Many Christians are under the impression that before the incarnation of Christ that Judaism was a “religion of the book,” referring to the Bible. Without a doubt, the Jewish Scriptures were important, but they were also lost multiple times according to the Scriptures themselves and mainstream tradition. This reveals that in many respects Judaism operated as a religion independent of the Scriptures themselves.

1. The re-discovery of the Jewish Law (600s BC). During the reign of Saint Josiah, the priest Hilkah after receiving money to fix the First Temple suddenly “found the book of the law in the house of the Lord.” (2 King 22:8) The book must have been the seventh-century BC equivalent to the Torah. 2 Kings 22:16 cites the curses upon those who fail to follow the Law in Deuteronomy. In any event, upon hearing the book read to him, Josiah tore his clothes in mourning. This was evidently because the Israelites were completely ignorant of the Law’s teachings and consequently did not heed its commandments. (2 Kings 22:13) What followed was a public reading of these Scriptures (2 Kings 23:2), evidently to demonstrate that their words were religiously in force. Up to this point, an Asherah was in the Temple, apparently being served alongside the Ark of the Covenant. Only after reading the Law was it removed. (2 Kings 23:6) Interestingly, the Jews had some sort of tradition of what the Scriptures taught, as during the days of Hezekiah they celebrated a Passover feast, albeit incorrectly. (2 Chron 35) During the later reign of Josiah, the Passover was held again “as prescribed in this Book of the Covenant.” (2 Kings 22:23) In fact, “No such Passover had been kept since the days of the judges who judged Israel, even during all the days of the kings of Israel and of the kings of Judah.” (2 Kings 22:24) This detail is interesting, as it demonstrates that the written Law was an unknown relic even in the days of Solomon when the Temple was built and the documents were presumably stored in it. The preceding demonstrates that the Israelites operated according to some sort of oral tradition, perhaps with an Oral Torah and the Psalms acting as the backbone of proto-orthodox Judaism. The written Scriptures were neglected. In any event, by Josiah’s time the written authority of the Scriptures now served as an irreformable standard which overruled these. This is despite the fact that these same Scriptures evaluate positively those faithful prophets and Kings who followed the Law as best they could when the Law was lost.

2. Ezra reconstitutes the corrupted Scriptures (400s BC). During the governorship of Saint Nehemiah, Saint Ezra read the Law “in the sight of all the people, for he was standing above all the people.” (Neh 8:5) With the reading, an “interpretation” was given through teachers “so that the people understood the reading.” (Neh 8:8) Similar to Josiah, “the people wept when they heard the words of the Law” because they were ignorant of its contents and were not properly following it. (Neh 8:9) The Scriptures are not clear whether this represented something as significant as what had occurred during the reign of Josiah. However, early tradition specifies that it was. In 2 Macc 2:13 it is recorded, “in the memoirs of Nehemiah…that he founded a library and collected the books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings.” Now, Nehemiah does not speak about this explicitly, so the reference must be understood as to what the reading of the Law in Neh 8 was meant to demonstrate–the official collation of Scriptures. Later, Christian tradition (surely acquired from Judaism) is even more explicit. Saint Irenaeus records that “during the captivity of the people under Nebuchadnezzar, the Scriptures had been corrupted” so God “inspired Esdras [Ezra] the priest, of the tribe of Levi, to recast all the words of the former prophets, and to re-establish with the people the Mosaic legislation.” (AH 3.21.2) Clement of Alexandria relates the exact same story, noting specifically that Ezra did so in “the exercise of prophecy.” (Stromata, Book I, Chap 22) It seems that the “interpretation” mentioned in Neh 8:8 was something prophetically given from Ezra to the teachers, effectively adding to the original Scriptures. Pharasaic Jews may have conjured that their extra-biblical rules, such as those relating to the washing of hands and corban, were in fact the said interpretation of Ezra. This would have cloaked these made-up rules with authority.

3. Judas Maccabeus collates the Law again (100s BC). Not long before the time of Christ, popular traditions relate that the Law was lost and put back together again. During the Hellenistic persecution, “The books of the law that they” the Greeks “found they tore to pieces and burned with fire.” (1 Macc 1:56) It is implied (rightly or wrongly) that the destruction was near total. 2 Macc 2:14 records after relating the tradition about Ezra that “Judas also collected all the books that had been lost on account of the war.” At the time of writing 2 Macc this was a recent event. The author records emphatically that “they are in our possession…if you have need of them, send people to get them for you.” (2 Macc 2:14-15) The events recorded here, though ascribing nothing prophetic to Judas Maccabeus, were understood as equal in importance to the earlier reconstitutions of the Jewish Scriptures.

Ramifications of the preceding. Depending on one’s theological bent, the preceding traditions lead one to interesting conclusions. Clearly, the Scriptural heritage of Christianity was not one of documents that have always been preserved intact, with no issues, since their penning. Only the most fundamentalist or (ironically) skeptical observer would disregard the multiple attestations to the loss and rediscovery of the Scriptures and deny such a conclusion.

Liberal theologians may infer that books such as Daniel snuck their way into the canonical consciousness of Judaism during the second century. More traditionally-minded Protestants may infer that Judas Maccabeus essentially “got everything right,” thereby leaving out Deuterocanonical books (as 2 Macc does not consider itself as part of the collection that was preserved by Judas). In effect, one would not need to invoke the legend of the “Council of Jamnia” to explain the origin of the Jewish canon, but rather point to the work of Judas Maccabeus himself and perhaps even his opposition. In other words, the reconstitution of the canon by Judas offered the formal opportunity from the Temple faction (which he represented) to firmly establish what were considered the Scriptures.

I believe one can rightly surmise that the Jewish Scriptural canon was still developing or not preserved exclusively by the work of Judas. The Maccabees appear to be the predecessors to the Sadducees. The Sadducees probably accepted more than the Torah as canon, but early authorities observed that they did not “devote attention to the prophets.” The different manuscripts found at Qumran and the quotations to non-canonical books in Jude imply diversity vis a vis the Sadducees. Perhaps much of what Christians consider uncontested canon today, such as the prophets, was effectively “Deuterocanon” to many Jews.

In any event, if Judas or his faction shared Sadducee sensibilities, the story related by 2 Macc is of limited import as the preservation of the Torah and perhaps a few more books would only be the minority of what the majority of the Jews considered canon. Additionally, the wide dispersion of Scriptures among sectarians such as the Pharisees and Essenes indicates either that the Hellenist attempt to destroy the Scriptures was exaggerated, or that it sparked a reactionary backlash that resulted in the wider copying and preserving of these works outside of Jerusalem. Perhaps the work of the Essenes in the wilderness largely got its impetus from the Hellensitic program and what must have been a Maccabean effort to standardize the Scripture according to what was perhaps a Sadduceean mold. Additionally, Diaspora Jews, particularly in Egypt, largely would have had Greek versions of Scriptures which effectively became their own canon. One may readily surmise how some degree of canonical diversity in early Christianity was an outgrowth of pre-existing conditions within global Judaism.

Conclusion. Perhaps the key theological reflection I myself would draw was that Judaism was a very different religion than Christianity as it pertains to the centrality of Scriptures. The Scriptures were not central to the Jewish religion for much of their history, though they were important. Evidence suggests that what precisely was canon in Judaism (and what the books therein contained) was never entirely clear and depended upon who one asked.

Thanks to the Holy Spirit being given to the Apostles (John 16:13), the Scriptures themselves seem to have always been preserved and held in the highest regard by Christians. The canon, despite polemical wrangling, has been mostly uniform other than along the fringes (specifically, the Christian Deuterocanon). While Judaism had similar diversity, the idea that notable factions were not ascribing full authority to the writings of the prophets implies a lack of clarity within Judaism over the question of canonicity of a significant proportion of Scriptural texts. It is almost as if the Torah and Psalms were proto-canon and the rest of the Old Testament was Deuterocanon to many Jews.

My guess would be that continued diversity over Biblical canon found even in the ecclesiastical canons themselves (particularly Canon 2 of Trullo, for more detail watch this) probably is a carryover from Judaism–the “Deuterocanon” I theorize about in the previous paragraph. One may surmise a complete disowning of the view of the Sadducees, such a limited canon having no analogue in Christianity. Christian canons seem to reflect the majority view of Diaspora synagogues and their Pharisaical bent. Many of these Jews, evidently, included texts such as Baruch and 2 Macc as among their “Deuterocanon” in addition to the Law and Psalms. Some did not and had a more limited canon roughly approximated to the 66 book canon that several saints hold to.

In sum, when I reflect on this issue, I conclude that a specific sort of grace was given to God’s people after the resurrection of Christ that did not exist beforehand. This grace, despite the internal diversity of early Christianity, resulted in the greater uniformity and centrality of Scripture. Rabbinic Judaism to this day, with its integration of Talmudic literature and the debated authority that it holds among their varying factions, seems to continue the pattern of imprecision typical of Judaism before Pentecost. From this, I surmise, though Orthodoxy appears imprecise over canon and the internal textual diversity of Scriptures raises questions among the skeptics, one must consider the historical improvement. We have a tangible example of God at work in a special way among Christians that He did not bring about in Israel in times past or among those espousing Judaism into the present.