JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

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