The Canon Question: Jews During the Time of Christ and Their Diverse Views on Scripture

Short Answer

During the time of Christ, there was no universally accepted or fixed Jewish canon of the Old Testament. The development of the Jewish canon unfolded over several centuries, and different Jewish groups adhered to varying collections of sacred writings.

*Quick Evidence: In the book, “From the Maccabees to the Mishnah” by Shaye J.D. Cohen, certain books are followed as they become accepted as scripture or holy writings. Cohen writes  “The Jews of antiquity apparently did not have a word for canon.” The later rabbis had a functional equivalent in the phrase of books “that render the hands impure,” or sacred. The word “Canon”, in the Christian world, underwent an evolution from a term that indicated “the rule of faith” in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, to its frequent use in the 4th century and after, to denote a fixed selection of authoritative books. By the 4th century, Jews did finalize the a list of books that could be read in the synagogue, and those that could not. This list became officially “fixed” in the Aleppo Codex 920 AD. 

Background

A common misconception I held for many years as a Baptist was the belief that the God of the Bible preserved His Word in the same manner as the Bible itself. I assumed that the Old Testament, in its current form, had always been universally accepted as the sole authoritative Scripture by all Jews throughout history. In discussions with Catholics regarding inspired scripture, I would confidently assert that the Protestant Old Testament was the correct version, as it aligns precisely with the Jewish Old Testament—aside from the arrangement of books. However, a closer examination of the history of the Jewish canon reveals a far more intricate and diverse process, particularly among different Jewish sects during the time of Jesus.

This revelation profoundly challenged my previous understanding of the Old Testament’s formation and its reception in ancient Judaism. It became clear that the development of the canon was not a straightforward narrative but rather a complex interplay of beliefs and practices that varied across communities.

Judaism Historical Context  

After the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE by the Romans, following a Jewish revolt, many Jews were dispersed throughout the Roman Empire.  During this period, two significant groups emerged within Judaism: the Pharisaic tradition, which evolved into Rabbinic Judaism and emphasized the Oral Torah, and the early Christians, who began to form a distinct identity centered on believing Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Before this, we can see a plethora of Jewish communities throughout Judea. 

During the time of Christ, several Jewish sects had different views on which texts were considered sacred. For example you have;

1. Pharisees: The Pharisees accepted a broader collection of texts that would later form the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), with debates going well into the second century AD about what defiled the hands and what didn’t. This collection of texts matches the protestant old testament exactly. 

2. Sadducees: The Sadducees, who were more conservative, accepted only the Torah (the first five books of Moses) as authoritative, rejecting other writings such as the Prophets and Writings.

3. Essenes: The Essenes, associated with the Dead Sea Scrolls found at Qumran, had a wide variety of texts, including some not found in the later Jewish canon (e.g., 1 Enoch, Jubilees).

4. Hellenistic Jews: Jews in the Diaspora, particularly in Alexandria, used the Septuagint, a Greek translation of Hebrew Scriptures, which included books later termed “Deuterocanonical” by Christians (e.g., Wisdom, Sirach, Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees).

This variety of accepted texts among different Jewish groups shows that there was no single, universally recognized canon during this period.

Internal Struggles: The Pharisees’ Canonical Debates

Some Christians may argue, “We can be sure our Bibles are true because our Old Testament matches the same one the Pharisees used during the time of Jesus.” However, this is a nuanced view of the topic; all Pharisees may not have universally accepted the same books of Hebrew Bible during the first century. We have evidence of multiple debates over the canon of scripture. Often included in the debate were books like Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Esther, and even the Proverbs, were subjects of debate among Jewish scholars.In multiple writings from the Talmud, we can find evidence of this. For example in, Tractate Megillah 7a, which was written sometime between the 3rd to 5th century AD,  we can see discussions over scripture. (The debates in this section of the Talmud are from “the period of the Tannaim, which lasted about 210 years (10-220 C.E.)”Source.  

1. We can see debates about the following scriptures from the Megillah 7a; 

• “Rav Yehuda (250-290 CE) said that Shmuel said: The book of Esther does not render the hands ritually impure.” 

In the Jewish tradition, the concept of ritual impurity and the notion of divine inspiration are distinct but can intersect in specific contexts. When a book, “renders the hands impure” it usually refers to a text that is considered holy or has a significant religious status, but if it doesn’t render the hands impure, it is not considered holy or sacred. 

On the other hand we see another quote regarding the status of Esther.

• “Rabbi Eliezer (80 – 110 CE) says: The book of Esther was said with the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, as it is stated: ‘And Haman thought in his heart’ (Esther 6:6).”

This verse is used to argue that Esther has divine authority, contributing to the discussion about its canonical status. Therefore we can see here several debates about whether Esther should be regarded with the same sanctity as other sacred texts. Further debates about the status of Esther arose as well, we can see here the term “the sages” this term is about the Pharisees, as they were loyal to the Torah and followed the sages. The passage states that,

• “The Sages did not accede to Esther’s request until they found a verse written in the Torah: ‘Write this for a memorial in the book’ (Exodus 17:14).” 

In addition to the book of Esther, we can also see debates about other scriptures such as Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs. 

• “It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir (135-170 AD)says: The book of Ecclesiastes does not render the hands ritually impure…however, there is a dispute with regard to the Song of Songs.

The Talmud is highlighting a nuanced view of these texts. Ecclesiastes is seen as lacking the full status of sacred scripture, whereas the Song of Songs is a subject of discussion, indicating that it may be considered more inspired or holy by some scholars. This reflects the complexity and diversity of thought within early Jewish tradition regarding the canon and the nature of scriptural inspiration.

2. Furthermore, in another part of the Talmud, Shabbat 30b we see further debates on the status of Ecclesiastes.

The Talmud discusses how the sages considered declaring the book of Ecclesiastes apocryphal due to internal contradictions, but ultimately retained it because both its beginning and end are rooted in Torah teachings. The book contrasts themes of labor, enjoyment, and wisdom. Seeming contradictions like “Vexation is better than laughter” and “I said of laughter: It is praiseworthy” are harmonized by the Talmud. We can see this in conversations mentioned such as the one below during the time of Rev Yehuda.

• What is the meaning of: Its statements that contradict each other? It is written: “Vexation is better than laughter” (Ecclesiastes 7:3), and it is written: “I said of laughter: It is praiseworthy” (Ecclesiastes 2:2), which is understood to mean that laughter is commendable. Likewise in one verse it is written: “So I commended mirth” (Ecclesiastes 8:15), and in another verse it is written: “And of mirth: What does it accomplish?” (Ecclesiastes 2:2).

This illustrates that texts were subjects of debate, highlighting differing opinions on their sanctity. In essence, the Talmud is highlighting a nuanced view of these texts. Ecclesiastes is seen as lacking the full status of sacred scripture, whereas the Song of Songs is a subject of discussion, indicating that it may be considered more inspired or holy by some scholars. This reflects the complexity and diversity of thought within early Jewish tradition regarding the canon and the nature of scriptural inspiration.

Further contradictions in the books of the Proverbs are questioned before being explained as well. Here are the discussions on the alleged contradictions from Proverbs 26:4: and  Proverbs 26:5: 

• “the Sages sought to suppress the book of Proverbs as well because its statements contradict each other. And why did they not suppress it? They said: In the case of the book of Ecclesiastes, didn’t we analyze it and find an explanation that its statements were not contradictory? Here too, let us analyze it.”

The Talmud explains that these verses actually refer to different circumstances: One should not answer a fool if doing so will make you appear foolish, but you should answer a fool if it prevents him from thinking himself wise. This reconciliation is part of the broader discussion on how to interpret seeming contradictions in biblical wisdom literature. The sages ultimately decided not to suppress these books because the contradictions could be explained with proper understanding. The very fact this conversation is being recorded demonstrates the textual variety of the Jewish community. 

3. Further debates are seen in the Mishnah Yadayim 3:5

The following passage reflects the ongoing debate among the rabbis, who were the inheritors of Pharisaic thought, about the inclusion of these books in the canon. The Mishnah, while compiled around 200 AD, reflects earlier debates and traditions that would have been part of Pharisaic discussions in the first century. Some specific examples within Rabbinic literature can be linked more directly to Pharisaic traditions. Mishnah Yadayim 3:5 records a debate among the rabbis, who were the successors to the Pharisaic tradition, regarding whether Ecclesiastes and Song of Songs “defile the hands.” This phrase is a technical term used to denote the sacred status of a text as part of the Jewish canon. The passage reads:

• “All the Holy Scriptures defile the hands. The Song of Songs and Kohelet (Ecclesiastes) defile the hands. Rabbi Judah says: the Song of Songs defiles the hands, but there is a dispute about Kohelet. Rabbi Yose says: Kohelet does not defile the hands, but there is a dispute about the Song of Songs.”

Again, we can see the debates revolve around whether these books “defile the hands,” a technical term indicating their status as sacred scripture. The Mishnah, while compiled after the Pharisaic period, reflects earlier Pharisaic concerns and views.

In summary, the claim that all Pharisees during the time of Christ held to one canon is largely untrue as we see many debates discussed.

*For further discussions on the canon see the Talmud, Baba Batra 14b-15a.  These passages discuss the order of the books of the Bible and their authorship, which reflects the Pharisaic interest in defining and organizing the canon. While the Talmud was compiled after the destruction of the Temple, it records earlier Pharisaic debates and opinions on the sacred texts.

The Sadducees’ Strict Scriptural Canon

How do we know the Sadducees held to their belief in only the Torah? Well, for several reasons:

1. Historical Evidence From Josephus. 

 In Antiquities of the Jews and The Jewish War, Josephus describes the Sadducees as a sect that rejected certain beliefs and teachings held by the Pharisees, particularly those found outside the Torah. Josephus notes that the Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection of the dead or the existence of angels, which are doctrines found in later Jewish writings (like the Prophets and Writings), but not explicitly in the Torah.

•  Antiquities 18.1.4 describes the Sadducees’ position stating they believe, “that souls die with the bodies. Nor do they regard the observation of anything besides what the law enjoins them.“

2. Evidence From the New Testament

Another place we can see evidence for this is in Matthew 22:23-33, where the Sadducees question Jesus about the resurrection, a belief they reject. Jesus responds by referencing a passage from the Torah (Exodus 3:6) about being the God of the living, subtly indicating that the Sadducees only regarded the Torah as authoritative. Joe Heschmeyer from Shameless Popery has an amazing article on this topic, pointing out how Jesus only quoted from the scriptures the Sadducees believed to be divinely inspired. He notes that Jerome mentions this in his commentary on Matthew stating “this passage seems ambiguous…he could have used clearer examples to prove the resurrection” Then Jerome points to two arguably better passages, Isaiah 26:19 and Daniel 12 2-3. It’s interesting to notice Jeus’s choice of scripture, it seems as though he only quotes from what the Sadducees deem authoritative. Joe also goes into deeper detail about how Christ’s response touches on the Sadducee’s disbelief in angels. You can find the video here. 

Furthermore, Acts 23:8 explicitly states, “For the Sadducees say there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees confess both.” This reinforces the idea that the Sadducees rejected teachings beyond what was found in the Torah, where these doctrines are not explicitly stated. 

We can see the Sadducees’ denial of the resurrection, angels, and afterlife in Acts 23:8 is consistent with the view that they adhered strictly to the Torah, as these concepts are developed more fully in the Prophets and Writings (Daniel 12:2, which speaks of the resurrection), which they did not accept as binding. It also seems to confirm Josephus’s claims in Antiquities. 

3. Evidence From Talmudic Sources

Lastly, we know the Sadducees only believed in the Torah from evidence in the rabbinic writings in the Talmud, which reflect debates between the Pharisees and Sadducees, illustrating their doctrinal differences. The Mishnah mentions disputes about how to interpret the Torah, with the Sadducees favoring a literal, conservative interpretation limited to the written Torah and rejecting the Pharisaic reliance on the Oral Law, which includes the Prophets and Writings.

The Sadducees’ Rejection of Oral Law

 In the Talmud, various passages, showcase debates where the Pharisees argue for interpretations that align with Oral Law, while the Sadducees maintain a literal interpretation. The Sadducees are seen as having a strict belief in the written law as shown in Horayot 4a:12

• • “Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: A court is not liable to bring an offering unless it issues an erroneous ruling concerning a matter with which the Sadducees do not agree. The Sadducees do not accept the Oral Torah, and they interpret the Written Torah literally.”  

The Sadducees Critque of Pharasaic Scripture. 

Another fascinating debate is the Sadducee’s argument against the teaching of the Pharisees. From the Mishnah Yadayim 4:6, we Sadducees assert a critique against the Pharisees’ inclusion of scripture outside of the Torah. For context, the writings of Homer, particularly the “Iliad” and the “Odyssey,” influenced early Jewish communities as they encountered Hellenistic culture, they began to engage with Greek literature. This interaction facilitated a cultural exchange that enriched Jewish thought, inspiring adaptations in storytelling and poetic forms. The blending of Greek and Jewish ideas contributed to the development of Hellenistic Judaism, but what is important to note in this instance is that the works of Homer were important to many Jewish communities.

In the Mishnah Yadayim 4:6-7, we see the argument

• “The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands. Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yohanan the high priest are unclean. They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother. He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands.”

As we’ve already established the Sadducees believe that only the Torah is divinely inspired and holds authority. They reject the idea that other texts have any religious significance or “can defile the hands”. The Pharisees also hold the Torah as the primary sacred text, however as we know, they allow for the significance of other writings, including oral traditions and interpretations, in matters of law and rituals. The Sadducees see this as an inconsistency in the Pharisaic reasoning. In their view, only the Torah should hold that inspired status, and any attempt to elevate other texts undermines the unique position of the Torah itself. So they’re calling out what they perceive as a logical flaw in the Pharisees’ position. Again, we can see the discrepancy in what each group considers inspired scripture.

The Sadducees argue that if the Torah” can defile the hands”, then the books of Homer should also be treated similarly, implying that they might consider them to have some level of sanctity or influence. The debate is eerily similar to a Protestant-Catholic debate on scripture… see the following simplification: 

Lastly, The Talmud explicitly demonstrates the Sadducees’ position regarding the Oral Law. In Gittin 5a, the discussions reflect a nuanced debate that indirectly hints at differing views about the authority of written law and interpretation, often associated with the Sadducees and Pharisees. Here’s how we can know this, 

 In the passage, there’s a focus on the requirements for a bill of divorce and the need for testimony regarding its proper execution, which aligns with a more rigid interpretation of legal texts. The discussion begins with a consideration of who is competent to act as an agent in delivering a bill of divorce. The debate highlights that the agent must declare, “It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence.” The insistence on verbal confirmation can be seen as aligning with a Sadducean perspective, which prioritizes concrete, written testimony over the interpretative practices emphasized by the Pharisees. We can see text refers to a transition where later generations learned that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake. This illustrates a shift from a more rigid interpretation (potentially Sadducean) to a broader understanding, suggesting that there is contention about evolving interpretations of law—something the Sadducees would resist.

We can see examples of this in the text with the phrase, “with what are we dealing with here?” This phrase indicates that the discussion is about specific interpretations of laws that could easily align with a strict textual reading, typical of Sadducean thought. 

• “According to the opinion of Rabba, with what are we dealing here? He maintains that this ruling is referring to the period after the people living overseas learned the halakha that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake. The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, one person who brings a bill of divorce should also not be required to say that it was written and signed in his presence.”

 Furthermore, the distinction between common and uncommon situations in legal interpretations shows the practical application of the law, which the Pharisees viewed as requiring adaptation—something the Sadducees would likely oppose. This quote emphasizes the acceptance of fluid regulations between the sages. 

• “The Gemara answers: Two people who bring a bill of divorce is an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not decree with regard to an uncommon matter.”

The Essenes and the Dead Sea Scrolls

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947 near the Qumran caves by the Dead Sea revolutionized our understanding of early Jewish communities, particularly the Essenes. These ancient texts, dating from the third century BC to the first century AD, include biblical manuscripts, sectarian writings, and other religious documents.

The scrolls were first found by a Bedouin shepherd, who stumbled upon them while searching for a lost goat. Subsequent archaeological excavations revealed a total of about 900 manuscripts in eleven caves. The scrolls provide critical insights into the beliefs and practices of the Essenes, a sect often associated with the Qumran community. They emphasize strict adherence to the law, ritual purity, and communal living. The scrolls also reveal that the Essenes had a different scriptural canon compared to other Jewish groups, like the Pharisees and Sadducees. For instance, they included texts such as the Book of Enoch and the War Scroll, which are not part of the later Jewish canon.

Any Protestant who cites the Dead Sea Scrolls as support for their faith must recognize the potential implications of this evidence, akin to holding a loaded gun to their head. The scrolls reveal a diversity of texts and interpretations, demonstrating that there was no universally accepted canon among ancient Jewish groups, which challenges the notion of a fixed Old Testament and underscores the complexity of the biblical tradition.

The Dead Sea Scrolls not only illuminate the religious landscape of Second Temple Judaism but also highlight the differences among various Jewish sects regarding scripture and interpretation. Their discovery has provided scholars with a richer context for understanding the complexities of Jewish thought during this formative period. As stated by biblical scholar Lawrence Schiffman, “The scrolls show us that there was not just one Judaism in the time of the Second Temple, but a spectrum of beliefs and practices.”

Hellenistic Jews and The Septuagint.  

A very simple look into history will demonstrate a rich diversity of jewish communities who adhered to different scriptures. Even today a large piece of evidence of this is the story of Hanukkah. The Talmud, in Shabbat 21b, discusses the story of Hanukkah, which centers on the Maccabees’ (a catholic old testament book) struggle against Hellenistic influences and the Seleucid Empire’s attempts to impose Greek culture and religious practices on the Jewish population.

This passage indirectly highlights the tension between traditional Jews and those who were more open to Hellenism, a major issue for Hellenistic Jews who would have been more inclined to accommodate Greek culture.  The victory of the Maccabees is often seen as a triumph over Hellenistic forces, but the debate wasn’t just external—many Jews were internally divided between those who supported the traditional Jewish canon and those who might have been more receptive to Hellenistic ideas, including their views on which books were considered sacred.

• When the Greeks entered the Sanctuary they defiled all the oils that were in the Sanctuary by touching them. And when the Hasmonean monarchy overcame them and emerged victorious over them, they searched and found only one cruse of oil that was placed with the seal of the High Priest, undisturbed by the Greeks. And there was sufficient oil there to light the candelabrum for only one day. A miracle occurred and they lit the candelabrum from it eight days.

While the Talmud does not directly mention “Hellenistic Jews” by name, several key areas show it engages with ideas that would have been relevant to debates involving Hellenistic Jews. While modern Jews don’t have this story of the Maccabees in their bible, they belive in the story and the miracles from it.

Differing Canon of Scripture. 

• “The most important work of the early Hellenistic period—dating, according to tradition, from the 3rd century bce—is the Septuagint, a translation into Greek of the Hebrew Scriptures, including some works not found in the traditional Hebrew canon.” Source.  

 The most significant literary achievement of Hellenistic Judaism was the development of the Septuagint. Other notable works include the Book of Wisdom, Sirach and pseudepigraphic apocalyptic literature such as the Assumption of Moses, the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, the Book of Baruch and the Greek Apocalypse of Baruch.

Greek Influence on Jewish Thought

 The Talmud, in Megillah 9a-b, discusses the translation of the Torah into Greek under King Ptolemy II of Egypt, leading to the Septuagint. The Talmud expresses ambivalence about this translation effort, signaling concerns about how translating the Scriptures into Greek (a Hellenistic project) could affect the integrity of the text. Yet this debate is particularly relevant because many Hellenistic Jews accepted a broader canon (like the Septuagint), which included books like 1 and 2 Maccabees, while Rabbinic Judaism did not. This is as clear as it gets to a disagreement on scripture. 

In conclusion, there was no universally accepted, fixed Jewish canon of the Old Testament during the time of Christ. The development of the Jewish canon occurred over several centuries, and different Jewish groups held varying collections of sacred writings. Some may argue that We can be sure our Bibles are true because our Old Testament matches the same one the Pharisees used during the time of Jesus.” They may point to verses that state “it is written” or “scripture says” to prove their case, however, this relies on an assumption that the text referenced encompassed every single text in the modern bible (old testament). The case is much more complicated than that and I hope I’ve shed some light on this issue. 

Response to Protestant Objections 

I understand that for some Christians, Talmudic evidence may not be deemed sufficient. However, I would argue that the claims made in the Talmud actually corroborate both historical and biblical assertions.

Firstly, we can clearly demonstrate that the Pharisees engaged in debates over scripture, as evidenced by the very group that descends from the Pharisaic community today. Their own acceptance of the Talmud confirms this engagement with debate and interpretation. It would be inconsistent with their teachings to assert that a fixed canon existed at the time of Christ, as the Talmud reflects ongoing discussions about interpretation and practice.

Secondly, the historical and biblical evidence indicating that the Sadducees had a different scriptural canon from that of the Pharisees lends further support to the idea that there was no singular, fixed canon during this period. This divergence in beliefs showcases the complexity and dynamism of Jewish scriptural interpretation.

Lastly, archaeological findings related to the Essenes and Hellenistic Jews reveal a rich tapestry of diverse interpretations and variations in canonical texts. These discoveries stand on their own merit, providing a broader context for understanding the multiplicity of scriptural beliefs, independent of Talmudic or biblical texts.

To close, the convergence of Talmudic insights, historical accounts, and archaeological evidence provides a compelling case for the active debates over scripture within the Pharisaic tradition and beyond and the evidence outside of the Talmud is strong enough to prove the case, that there was no universally fixed “canon” at the time of Christ. 

But The Talmud Is Anachronistic Right? 

The Talmud reflects the authority of the Rabbis over Jewish legal decisions. The presence of anachronisms in the Talmud does not erase or undermine the early debates, all they do is reflect how later authorities perceived and interpreted those debates. The debates themselves are not in question. Anachronisms can serve as rhetorical purposes without negating the facts that these debates actually happened. Anachronisms are expected as part of its tradition.