 (Num.
practice and lay out the scrolls on shelves divided by panels.
R. 14:18; Eccles. R. 12:11; PR 3:9), and of the bulls brought as
Alternatively, scrolls might have been tagged as they were
dedicatory offerings by the chieftains of the tribes (Num. 7:88;
Num. R. 14:18).
It has been suggested, but with little probability, that Jew- The Order of the Latter Prophets
ish practice may have been influenced by the pattern set by
1. 2. 3. 4.
the Alexandrian division of the Odyssey and Iliad of Homer
Talmud and Two mss. Eleven mss. Five Early
into 24 books each, an innovation itself dictated as much by three mss. Editions
the practical consideration of avoiding the inconvenience of
handling a scroll containing more than 1,000 verses as by the Jeremiah Jeremiah Jeremiah Jeremiah
desire to create a correspondence with the number of letters Ezekiel Ezekiel Ezekiel Ezekiel
in the Greek alphabet. The 24-book division may have been Isaiah Isaiah Isaiah Isaiah
regarded as a model for the national classics, especially be- The Twelve The Twelve The Twelve The Twelve
cause it is a multiple of 12, a number which was charged with 1. (1) The Babylonian Talmud; (2) 1280 C.E. Madrid, National Library, ms. no. 1;
special significance in the ancient world, even in the literary (3–5) London, British Museum, mss. Orient. 1474, Orient. 4227, Add. 1545.
2. (1) 1286 C.E. Paris, National Library; (2) London, British Museum, Orient.
sphere. This is evidenced by the 12-tablet division of the Gil- 2091.
gamesh Epic, the 12 sections of the Theogony of Hesiod and 3. (1) 916 C.E. Leningrad codex; (2) 1009 C.E. Leningrad ms.; (3–11) London,
the Laws of the Twelve Tablets. The 22-book division might British Museum, mss. Orient. 1246 C.E., Arund. Orient. 16, Harley 1528, Harley
well have been an adaptation of Greek practice to the Hebrew 5710–11, Add. 1525, Add. 15251, Add. 15252, Orient. 2348, Orient, 2626–8.
4. (1) The first printed edition of the entire Bible, 1488 Soncino; (2) The second
alphabetic enumeration. edition, 1491–93 Naples; (3) The third edition, 1492–1494 Brescia; (4) The first
edition of the Rabbinic Bible, edited by Felix Pratensis, 1517 Venice; (5) The
The Order of the Books first edition of the Bible with the Masorah, edited by Jacob b. Ḥ ayyim, 1524–25
In considering the arrangement of the biblical books in a spe- Venice.

bible
The Order of the Hagiographa
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Talmud Two mss. Add. 15252 Adat. Devorim Ar. Or. 16 Or. 2626–28 Or. 2201 Five Early
and Six mss. and three mss. Editions
1 Ruth Ruth Ruth Chronicles Chronicles Chronicles Psalms Psalms
2 Psalms Psalms Psalms Psalms Ruth Psalms Job Proverbs
3 Job Job Job Job Psalms Proverbs Proverbs Job
4 Proverbs Proverbs Proverbs Proverbs Job Job Ruth Song of Songs
5 Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Song of Songs Ruth Proverbs Daniel Song of Songs Ruth
6 Song of Songs Ecclesiastes Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Song of Songs Ruth Ecclesiastes Lamentations
7 Lamentations Lamentations Lamentations Ecclesiastes Ecclesiastes Song of Songs Lamentations Ecclesiastes
8 Daniel Esther Daniel Lamentations Lamentations Lamentations Esther Esther
9 Esther Daniel Esther Esther Esther Ecclesiastes Daniel Daniel
10 Ezra-Nehemiah Ezra-Nehemiah Ezra-Nehemiah Daniel Daniel Esther Ezra-Nehemiah Ezra-Nehemiah
11 Chronicles Chronicles Chronicles Ezra-Nehemiah Ezra-Nehemiah Ezra-Nehemiah Chronicles Chronicles
1. (1) The Talmud; (2) 1280 C.E. Madrid, University Library, codex no. 1; (3–7) 4. (1) 1009 C.E. Leningrad ms.; (2) 1207 C.E. Adat Devorim; (3–4) London, British
London, British Museum, mss. Harley 1528, Add. 1525, Orient. 2212, Orient. Museum, mss. Harley 5710–11, Add. 15251.
2375, Orient. 4227. 5. London, British Museum, Arund. Orient. 16.
2. (1) 1286 C.E. Paris, National Library, mss. no. 1–3; (2) London, British Museum, 6. London, British Museum, Orient. 2626–28.
Orient. 2091. 7. 1246 C.E. London, British Museum, Orient. 2201.
3. London, British Museum, Add. 15252. 8. The five early editions, see Table 1, note 4.
at Qumran, and much earlier in Mesopotamia. Haran sug- sponsible for the juxtaposition of the books of Isaiah and the
gests instead that the baraita reflects a time when scribes had Twelve.
begun to resort to larger scrolls containing several books The baraita gives no list of the Minor Prophets. It sim-
rather than using one scroll per book. This technological ply designates them “the Twelve,” implying that the order was
change would have necessitated a fixed order. The silence well-known and universally accepted. The same conclusion is
about the Pentateuch in the baraita is due to the fact that its to be drawn from Ben Sira’s reference to “the twelve prophets”
priority in its long fixed order was so universally known as (Ecclus. 49:10). Doubtless, the arrangement of the 12 small
to make it superfluous. As to the underlying principles that books, always written on a single roll, was based on chrono-
determined the sequence, it is clear that the historical books logical principles as understood by the religious authorities
of the prophetical division are set forth as a continuous, con- responsible for the canonization of the prophetic corpus. The
secutive narrative with Jeremiah and Ezekiel following in present sequence is uniform in all Hebrew manuscripts and
chronological sequence. The anomalous position of Isaiah af- printed editions.
ter Ezekiel (reflected also in some manuscripts) (see Table: No reason for the tannaitic order of the Ketuvim is given
Order of the Latter Prophets) has been variously explained. in the Gemara, but it may be noted that the 11 books are ar-
According to the Gemara (BB 14b) contextual considerations ranged chronologically in groups according to rabbinic no-
were paramount: tions of their authorship. Ruth, which closes with the gene-
alogy of David, precedes Psalms, which was ascribed to that
The Book of Kings ends with a record of destruction; Jeremiah king. Job follows, probably because of a tradition assigning the
deals throughout with destruction; Ezekiel commences with
book to the time of the Queen of Sheba (BB 15b; cf. Job 1:15).
destruction and closes with consolation, while Isaiah is entirely
consolation. Therefore, we juxtapose destruction to destruction Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs were all attributed
and consolation to consolation. to Solomon; Lamentations was thought to have been written
by Jeremiah; Daniel was credited to the exilic period and the
This explanation is hardly adequate since Jeremiah contains last two to the Persian era. Notwithstanding the tannaitic no-
prophecies of comfort and the observation on Isaiah applies tice, it would seem that the sequence of the Ketuvim was never
only to chapters 40–66. Nor is it likely that the late exilic really fixed, for the manuscripts and printed editions exhibit
origin of the last 27 chapters of Isaiah determined its place a variety of systems (see Table: Order of the Hagiographa).
after Ezekiel, since there is no evidence that the rabbis rec- Nevertheless, the differences are restricted to specific books
ognized the heterogeneous nature of the book. More persua- or clusters of books. In the manuscripts and early editions,
sive, perhaps, is the thesis that the sequence Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Chronicles never appears other than at the beginning or end
Isaiah, and the Twelve was conditioned by their respective of the corpus. Ezra-Nehemiah is invariably either the penul-
lengths in decreasing order. There may have been a tendency timate or final book depending on the position of Chronicles.
to place in close proximity prophets who were considered The three larger works: Psalms, Job, and Proverbs, always con-
to have been contemporaries so that the great similarity stitute a group, with Psalms invariably first and the other two
between Isaiah 1:1 and Hosea 1:1 might well have been re- interchanging. The Talmud itself lists the “three larger books

bible
of the Ketuvim” as Psalms, Proverbs, and Job (Ber. 57b), a vari- nection (Gen. 50:24–25; II Chron. 36:23; ‫פקד‬, ‫ ;עלה‬pkd (pqd),
ant possibly conditioned by the view that Job was among those ʿlh). Indeed, the messianic theme of the return to Zion as an
who returned from the Babylonian exile (BB 15a). appropriate conclusion to the Scriptures was probably the
The most unstable books in respect of their order in the paramount consideration in the positioning of Chronicles.
Ketuvim are the five Scrolls (Megillot). Their position var- Further evidence that the arrangement of the Scriptures was
ies in the manuscripts and printed editions both as part of intended to express certain leading ideas in Judaism may be
the corpus of Ketuvim and as separately attached to the Pen- sought in the extraordinary fact that the initial chapter of the
tateuch (see Table: Order of the Megillot). Nowhere in rab- Former Prophets (Josh. 1:8) and of the Latter Prophets (Isa.
binic sources are all five listed in immediate succession, nor 1:10) and the closing chapter of the prophetical corpus (Mal.
is the term “Five Megillot” used. The chronological sequence, 3:22), as well as the opening chapter of the Ketuvim (Ps. 1:2),
according to reputed author, that underlies the tannaitic list- all contain a reference to Torah, a conscious assertion of the
ing is essentially reflected in another talmudic source which theological priority of the Torah.
identifies “the three smaller books of the Ketuvim” as the Song
of Songs, Ecclesiastes, and Lamentations, in that order (Ber. The Languages of Scripture
57b). In fact, six of eight main variations basically preserve this The books of the Bible have come down in the Hebrew lan-
chronological principle (see Table: Order of the Hagiographa, guage with the exception of two words in Genesis (31:47), a sin-
cols. 1–5, 7). The practice of grouping all five Megillot together gle verse in Jeremiah (10:11), and sections of Daniel (2:4b–7:28)
has its origin in the custom of reading these books on festi- and Ezra (4:8–6:18; 7:12–26), all of which are in Aramaic. The
val days: the Song of Songs on Passover, Ruth on Pentecost, problem of the language of Scripture is, however, more com-
Lamentations on the Ninth of Av, Ecclesiastes on Sukkot, and plicated than would appear on the surface and it constitutes
Esther on Purim (cf. Soferim 14:1, ed. Higger, p. 251–2). This is part of the larger issue of the history of the growth and for-
the order as it crystallized in the early printed Hebrew Bibles mation of the canon. Some scholars, for instance, regard Job,
and in some manuscripts and early printed editions of the Pen- Ecclesiastes, and Chronicles, as well as the Hebrew sections
tateuch, to which all five Megillot have been attached. of Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah as translations, in whole or
part, from Aramaic. This implies that the original is lost, and
The Order of the Megillot after the Pentateuch
at once raises the possibility of error in the course of rendi-
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. tion from language to language. It should be noted, though,
mss. mss. mss. mss. Early that in dealing with the problem of translation care must be
Nos. 1,2,3 Nos. 4,5,6 Nos. 7, 8 No. 9 Editions taken to distinguish between Aramaisms and Aramaic influ-
ence on Hebrew style on the one hand, and a translation that
Song of Songs Esther Ruth Ruth Song of Songs may betray its Aramaic substratum on the other.
Ruth Song of Songs Song of Songs Song of Songs Ruth
Even works unquestionably composed in Hebrew are
Lamentations Ruth Ecclesiastes Lamentations Lamentations
not without their linguistic history. In dealing with biblical
Ecclesiastes Lamentations Lamentations Ecclesiastes Ecclesiastes
Esther Ecclesiastes Esther Esther Esther
Hebrew it must be remembered that the language of Scrip-
ture represents a period of creativity covering several hun-
The nine mss. collated for this Table are the following in the British Museum: (1)
dred years during which internal development inevitably
Add. 9400; (2) Add. 9403; (3) Add. 19776; (4) Harley 5706; (5) Add. 9404; (6) Orient.
2786; (7) Harley 5773; (8) Harley 15283; (9) Add. 15282. took place. In general, it may be said that the poetic texts in
The fifth column represents the order adopted in the first, second and third editions the historical books have preserved the earliest strata of the
of the Hebrew Bible, as well as that of the second and third editions of Bomberg’s language (Gen. 49; Ex. 15; Num. 23–24; Deut. 32; 33; Judg. 5),
Quarto Bible (Venice 1521, 1525), in all of which the five Megillot follow immediately
after the Pentateuch while the Hebrew of those works deriving from the postex-
ilic period – like Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, Ecclesiastes,
The final position of Chronicles is most remarkable since Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Daniel – exhibits features
Ezra-Nehemiah follows naturally in continuation of the nar- that distinguish the known characteristics of postbiblical He-
rative. The anomaly is emphasized by the widespread sup- brew. In between there are several linguistic layers, the isola-
port it received in the manuscripts and early printed edition of which is complicated by the relatively small amount
tions. It would appear that the New Testament, too, reflects of material available for comparison, the difficulties in dating
this arrangement (Matt. 23:35; Luke 11:51). As an explanation, the different documents, and the problem of distinguishing
it might be suggested that the position of Chronicles rep- between the age of the material and the period of the final
resents the chronology of canonization, though there is no stage of its redaction. Much scholarly effort in recent years
evidence to support this. More likely, it resulted from a con- has been directed to identifying the specific linguistic features
scious attempt to place the biblical books within a narrative of Late Biblical Hebrew (LBH). Also, it is not known to what
framework. Genesis and Chronicles both begin with the ori- extent the editors “modernized” the language of the material
gin and development of the human race and both end with they worked with. Comparative Semitic phonology and mor-
the promise of redemption and return to the Land of Israel. phology make it certain that the present system of vocaliza-
The two books actually employ the same key verbs in this con- tion of the Hebrew consonants reflects the stage of Hebrew

bible
pronunciation more or less as it had crystallized in the Second This would be particularly true of a written text since scribal
Temple period. It can be said from internal biblical evidence activities would naturally be restricted to a relatively small
(cf. Judg. 12:6) and from several inscriptions that there were circle of specialists. Furthermore, the use of sacred literature
important differences in dialect between northern Israel and in public worship and in the curriculum of influential schools
southern Judah. Consequently, since much of the biblical lit- would tend to endow a certain version of a scriptural text with
erature originated in the north but was mediated through the greater prestige. All these factors would tend to work in the
Judean scribes, it must have been stylistically transformed to direction of inhibiting the multiplication of textual versions
conform to the standard Jerusalemite dialect. Finally, in eval- and would serve to give some text-types greater prominence
uating the language of the Bible, the problem of the reliability than others.
and integrity of the Hebrew consonantal text tradition can- The situation presupposed here finds support in the
not be overlooked. history of Mesopotamian literature, where all the evidence
points to the emergence of authoritative standard versions of
text the classical texts by the end of the second millennium B.C.E.
As a consequence of this development, the great cuneiform
The History of the Biblical Text
literary texts appear in very limited editions despite wide geo-
In the medieval codices of the Hebrew Bible, as in the printed
graphic distribution and considerable chronological variabil-
editions to the present times, the text generally comprises
ity. A similar state of affairs is discernible in connection with
three distinct components. These are the consonants, the
the Greek classics. As early as the sixth century B.C.E. the
vowel symbols, and the liturgical, diacritical notations. The
production of a definitive text of the Odyssey and the Iliad
latter two elements were invented by the masoretes (see *Ma-
was commissioned by Pisistratus, tyrant of Athens, though
sorah) while the history of the consonantal text, with which
this is not necessarily the text that finally became predomi-
this section is exclusively concerned, represents the crystalli-
nant. From the third century B.C.E. on, considerable textual-
zation of a textual critical process of very great antiquity and
critical work on the manuscripts of Homer to determine the
of remarkable complexity. The second edition of the Rabbinic
correct readings was undertaken by scholars at the museum
Bible, edited by Jacob b. Ḥ ayyim and published by Daniel
library of Alexandria. There is no reason why the textual his-
*Bomberg (Venice 1524/25), served as the model for all future
tory of the sacred Scriptures of Israel should have been more
printed editions (see Printed Editions, below). Between this
anarchic than that of the Mesopotamian and Greek classics.
date and that of the most ancient fragments of the Hebrew
In fact, the existence of a fixed text of at least part of the Torah
Scriptures found in the Judean Desert intervenes a period of
before the close of the pentateuchal canon is presupposed by
approximately 2,000 years, and many more centuries of tex-
the injunction in Deuteronomy (17:18–19) that the king have a
tual transmission separate the earliest documents from the
copy of the law transcribed for himself for purposes of regular
editio princeps of a biblical book.
study, as well as by the prescription to hold a periodic public
The Earliest Period (up to c. 300 B.C.E.) It is no longer reading of the Law from an official copy deposited in the cen-
possible to reconstruct the textual evolution of the Hebrew tral sanctuary (Deut. 31:9–12, 26). There is no way of knowing,
Scriptures between the time of the composition of an indi- however, whether any one recension achieved greater national
vidual work and the age of the first known witnesses, ap- importance or prominence within this period. It can only be
proximately 300 B.C.E. The existence of divergent texts of the concluded that since the prototype of the text-family that ul-
same books may be postulated since this is the only way to timately achieved hegemony is present at Qumran, the history
explain the variants in the many passages duplicated in the of that text must be much older.
Bible. (II Sam. 22 = Ps. 18; II Kings 18:13–20:19 = Isa. 36–39;
II Kings 24:18–25:30 = Jer. 52; Isa. 2:2–4 = Micah 4:1–3; Ps. The Second Period (c. 300 B.C.E.–First Century C.E.) The
14=53; 40:14–18=70; 57:8–12 = 108: 2–6; 60:7–14 = 108; 7–14; starting point, it should be noted, is somewhat arbitrary and is
96 = I Chron. 16:23–33; Ps. 105:1–15 = I Chron. 16:8–22; 106:1, conditioned by the fortuitous existence of manuscript docu-
47–48 = I Chron. 16:34–36; the parallels between Sam.–Kings mentation; and the limiting point is fixed by the observation
and Chron.). of a radical change after the destruction of the Temple. The
As late as the 13t century traditions were still preserved evidence for development within this period involves Hebrew
about a period of disorder in biblical texts and the textual- sources and Greek translations and is both direct and indi-
critical activities of the “Men of the Great Assembly” (David rect. It is characterized by the diversity of text-types, though
Kimḥ i, preface to his commentary on Joshua). This conclu- the number seems to have been very limited and each family
sion is reinforced by the findings from caves in Qumran. of manuscripts appears to have maintained its homogeneity
Here a plurality of text-types has been discovered – a situa- over a long period of time.
tion which must represent a state of affairs much older than Until the discovery of the *Dead Sea Scrolls, the evi-
its earliest documentation. Indeed, it may be argued that the dence of textual diversity in this period consisted mainly
very idea of canonicity carries with it an attitude of reverence of the Samaritan *Pentateuch and the Septuagint; the latter
for the text and fosters care and accuracy in its transmission. must have been translated from a Hebrew source at variance

bible
with the received text. Further evidence for a still fluid state with an attempt to ensure just such a standardized recension.
of the text is provided by the citations of Scripture found in Indeed, that there existed an official Temple Scroll (Sefer ha-
the books of the *Apocrypha and by rabbinic traditions about Azarah) which enjoyed high prestige is amply attested in rab-
the activities of the *soferim. These latter are credited with re- binic sources (TJ, Sanh. 2:6, 20c; Shek 4:3, 48a; MK 3:4; Kelim
sponsibility for textual emendations (tikkunei soferim, Mekh., 15:6; cf. Jos., Wars, 7:150, 162), though it is not possible to tell
Shira, 6; Sif. Num. 84), for marking dislocated verses (ibid.; exactly to what period they refer. Certainly, the seven rules of
Shab. 115b–116a) and suspect readings (ARN1 34, 100–1; ARN2 biblical hermeneutics, compiled but not invented by Hillel the
37, 97; Sif. Num. 69), as well as for deletions (itturei soferim, Elder (Tosef., Sanh. 7:11; ARN1 37, 110; cf. Pes. 66a; TJ, Pes. 6:1,
Ned. 37b). Other rabbinic traditions tell of the need for “book 33a), take the history of the attempt at textual stabilization at
correctors” (maggihei sefarim) in Jerusalem attached to the least back to the time of Herod.
Temple (Ket. 106a; TJ, Shek. 4:3, 48a) and even of divergent Soon after the destruction of the Temple, Josephus (Ap-
readings in pentateuchal scrolls kept in the Temple archives ion, 1:8) wrote about the inviolate nature of the text of the Jew-
(TJ, Ta’an 4:2, 68a; Sif. Deut. 356; ARN2 46, 65; Sof. 6:4). ish Scriptures and it is clear that he regarded this as a virtue
This fluidity of text is precisely the situation that was of long standing. Further proof for the existence of the notion
revealed at Qumran, particularly Cave IV which has yielded of an authoritative text is provided by the Letter of Aristeas
about 100 manuscripts, complete or fragmentary. The out- which is well aware of the circulation of carelessly written
standing phenomenon is the ability of the sect to tolerate, with books of the Law (Arist. 30) and has Ptolemy send to the high
no apparent disquiet, the simultaneous existence of divergent priest in Jerusalem for a Hebrew text from which to make the
texts of the same book, as well as verbal and orthographic va- Greek translation (ibid., 33–40, 46; cf. 176). Once produced,
riety within the scope of a single recension. Clearly, an invio- this translation itself came to be regarded as sacrosanct by the
lable, sacrosanct, authoritative text did not exist at Qumran. Jews of Alexandria (ibid., 311). Nevertheless, there is evidence
Whether the identical conclusion is also valid for the norma- from Qumran that the Greek translation was the object of
tive Jewish community of Palestine in this period is less cer- much recensional activity, the purpose of which was to bring
tain. It is true that there is nothing specifically sectarian about it into line with developments in the Hebrew texts current in
the Qumran Bible scrolls, either in the scribal techniques and Palestine. This phenomenon reveals, once again, both that the
conventions employed or in the nature of the divergent read- Hebrew text was still fluid and that there was a movement to-
ings, which are decidedly neither tendentious nor ideologi- ward textual stabilization.
cal. Nevertheless, caution must be exercised in the use of the Within this period the notion of an authoritative text was
Qumran evidence for reconstruction of a generalized history well rooted outside the Qumran community. A very limited
of textual development in this period. The lack of more ex- number of textual families is discernible, probably each hav-
amples of the masoretic text-type may be solely accidental. It ing achieved local authority. Each family, however, exhibits
is also possible that this is less a library than a genizah which internal textual variety. The religious leadership in Jerusalem
would tend to preserve discarded texts and so present a dis- appears to have recognized a fixed text and to have been en-
torted picture. In many instances, the fragments are very small gaged in textual-critical activity aligning divergent exem-
and are only disjecta membra, making the derivation of overall plars with it. The beginnings of this movement may possibly
characteristics very hazardous. Finally, the isolated, cloistered, be traced to the Maccabean victories. At any rate, the recen-
and segregated existence led by the sect of “covenanters,” with sional family that ultimately crystallized into what came to be
its implacable hostility to the Jerusalem religious establish- known as “masoretic” is well represented among the Qum-
ment, could well have insulated Qumran from normative de- ran collection, the most outstanding example being the Isa-
velopments elsewhere in Judea, where a less tolerant approach iah scroll (1QIsb).
to textual diversity may have prevailed.
In fact, the rabbinic testimony cited above demonstrates The Third Period (First Century C.E.–Ninth Century C.E.)
the existence of a movement away from a plurality of recen- The existence of an official text with binding authority from
sions and toward textual stabilization. The textual-critical the generation of the destruction of the Temple is clearly re-
activities of the soferim are all directed to this end and they flected in halakhic discussions. Zechariah b. ha-Kaẓ ẓ av, who
are expressly reported to have worked on a text fixed even in was apparently a priest in the Temple (cf. Ket. 2:9), based legal
respect of the number of its letters (Kid. 30a). Whatever its decisions on the presence of a conjunctive vav (Sot. 5:1). *Na-
intrinsic worth this talmudic tradition could not have arisen hum of Gimzo, of the first generation of tannaim, employed
among the rabbis had the fixing of the text been recent. The the principle of “extension and limitation” in the interpreta-
presence of Temple-sponsored “book correctors” implies the tion of certain Hebrew particles (Ḥ ag. 12a; Pes. 22b), a her-
acceptance at some point in the Second Temple period of an meneutical system later developed to the full by R. *Akiva to
authoritative text by which the accuracy of other scrolls was whom not a word of the Torah, nor even a syllable or letter,
measured (Ket. 106a; TJ, Shek. 4:3, 48a; Sanh. 2:6, 20c). The was superfluous. Hence, he could derive a multiplicity of rules
record of the variant Temple scrolls is a tradition concerned from each tittle on the letters of the Torah (Men. 29b). He,

bible
too, warned against teaching from “uncorrected” books (Pes. scripts from the tannaitic period (c. 200 C.E.) and the earliest
112a) and emphasized the importance of the protective devices medieval ones (c. ninth century C.E.). None of the medieval
(masoret) for the Torah text (Avot 3:13). Further, it was in Aki- manuscripts and codices, and not even the thousands of Bible
va’s day that the question arose as to whether the established fragments from the Cairo *Genizah represent a recension dif-
consonantal text or the traditional manner of reading was to ferent from the received text.
determine the halakhic interpretation (Mak. 7b; Sanh. 4a; Pes. See also *Masorah, *Poetry in the Bible.
86b; Kid. 18b). R. *Ishmael, his contemporary, formulated the
Bibliography: F. Buhl, Canon and Text of the Old Testament
13 *hermeneutical norms (Sifra 1:1) which presuppose a fixed
(1892); C.D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edi-
recension. He also advised R. Meir to be extraordinarily me- tion of the Hebrew Bible (1897), repr. 1966 with a prolegomenon by
ticulous in his work of transcribing sacred texts lest he omit or HM Orlinsky; V. Aptowitzer, Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Lit-
add a single letter (Er. 13a). This period is distinguished from eratur (1906–15); H.E. Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament (1909);
its predecessors in that a single stabilized text attained unim- H.B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (19682); L.
peachable authority and achieved hegemony over all others. Ginsberg, in: JBL, 41 (1922), 115–36; M.L. Margolis, Hebrew Scriptures
This development seems to have occurred in the course of the in the Making (1922); G.F. Moore, Judaism… (1927–30); A. Geiger, Ur-
first century C.E., probably as a consequence of the need for schrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel… (1928); S. Zeitlin, in: PAAJR,
4 (1932), 169–223; R. Gordis, Biblical Text in the Making (1937); J. Ph.
religiocultural cohesion and national unity following the de-
Hyatt, in: BA, 6 (1943), 71–80; E. Urbach, in: Tarbiz, 17 (1945/46), 1–11;
struction of the Temple. Before long, all other Hebrew recen- B.J. Roberts, Old Testament Text and Versions (1951); Y. Kaufmann,
sions were discarded and passed into oblivion, leaving only Toledot; E.A. Parsons, The Alexandrian Library (1952); M.H. Segal,
a few traces behind. in: JBL, 72 (1953), 35–47; idem, Mevo ha-Mikra (1956); L.J. Liebreich,
It is true that in the generation after R. Akiva copies of in: HUCA, 25 (1954), 37–40; C.H. Robert, in: British Academy Pro-
the Torah made by R. Meir might still contain a few textual ceedings (1954), 169–204; M. Weitemyer, in: Libri, 6 (1955–56), 217–38
oddities (Gen. R. 9:5; 20:12), and medieval tradition could re- (Eng.); M. Greenberg, in: JAOS, 76 (1956), 157–67; P. Katz, in: ZNW, 47
tain a record of variant readings found in a Torah scroll stored (1956), 191–217; M. Haran, in: Tarbiz, 25 (1955/56), 245–71; I.L. Selig-
mann, ibid., 118–39; P.W. Skehan, in: VT Supplement, 4 (1957), 155–60;
in the synagogue of Severus in Rome (Bereshit Rabbati, ed.
W. Hallo, in: IEJ, 12 (1962), 13–26; idem, in: JAOS, 83 (1963), 167–76;
Albeck, p. 209). It is also true that rabbinic literature has pre- 88 (1968), 71–89; S. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (1950);
served several hundred deviations from the received text in D. Barthélemy, Les Devanciers d’Aquila (1963); F.M. Cross, in: HTR,
scriptural quotations and in reconstructed readings underly- 57 (1964), 281–99; idem, in: IEJ, 16 (1966), 81–95; idem, in: BA, 28
ing a specific piece of midrashic exegesis, while the same phe- (1965), 87–100; E. Wuerthwein, Text of the Old Testament (1957); M.H.
nomenon may be discernible in citations in Jewish Palestinian Goshen-Gottstein, Text and Language in Bible and Qumran (1960);
apocryphal and pseudepigraphical literature, in the New Tes- idem, in: Textus, 2 (1962), 28–59; 5 (1966), 22–23 (Eng.); idem, in: A.
tament, and in the Church Fathers. Even in the third century Altmann (ed.), Biblical and Other Studies (1963), 79–122; idem, in:
C.E., R. Ammi, a Palestinian amora, might still find it neces- Biblica, 48 (1967), 243–90 (Eng.); P. Kahle, The Cairo Geniza (19592);
S. Talmon, in: Textus, 1 (1960), 144–84; 2 (1962), 14–27; 4 (1964),
sary to warn against the retention of “uncorrected books” for
95–132 (Eng.); F.G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts
more than 30 days (Ket 19b). Nevertheless, at this period all (19654); N.M. Sarna, in: Essays in Honor of I.E. Kiev. Add. Bibli-
this constitutes a survival and not a living tradition. ography: Traditional commentaries on the Torah: Torat Ḥ ayyim:
The hegemony of the masoretic-type text is amply at- Ḥ amisha Ḥ umshe Torah (Genesis-Deuteronomy complete in 7 vols),
tested, apart from halakhic sources, by two independent classes Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook: 1986–1993; The English translation
of witnesses. On the one hand, the Hebrew biblical scrolls of the Bible by the Jewish Publication Society of America was com-
and fragments discovered at Masada (66–73 C.E.), at Wadi pleted as follows: Torah: 1962; The Prophets: 1978; The Writings: 1982.
Murabbaʿat, and at Naḥ al Ḥ ever (both from c. 132–35 C.E.) are The entire work is now in one volume: Tanakh: A New Translation of
the Holy Scriptures According to the Traditional Hebrew Text, Philadel-
all practically identical with the received text. On the other
phia/New York/Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1985. All of the
hand, the Jewish Greek translation of the Minor Prophets following contain extensive bibliographies. The most recent work on
found in Naḥ al Ḥ ever, and the second-century Greek trans- the textual history and criticism of the Bible is: Emanuel Tov, Textual
lations of the Bible attributed to *Aquila, *Symmachus, and Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Minneapolis: Fortress Press and As-
Theodotion all testify to revisions of the Septuagint attempt- sen/Maastrict: Van Gorcum, 1992. A major reference work in biblical
ing to bring it closer to a masoretic-type Hebrew text which studies is the now-complete Enẓ iklopediyyah Mikra’it in Hebrew: E.L.
had become exclusively authoritative. Whether this develop- Sukeinik (dec.), U.M.D. Cassuto (dec.), H. Tadmor, and Sh. Ahituv,
ment resulted from an official promulgation by accepted reli- editors, Enẓ iklopediyyah Mikra’it (= Encyclopaedia Biblica), Vols. 1–9,
gious authorities, or whether it was the culmination of a long Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1950–1988. Other reference works in bibli-
cal studies are: David Noel Freedman, editor-in-chief, Anchor Bible
period of growth during which the masoretic type had always
Dictionary, complete, Vols. 1–6, New York/London/Toronto/Sydney/
represented the mainstream of tradition can no longer be de- Auckland: Doubleday, 1992; G.J. Botterweck, Helmer Ringgren and,
termined. Whatever the case, no further developments of any Heinz-Josef Fabry, editors, Theological Dictionary of the Old Testa-
significance in the biblical Hebrew consonantal text took place ment, Volumes 1–7 covering ‫ א‬through ‫ל‬, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerd-
during the 600 years that elapsed between the latest manu- mans, 1974–1995 (trans. of Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Tes-

bible
tament, Volumes 1–4, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970–1984). The most segol. There are frequent errors, whole verses (108), half verses
accurate Hebrew text of the Bible to have been produced to date is (3), and odd words (43) are omitted, and there are dittographs
Mordecai Breuer, Torah Nevi’im Ketuvim, Jerusalem: Mosad Harav both of letters and of words.
Kook, Torah, 1977; Nevi’im, 1979; Ketuvim, 1982; 1 A series of original
The next venture was due to the ẓ edakot (“charities”)
Hebrew commentaries on the biblical books written from the per-
spective of Jewish tradition is Daat Mikra, Jerusalem: Mosad Harav
of the rich and pious Joseph b. Abraham Caravita. Knowing
Kook, most of planned 24 volumes completed 1970–1989. Scholarly that the vigor of Judaism depends on serious and continued
commentaries on the individual books of the Bible have included: reading and study of the Bible, many wealthy Jews employed
David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker, General Editors; John D. scribes to copy manuscripts in order to foster this study. In
Watt, Old Testament Editor, Word Biblical Commentary, Word Books, Spain they continued using scribes, but Jews in Italy quickly
Waco, TX (volumes 1–32 cover the entire Old Testament; NT is also realized that the invention of printing with movable type
covered), 1983–1992; R.K. Harrison, General Editor, The New Inter- would enable them to ensure the more effective dissemination
national Commentary on the Old Testament, William B. Eerdmans,
of the Bible. In 1479–80 Joseph b. Abraham invited from Ferr-
Grand Rapids, MI (commentaries on most of the books of the OT now
ara to Bologna Abraham b. Ḥ ayyim di Tintori, a master crafts-
complete), 1976–1993; Bernhard W. Anderson, et al., general editors,
The Old Testament Library, includes commentaries (some original, man who had largely solved the problems of both vowel-points
some translations) on most of the books of the OT, as well as: Intro- and accents. The result of this move was the Bologna Penta-
duction to the Old Testament (J.A. Soggin), Israelite and Judaean His- teuch of 1482, which set the pattern for many future editions,
tory (ed. John H. Hayes and J. Maxwell Miller), Near Eastern Religious culminating in the Bomberg rabbinic Bibles of the next cen-
Texts Relating to the Old Testament (ed. Walter Beyerlin), A History tury. The folios consist of Rashi’s commentary across the page,
of Israel (John Bright), Theology of the Old Testament (Walther Eich- top and bottom, with the Hebrew text in the inner and wider
rodt) and more. London: SCM Press and Philadelphia/Louisville, KY: column and Targum Onkelos in the outer column. The type is
Westminster/John Knox Press, 1962–1993; Biblischer Kommentar, Altes
larger than that of the 1477 psalter, but, as in some Ashkenazi
Testament, Neukirchen: Neukirchener Verlag, (most of planned of 24
volumes completed), 1966–1991; William Foxwell Albright (dec.) and manuscripts, the final letters kaf, nun, and pe do not extend
David Noel Freedman, editors, The Anchor Bible, New York, Garden below the base-line of other consonants, so that it is virtually
City: Doubleday (most of planned 25 volumes on OT already com- impossible to distinguish between dalet and final kaf.
plete; also volumes on Apocrypha and NT), 1962–1993; The JPS Torah A little later, a certain Israel Nathan b. Samuel moved
Commentary, Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, Genesis- to Soncino, a small town in the duchy of Milan. There he set
Numbers completed 1989–1991; Deuteronomy expected; Menaḥ em up a printing press for his son, and this was the beginning of
Haran (General editor), [Enẓ iklopediyyah] Olam ha-Tanakh, Earlier the great firm of Joshua Solomon *Soncino and his nephews,
volumes: Ramat Gan: Revivim 1982–1989; later volumes: Tel Aviv:
Moses and Gershom. Attracting Abraham b. Ḥ ayyim from
Davidson-Ittai, 1993–1995. The following are some general works on
the Hebrew Bible: Richard Elliot Friedman, Who Wrote the Bible,
Bologna, they produced the first complete Bible, the Soncino
New York: Harper & Row, 1987; Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Bible of 1488, with vowels and accents, but without a commen-
Old Testament as Scripture, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979; Rob- tary, as was the custom of the Soncinos. The Soncino brothers
ert Alter and Frank Kermode, The Literary Guide to the Bible, Cam- also were responsible for the 1491–93 Naples Bible, in which
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987. The following works are the vowel-points and accents are better placed than before.
on the history of biblical exegesis and scholarship: Martin J. Mulder, Gershom Soncino moved to Brescia, where he produced the
editor, Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the He- 1495 Brescia Bible, an improved edition of the 1488 Soncino
brew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity, Philadelphia: Bible, but, more important, in small octavo format, making it
Fortress Press and Assen/Maastricht: Van Grocum, 1988; Ezra Zion
a pocket edition specifically produced for the persecuted Jews
Melammed, Mefarshei ha-Mikra: Darkhehem ve-Shitotehem, Volumes
I–II, Jerusalem: Magnes Press 1975; Douglas A. Knight and Gene M. who, perpetually moving from place to place, found it diffi-
Tucker, The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters, Philadelphia: cult to carry the huge and costly folio Bibles. It was this edi-
Fortress Press and Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1985 tion which Martin Luther used when he translated the Bible
into German.
[Nahum M. Sarna / S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)]
In Spain a Hebrew Pentateuch with Targum and Rashi
was printed by Solomon Salmatic b. Maimon in 1490 at Ixar
printed editions (hebrew) (Hijar). There were also printing presses in Portugal, where
The story of the printing of the Hebrew Bible begins with the in 1487 the Faro Pentateuch was produced. In this edition the
1477 edition of the Psalms, most probably produced at Bolo- printer was unable to solve the problem of placing a dot in the
gna. Each verse is followed by the appropriate passage from middle of a consonant, so there is no dagesh. This was followed
David *Kimḥ i’s commentary, an arrangement which does not in 1491 by the Lisbon Pentateuch in two volumes with the Tar-
appear again in Hebrew Bibles. Since the first printers had gum and Rashi’s commentary, and in the next year by Isaiah
considerable difficulty with the vowel-points, they abandoned and Jeremiah at Lisbon and Proverbs at Leira. The expulsion
them after Psalm 4:4, excepting only three consecutive verses, of the Jews from Spain (1492) put an end to the printing of new
5:12–6:1. Many words are printed plene (with vowel letters (ma- editions of the Bible, both in Portugal and Italy, for wealthy
tres lectionis, Heb. immot ha-keri’ah)), including even yod for Jews needed all their means to help the refugees, over a quarter

bible
de Qumran (1971); B. Grossfeld, A Bibliography of Targum Literature Jerusalem to send 72 elders, of unblemished moral character
(1972); S. Kaufman, in: JAOS 93 (1973), 317–27; idem, ABD IV, 173–78; and outstanding linguistic skills in both Hebrew and Greek,
idem (ed.), “CAL Bibliographic Resources,” electronically available to Alexandria to prepare the desired Greek text. After a series
at: CAL1.cn.huc.edu; E.Z. Melammed, Mefarshei ha-Mikra (detailed
of lavish banquets, distinguished by the depth of conversation
description and analysis of targumic techniques; 1978), 131–352; E.Y.
Kutscher, Hebrew and Aramaic Studies (1977); M. Sokoloff, The Tar- as much as the breadth of foodstuffs – the elders/translators
gum to Job from Qumran Cave XI (1974); idem, A Dictionary of Jew- go off to palatial quarters to accomplish their task. They work
ish Palestinian Aramaic of the Byzantine Period (DJPA; 1990); idem, A in teams, as is often the case to this day, preparing prelimi-
Dictionary of Jewish Babylonian Aramaic (DJBA; 2002); Y. Komlosh, nary drafts and arguing back and forth to arrive at renderings
in: C. Rabin (ed.), Bible Translation An Introduction (1988), 5–44; A. on which they could all agree. When their finished version is
Tal, The Language of the Targum of the Former Prophets and its Posi- read before the assembled Jews of Alexandria, it elicits great
tion within the Aramaic Dialects (1975); M. Klein, in: JJS, 26 (1975), acclaim and an anathema/curse is pronounced on anyone who
61–67; idem,The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch (1980); idem,
would change even a word of it.
Anthropomorphisms and Anthropopathisms in the Targumim of the
This narrative, which describes only the origins of the
Pentateuch (1982); idem, Genizah Manuscripts of Palestinian Targum
to the Pentateuch (1986); B. Levy, Targum Neofiti I: A Textual Study, Greek Pentateuch, contains sufficient historical inaccura-
2 vols. (1986, 1987); J. Blenkinsopp, Ezra-Nehemiah (1988); P. Alexan- cies and inconsistencies to render it impossible to consider
der, in: M. Mulder (ed.), Mikra (1988), 217–53; idem, in: ABD, 321–31; the work a product of the reign of Ptolemy II. Over the past
S. Fassberg, A Grammar of the Palestinian Targum Fragments from century, there has been considerable scholarly debate on how
the Cairo Genizah (1990); M. Cohen (ed.), Mikra’ot Gedolot “Haketer” much, if anything, can be salvaged from the Letter that is his-
(1992ff.); S. Reed and B. Zuckerman, in: CAL Newsletter 10 (1993), torically reliable or at least probable. On the positive side, there
1–7; M. McNamara et al. (eds.), The Aramaic Bible (ongoing series is firm consensus that the LXX Pentateuch does originate in
of English translations of the Aramaic Targums; 1987ff);,idem, in:
Alexandria and from a period prior to the mid-third century
A. Hauser and D. Watson (eds.), A History of Biblical Interpretation
(2003), 189–90; F. Starke, in: WdO, 24 (1993) 20–38; D. Stec, The Text B.C.E. It is also clear that its translators were indeed Jews who
of the Targum of Job: An Introduction and Critical Edition (1994); J. were reasonably well versed in Hebrew and in koine Greek.
Greenfield, in: Al Kanfei Yonah..Collected Studies… J.C. Greenfield… Additionally, it is certain that the books of the Torah were the
(2001), 361–65; C.Mueller-Kessler, in: Journal for the Aramaic Bible first to be translated and that they served as a model (some-
(JAB) 3 (2001), 181–98; C.M. Brady, The Rabbinic Targum of Lamen- times followed, sometimes ignored) by those responsible for
tations (2003): D. Shepherd, Targum and Translation: A Reconsidera- subsequent books of the LXX.
tion of the Qumran Aramaic of Job (2004). Serious doubt, however, has been cast on the Letter’s
[Bernard Grossfeld / S. David Sperling (2nd ed.)] portrayal of royal initiative as the decisive factor in the cre-
ation of the text. Does it not, it might be asked, make more
Greek: The Septuagint sense to seek LXX origins within the Alexandrian Jewish
The Septuagint (or LXX) is an important corpus of ancient community itself, which saw the need for an authoritative
Jewish writings that includes Greek translations of all of the Greek version of Sacred Writ, as fluency in, or even familiar-
books of the Hebrew Bible and of other works originally com- ity with, Hebrew became rarer and rarer? But it is most likely
posed in Hebrew or Aramaic, plus several original composi- that both internal and external causes were responsible for
tions in Greek. It functioned as Sacred Writ for Greek-speak- this groundbreaking endeavor (this was the first time, so far
ing Jewish communities from the mid-third century B.C.E. as we know, that a “barbarian text” such as Hebrew Scripture
until sometime in the early centuries of the Christian Era. At was rendered into Greek); such a confluence of interests ac-
an early period, Christians adopted the Septuagint as their cords better with both the history of the times and later de-
Old Testament, which led to its losing favor, although not all velopments in Bible translation than does a dogmatic either/
of its status, among Jews. The Septuagint is important as the or formulation.
first written translation of the Hebrew Bible; as a repository of Although Aristeas pictures the LXX Pentateuch as the
otherwise unobtainable data about the beliefs, practices, and result of committee actions at one particular time and place,
language of Hellenistic Judaism; and as an influence on the modern scholars detect at least five (and perhaps six) differ-
thinking of subsequent, primarily (although not exclusively) ent translators at work on the Five Books of Moses. They are
Christian religious thinkers. different enough to be identifiable, but all five (or six) were
Evidence of the origins of the Septuagint can be found working within the same general parameters: what might be
in documents such as the Letter of *Aristeas, which probably termed reasonable and somewhat flexible literalism, on oc-
dates to the early or mid-second century B.C.E. Although it casion bending the Greek rather far in the direction of the
purports to be an eyewitness account of the events it describes, Hebrew original, at other times showing a deep concern for a
in all probably it is separated from them by about a century. As Greek-speaking audience.
related in the Letter, the reigning king of Egypt, *Ptolemy II The author of the Letter of Aristeas sees little of what
Philadelphus (285–246 B.C.E.), sought to include in his grow- might be called “miraculous” in the production of the LXX
ing Library at Alexandria, a Greek copy of the Jewish Law; that Pentateuch. He does note, somewhat sheepishly, that the 72
is, the Torah. To accomplish this, he invites the High Priest in translators worked exactly 72 days (and nights). Later on,

bible
within both Judaism and especially Christianity, this rela- to the coming of Jesus as Christ. And this was in spite of the
tively restrained account was embellished in many direc- fact that the LXX was created for Jews by Jews, almost three
tions. Within the Jewish world, it is primarily to the first cen- centuries before Jesus’ birth!
tury C.E. philosopher *Philo, himself a native of Alexandria, We are, it would seem, without much, if any, external
that we owe several significant additions to Aristeas’ narra- information (that is, outside of the text of the LXX itself) on
tive. For example, Philo names the Island of Pharos as the lo- the location, order, or modus operandi of those responsible
cation at which the translators worked, and he describes an for the LXX beyond the Pentateuch. With few exceptions, it
annual festival, still observed in his day, to honor their work. is reasonable to place these translators within the context of
Moreover, he speaks of those responsible for the Septuagint Alexandria. It is also likely that the book of Joshua was trans-
as prophets rather than (mere) translators. In this way, he is lated next after the Pentateuch. Beyond that, there are a few,
able to account for material that was found in the Greek but but only a few, references to historical figures or events that
not in the Hebrew text. can be gleaned from any of the LXX books; more numer-
As fully elaborated in the work of the fourth century ous are likely examples of dependence of one LXX book (or,
Christian writer Epiphanius, each of the translators was iso- better, its translator) on another, thereby allowing for some
lated in a cell and cut off from discussion or comparisons with tentative relative, although not absolute, ordering of books
his colleagues – and yet all 72 produced texts that were identi- chronologically.
cal in every detail (in other forms of the tradition, the transla- The task of discerning the history of the creation of the
tors worked in pairs). This and other “miraculous” occurrences LXX is further complicated by the nature of the evidence. For
served to demonstrate the sacredness of the text produced and the most part, our earliest texts for this Greek material derive
the role it was to play as Scripture for Christians. from codices (manuscripts in book form, rather than scrolls)
It is not entirely clear what the author of Aristeas in- from the third and fourth centuries C.E.; in particular, Codex
tended in this regard. On the one hand, as noted above, the Vaticanus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Sinaiticus. The
deliberations of the elders proceeded in much the same way codices are uncials (that is, written in all capital letters) from
as modern teams of Bible translators operate. Nonetheless, important Christian scriptoria; therefore, they contain the
what they produced was accepted as somehow authoritative LXX as part of their “Bible” (the New Testament completes it
by the Alexandrian Jewish community and, by extension, the for them). There is no reason to think that Christian scribes
larger Jewish world. This is seen not only in the curse uttered deliberately changed the originally Jewish text for tenden-
against all who might change it, but also in the deliberate way tious, theological reasons, although it is certain that all sorts
in which the reception of the Septuagint is modeled on the re- of scribal changes led to many differences, some substantial,
ception of the Ten Commandments and accompanying laws between what the codices contain and what the earliest Greek
in the biblical book of Exodus. (or Old Greek) read. We are not without earlier evidence in
It is likely that when the author of the Letter of Aristeas the form of a limited number of Greek texts from Qumran
fashioned a communal curse on those who would change the and other Dead Sea locales; citations, allusions, and rework-
Greek Pentateuch, he had some specific concerns in mind that ings in the New Testament; and Qumran scrolls that pre-
were relevant to his own second century B.C.E. context; that serve in Hebrew the likely Vorlage or text that lay before
is to say, as early as that date, if not even before then, there the LXX translators (which, as noted above, is sometimes
were individuals who were revising the Septuagint of the Pen- close to our received or Masoretic Text, but on occasion quite
tateuch and of other books subsequently translated. Such in- different from it).
dividuals, who may have come from or worked in Jerusalem, A reasoned and important conclusion from an analysis
judged most, if not all, differences between the LXX and their of all of this material is that what we term the Septuagint is in
Hebrew text as deficiencies in the Greek, and they therefore fact an almost accidental gathering together of texts from di-
sought to “correct” the LXX in the direction of the Hebrew text verse sources. Some of the books of the Septuagint, as in the
of their community. Although they probably also had some Pentateuch, appear to be quite close to the Old Greek. In other
linguistic interests, their goal, as well as their motivation, was cases, the earliest form of the translation is lost in almost all
primarily what may be described as theological. sources (as in Daniel), or is entirely lost (as for Ecclesiastes), or
As noted above, Philo, while also recognizing differences is combined with later material (as in Reigns [that is, the books
between the Greek and the Hebrew, devised another explana- of Samuel and Kings]). Even when due allowance is made for
tion entirely; namely, that these divergences were as much a this diversity of origins, scholars are struck by the very dif-
part of God’s inspired message as were the far more numer- ferent ways in which translators approached their Hebrew.
ous places where the Greek and the Hebrew were in agree- The range runs the gamut from almost wooden literalism to
ment. It may be that the author of the Letter of Aristeas had, recontextualizing to paraphrase. It used to be argued that the
in some inchoate sense, a similar intimation; if so, he did not translators of Ketuvim were freer inasmuch as those books
explicitly express it. For most early Christians, the creators of were considered somewhat less important that the Torah and
the LXX, whether they knew it or not, were prophetic in the Nevi’im. Such a contention does not, however, stand up under
sense that much of their distinctive wording looked forward close scrutiny. The point needs to be made that we simply do

bible
not know why translators treated their material as they did adopted (or co-opted) it. The very fact that at least some Jew-
or why one Greek version of a book was chosen over another ish translators chose to revise the older Greek demonstrates
(when competing versions were available). their allegiance to it, even when circumstances led them to
We cannot even be sure of exactly what the LXX “canon” change it in a given number of instances. Moreover, as can
contained. Surely, all the books of the Hebrew Bible were in- be seen from fragments preserved in the Cairo Genizah and
cluded, as well as additions to Daniel and to Esther that, al- elsewhere, Greek-speaking Jews continued to rely on a Greek
though attached in one way or another to the earlier Hebrew “Bible,” in particular a developed form of Aquila, well into
material, have been preserved only in Greek (whether they the Byzantine era.
were translations of now lost Hebrew or Aramaic texts or Nonetheless, it is true that the Septuagint ceased to be a
original Greek compositions). Other books that apparently concern for most Jews from the first century of the common
were never part of the Hebrew Bible are also found in the era until early in the 19t century, when some Jewish scholars
fully developed LXX corpus. For the most part, this material (such as Z. *Frankel ) began to look seriously at it as a heritage
is found in the Old Testament of Roman Catholics and Or- of their past. In so doing, they uncovered many places where
thodox Christians; Protestants tend to refer to it as the Apoc- interpretative material in the LXX reflected concerns found
rypha. It is likely that for some communities, this assemblage in rabbinic discussions. Also fairly numerous are instances
reflected Scripture. Whether or not that determination comes of what might be termed rabbinic-like midrash.
from Christians, it is important to keep in mind the Jewish These findings alert scholars once again to the fact that
origins and early development of the LXX. the Septuagint, as a document of Hellenistic Judaism, is a re-
In the third century C.E., the Church Father *Origen pository of thought from that period. It is very difficult, often
gathered together in his Hexapla as many examples as he impossible, to determine whether distinctive elements of LXX
could find of the Greek Bible. Among them were three ap- presentation are the results of “creative activity” on the part
parently continuous Greek texts later than the Old Greek, all of the translators themselves or accurately reflect their Vor-
of which seem to have originated within Jewish communities lage, which in these cases differed from the MT. Caution is
(although ancient evidence and modern scholarship remain strongly advised when making statements that characterize
ambivalent on key issues). One of these texts is attributed to LXX thought in one way or another, since, as noted above,
*Aquila (traditionally dated to the second century C.E.); it is the LXX is not a unified document, and its translators did not
hyperliteral and can almost serve as a primer to the Hebrew adopt a standardized approach to their Hebrew text. More-
language as well as to biblical thought and teaching. Another over, it is inappropriate to describe the “world of the LXX or
version is associated with Symmachus (late second century LXX thought” solely in terms of differences between it and
C.E.); it reads well in Greek, but at the cost of linguistic and our received Hebrew Text, for this would leave out their many
other departures from the Hebrew original. A third version, points of near or total convergence.
attributed to Theodotion (second century CE), seems to bal- It is then not surprising that the rabbis of the early com-
ance the often-competing interests of source language (in this mon era had decidedly negative things to say about the LXX
case, Hebrew) and target language (here, Greek). (see, for example, Tractate Soferim 1:8) as well as some posi-
It is entirely likely that all three of these individuals, tive statements about its value (as in Meg. 9 a–b); see also
about whom very little can be definitely said, were Jewish, al- the passages within rabbinic literature that cite a tradition
though the ancient (and sometimes modern) connection of according to which between 10 and 18 alterations were in-
each with a particular rabbi or school of rabbinical thought serted into the Greek translation of the Pentateuch. It is not
can no longer be held. The case of Theodotion is particularly easy to organize these differing opinions chronologically or
interesting, since some of his distinctive language found its geographically – or in any other way. The rabbis, or at least
way into the New Testament – almost two centuries earlier some of them, were open to extra-Jewish (re)sources so long
than the “historical” Theodotion is said to have lived. This has as they were kept subservient to what the rabbis understood
led to the supposition of a “Proto-Theodotion,” who would as the core values of Judaism. But, as has often been pointed
have been active in the first century B.C.E. In the case of Aq- out, a given language cannot be completely separated from
uila, it is accurate to describe him as a reviser; that is to say, the values of the society in which it is spoken. Thus, whatever
he started with an older form of the Greek, which he changed acceptance the LXX found among the rabbis can be aptly de-
only when he saw a theological or linguistic reason for doing scribed as grudging.
so. Theodotion was also a reviser in some instances; elsewhere Today the LXX is studied by a growing number of Jew-
as in Daniel, where his text supplanted the Old Greek in nearly ish scholars worldwide. As part of their heritage, Jews in gen-
all manuscripts, Theodotion appears as a fresh translation, as eral should not be averse to learning about the Septuagint, its
seems often to be the case with Symmachus as well. development, and its distinctive features. It is a priceless re-
The observation that at least some of these later Greek minder of a time and place, not unlike our own, when Jews
texts are the result of Jewish revision should cause the rejec- struggled to varying degrees of success with issues of self-iden-
tion or at least serious modification of the often-expressed tification and accommodation within a cosmopolitan world
view that Jews abandoned the Septuagint when Christians in and of which they were a creative minority.

bible
Bibliography: S. Jelllicoe. The Septuagint and Modern Study for which the LXX and MT may vary greatly like Samuel. In
(1968); H.M. Orlinsky, in: Hebrew Union College Annual, 46 (1975): these situations, it is possible that the OL can contain an ear-
89–114; S. Tov, in: Journal for the Study of Judaism, 15 (1984): 65–89; lier Hebrew text than that found in the MT.
M.K.H. Peters, in: Anchor Bible Dictionary 5 (1992): 1093–1104; M.
In 383, Pope Damasus I commissioned *Jerome (c. 347–
Harl et al. (eds.), La Bible grecque des Septanate: Du Judaïsme hellé-
nistique au Christianism ancien (19942); C. Dogniez, Bibliography of
420), the leading biblical scholar of the day and his personal
the Septuagint = Bibliographie de la Septante (1970–1993) (1995); J.W. secretary, to revise the OL Gospels in light of the LXX. He con-
Wevers, in: M. Saebø (ed.), Hebrew Bible, OT: The History of Its In- tinued, on his own initiative, by revising the Psalter according
terpretation, vol. 1 (1996), 84–107; E. Tov, The Text-Critical Use of the to the LXX. This recension became known as the Gallican Psal-
Septuagint in Biblical Research (19972); N. Fernández Marcos, The ter because of its use by Charlemagne in Gaul. In 386, shortly
Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible after relocating to Bethlehem, where he spent the last part of
(2000); L.J. Greenspoon, in: A.J. Hauser (ed.), A History of Biblical his life, Jerome discovered Origen’s Hexapla in the library of
Interpretation, vol. 1 (2003), 80–113; L.J. Greenspoon, in: A. Berlin
nearby Caesarea. The Hexapla was Origen’s edition of the He-
and M.Z. Brettler (eds.), The Jewish Study Bible (2004), 2005–20; J.M.
brew Bible / Old Testament presenting most of the books in
Dines. The Septuagint (2004).
six parallel columns, the fifth consisting of a critical text of the
[Leonard J. Greenspoon (2nd ed.)]
LXX with signs indicating where the Greek differed from the
Old Latin / Vulgate Hebrew. Jerome used these signs in his amended edition of the
The earliest evidence for a Latin translation of the Bible comes Latin versions of the Psalms, Job, Chronicles, and the books
from the scriptural quotations of the Christian writer Cyprian attributed to Solomon (viz., Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of
of Carthage in the middle of the third century C.E. By the Songs). Through this work, Jerome found the LXX increasingly
end of the following century, different recensions of the Latin unsatisfactory and became convinced of both the supreme au-
Bible were circulating in Italy, Gaul, and Spain. Whereas some thority of the Hebrew and the necessity of producing a fresh
modern scholars believe the evidence indicates that there was translation based on the original “Hebrew truth” (Hebraica
a single original Latin text that underwent various develop- veritas). Jerome embarked on his new Latin translation “ac-
ments (corruption, revision, expansion) to produce these re- cording to the Hebrew” (iuxta Hebraeos) around 390 and by
censions, the evidence is inconclusive and there remains no 405 had completed his work on the Hebrew Bible.
consensus. In the face of such historical obscurity and tex- Because he accepted the Hebrew canon as authentic
tual uncertainty, the term “Old Latin” or Vetus Latina (OL) Scripture (i.e., as Hebraica veritas), Jerome did not trans-
refers not to a single and complete translation of the Bible late the deuterocanonical books (with the exception of Tobit
but rather to the various Latin texts prior to Jerome’s new and Judith). Thus, the Latin version of the Bible that became
translation from the Hebrew, production on which began the official text of the western Church from the early Middle
in the late fourth century. Until the late fourth century, the Ages and that was given the name Vulgate in the 16t century
OL was constantly being revised based on a growing num- was not produced entirely by Jerome. Rather, the Vulgate in-
ber of Greek versions produced during the first centuries cludes Jerome’s translations from the Hebrew text (the Psalter
C.E. (e.g., those of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion). In- excepted), his versions of Tobit and Judith, his revision of the
deed, Augustine of Hippo complained that in his day so many Gospels, and his revision of the Psalter made from the Hexa-
Christians were inserting Greek-based corrections into the pla (i.e., the Gallican Psalter). It is now generally believed that
Latin text that there appeared to be as many Latin versions the Vulgate version of the epistles, Acts, and the Apocalypse
as codices. is not the work of Jerome himself but rather that of an un-
In contrast to the LXX and the Masoretic Text (MT), the known hand or hands.
OL has not enjoyed rigorous and systematic study. Thus much From the early medieval period, the biblical text of the
of what may be said about the OL in relation to these other an- Vulgate has exerted an incalculable influence not only on
cient translations is subject to revision, particularly as schol- Roman Catholic teaching and piety, but also on the languages
ars continue to study these ancient translations in light of the and literature of western Europe. This text remains the basis
biblical texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls. While the OL Penta- for some modern translations (e.g., that of Ronald Knox into
teuch is assumed to have direct Jewish and Hebrew origins, English). In 1979, Pope John Paul II promulgated a new offi-
in general the OL is considered to be a translation of the LXX, cial revision of the Vulgate according to the Hebrew and the
and as such, constitutes a secondary witness to the text of the Greek. Furthermore, in 1987 Benedictine monks of the Mon-
Hebrew Bible. Like the LXX, the OL is not a unified transla- astery of St. Jerome completed a critical edition of the Vul-
tion, varying from book to book. At times, some texts of the gate that includes the most certain findings of modern bibli-
OL can preserve earlier forms of the LXX, often referred to as cal scholarship and exegesis.
the Old Greek (OG), that have not survived in Greek manu- Bibliography: J. Trebolle Barrera, The Jewish Bible and the
script form. It is here that the OL can be an important witness Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible, tr. W.G.E.
to the textual criticism of the OG. Furthermore, the study of Watson (1998); A. Kamesar, Jerome, Greek Scholarship, and the Hebrew
the OL can be particularly valuable when considering a book Bible (1993); J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies

About The Canon - Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol. III)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

About The Canon - Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol. III)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

About The Canon - Encyclopaedia Judaica (Vol. III)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some of the different terms used historically to refer to the Jewish scriptures?

What are some of the different terms used historically to refer to the Jewish scriptures?

What are some of the characteristics of the Vulgate translation of the Bible?

What are some of the characteristics of the Vulgate translation of the Bible?

bible

574 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 575

576 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3

self contains no explicit statement ascribing its authorship to The Writings

“teaching,” as well as “rule” and “law,” has to be examined in Daniel 12

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 577

578 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 579

580 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3

The Order of the Hagiographa

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 581

582 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 583

584 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 585

586 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 595

596 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3

ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3 597

598 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3

You might also like