but came under the same category of other edifying books, some of which were, later, made canonical. But if, as we have seen, there was at this time no such thing as a Canon of Scripture, in the sense of an officially recognized and authoritative list of books definitely separated off from all others, there is no sort of doubt that a certain number of books were looked upon as pre-eminent, and enjoyed greater favour than others. It is in this fact that we may recognize the existence of the _idea of a Canon_, as distinct from a finally settled and authoritative list of canonical books. III. THE FORMATION OF THE HEBREW CANON But while we have thus an approximate date for the existence of the _idea of a Canon_, i.e. the idea that some books are holier, and therefore more authoritative than others, we have yet to ask ourselves at what date the definite close of the Canon took place, i.e. when the Hebrew Canon, as we now know it, assumed its final form undisputed. We have evidence that at the beginning of the Christian era the Hebrew Canon was not yet closed, for at that time the canonicity of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs was disputed. The influential school of Shammai held that these books were uncanonical, while the school of Hillel acknowledged their canonicity. Thus, in the Mishna (Jadaim iii. 5) it is said: “All the holy writings defile the hands.[210] The Song of Songs defiles the hands, but regarding Koheleth (Ecclesiastes) there is a difference of opinion. Rabbi Jose says, Koheleth does not defile the hands, but regarding the Song of Songs there is a difference of opinion. Rabbi Simeon says, As to Koheleth, the house of Shammai esteems it lightly, but the house of Hillel esteems it highly.” So, too, in another Mishnic tractate, Eduyoth v. 3, it is said: “Koheleth does not defile the hands according to the house of Shammai, but the house of Hillel says that it does defile the hands.” At a still later date the canonicity of the Book of Esther was disputed. Early in the second century of our era two Rabbis, as recorded in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 100_a_) regarded it as of inferior value to the rest of the biblical books.[211] But the opposition to this book is not to be taken seriously, since its canonicity was only disputed by individual teachers. In the case of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs it is different, for the canonicity of these was denied by a whole school of authoritative teachers. It will, therefore, be seen that as late as the beginning of the Christian era the Hebrew Canon had not been closed, since there was still the possibility of new books being added to it, as indeed happened later when the disputed books, just mentioned, were definitely included in the Canon. So that the close of the Canon did not take place until some considerable time after the idea of a Canon had arisen.