The Relevance Of The Old Testament Canon
THE RELEVANCE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON
A New Testament introduction is not the place to review the complex questions about the development of the Old Testament canon. But one point of dispute must be raised, since it bears on how we conceive of the formation of the New Testament canon. Was there already a "closed” Old Testament canon that could serve as a model for the formation of the New Testament canon?
Until quite recently, the critical consensus of the past two centuries argued that the Old Testament came to be canonically recognized in three separate steps, corresponding to the three divisions of the Hebrew canon. The Torah (here understood to mean the Pentateuch) achieved canonical status toward the end of the fifth century B.C.; the Prophets achieved similar status about 200 B.C., and the Writings only toward the end of the first century A.D. at the Council of Jamnia (or Jabne).
This critical consensus is now breaking up. Among the more important turning points in the discussion are these:
1. The role—even the existence—of the Council of Jamnia is increasingly being questioned. Probably Lightstone goes too far when he dismisses the Jamnian picture of a college of rabbis in the last decade of the first century as nothing more than the imaginative product of third- and fourth-century traditions, 3 but it is now widely accepted that, assuming there was an academy of rabbis at Jamnia, it did not constitute an authoritative council that decisively ruled on a number of issues but was both a college and, to a lesser extent, a legislative body. For instance, Leiman argues that although Jamnia discussed whether Ecclesiastes and perhaps Canticles made the hands unclean (i.e. whether or not they were inspired), it was more by way of theological probing than binding decision, for the same topics were being discussed a century later. 4 Indeed, one might argue that the fact these books were so discussed in the first century demonstrates that they were already widely assumed to have some sort of canonical status; otherwise there would have been little to question. One thinks of
Luther’s later questioning of the status of James: his historical and theological probing was predicated on the virtually unanimous assumption of James’s canonical status. So far as our sources go, there is no evidence whatsoever that Jamnia assigned canonical status to any book not previously recognized, or rejected any book previously accepted.
2. Although there is evidence from Josephus (Contra Ap. 1.37-42), Philo (De Vita Contemp. 3.25), and other sources that the tripartite division of the Hebrew canon was a commonplace in the first century A.D., evidence for the hypothesis that the canonical process followed these three divisions sequentially is much harder to come by. It is altogether reasonable that the Pentateuch was viewed as a closed canon first, not to be added to; as for the rest of the process, there is far too little evidence of consistent groupings of the biblical books to allow much more than speculation.
3. One of the most frequently cited arguments in support of the view that the Pentateuch was recognized by about 400 B.C. and the Prophets not until about 200
B.C. lies in the fact that the Samaritans accepted only the Pentateuch as canonical, and the Samaritan schism is customarily dated to the close of the fourth century B.C. But this assumes, without evidence, that before the schism Jewish and Samaritan views of the canon were identical. Morever, many would agree with Coggins that the decisive period for the theological development of Samaritanism was from the third century B.C. to the first century A.D. 5
4. One of the most entrenched arguments for the late dating of the Writings is the assumed Maccabean dating of Daniel and the fact that Daniel is placed among the Writings, not among the Prophets. But quite apart from the fact that many conservative scholars still argue for a sixth-century date for Daniel, John Barton has recently argued, rather convincingly, that apart from the Pentateuch, 6 there were no recognized sequences of Old Testament books. The fact that these books were in separate scrolls meant that ordered sequences were impossible. The various classifications that have come down to us reflect the organization of material on thematic grounds, not on the grounds of a corpus of books judged as a group to be canonical; and the Jewish grouping that excluded Daniel from the Prophets has to do with the fact that Jews preferred to see the prophets as "tradents, those who stand in a line of historical succession and hand on tradition from one generation to the next” 7—which is why the so-called historical books were also listed with the prophets.
5. Nevertheless, there is ample evidence that in some contexts, both Jewish and Christian, Daniel was viewed as a prophet (as David could be viewed as a prophet, even though the Psalms ascribed to him constitute part of the Writings). 8 The simplest explanation is that "prophecy” and "prophets” could be viewed from several different angles: in terms of predictive content, access to divine mysteries, calling people back to the given revelation, and so forth.
6. But doubtless it goes too far to conclude that although the Prophets and the Writings were viewed in the first century as Scripture and therefore authoritative, they were not viewed as canonical, since "canonical” assumes a closed list. Only the Torah (it is argued) was viewed as canon: no one could add to the books of the Law.
Certainly the notion of a fixed list of canonical books assumes that the production of authoritative books has ceased, or is in abeyance. Arguably, however, that was part of the common belief in the first century. Josephus, in the passage already cited, is a strong witness to a closed canon in first-century Judaism, over against surrounding religions with multiplied holy books. That biblical books circulated in individual scrolls implies no definite sequence; it does not rule out the perception that the production of such books had ceased, that is, that the canon was closed.
7. Indeed, there is considerable cumulative evidence that pre-Christian Judaism held that classical prophecy had ceased. 1 Maccabees 9:23-27 (c. 100 B.C.) bemoans this cessation; Josephus ties the closing of the canon to the fact that the line of prophets had failed. The fact that the Qumran covenanters wrote commentaries only on biblical books suggests that they viewed them as a category apart. Josephus and others do refer to some individuals after the closing of the canon as prophets, as Aune points out;9 but Aune himself admits that "canonical and eschatological prophecy had a special status that distinguished them from prophetic activity in the intervening period.” 10 In other words, "prophet” and "prophecy” were not technical terms that always had precisely the same force, and there is ample evidence that, as used to refer to the phenomenon that had produced the Hebrew canon, "prophecy” was viewed in the first century as an activity that had ceased and that would not return until the time of eschatological promise. Opinions vary considerably over the date of the closing of the Old Testament canon, from about 500 B.C. (for Law and Prophets) to about A.D. 200. 11 Increasingly, however, it is recognized that any date later than the first century B.C. must fly in the face of too much evidence.
8. Some have argued that the LXX, which as it has come down to us in manuscripts from the fourth and fifth centuries A.D. includes most of the Apocryphal books, 12 constitutes evidence that Diaspora Judaism, or at least Alexandrian Judaism, had a different canon; and since most early Christians used Greek versions of the Old Testament (the LXX or something very much like it), therefore it is futile to look to Semitic sources for the delineation of the canon. But this argument is sharply questioned by Sundberg and others. 13 They point out that our evidence for the LXX is late (fourth and fifth centuries A.D. and later), certainly influenced by Christian scribes, and not supported by any independent attestation of the beliefs of Alexandrian or Diaspora Jews. Furthermore, the most natural reading of two Alexandrian Christian fathers, Origen and Athanasius, suggests that they held to a Jewish canon that differed but little from the traditional Jewish (and Semitic) reckoning. 14 Sundberg himself denies that the Writings were canonical (i.e. a closed corpus of Scripture) in either Hebrew or Greek sources in the first century; whether or not scholars have followed him in this particular, most have been persuaded by his demolition of the theory of the Alexandrian canon.
9. There is ample evidence that the New Testament writers cited most of the books that constitute the Old Testament as Scripture, but there is no unequivocal evidence that the New Testament writers viewed the Old Testament Scriptures as a closed canon. Of course, that does not mean they did not so view it: arguments from silence can be tricky. And there are several lines of evidence in the New Testament that at least suggest that they recognized a closed canon.
First, the quotation patterns of the New Testament largely line up with predominant Jewish evidence for the shape of the canon. New Testament writers quote every book in the Pentateuch (in its Jewish, not Samaritan, form), and from many of the other canonical books, from both the Prophets (Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Minor Prophets) and the Writings (Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Daniel, Chronicles). Even some Old Testament books not certainly quoted in the New may be alluded to (e.g., Josh. 1:5 in Heb. 13:5; Judges in Heb. 11:32).
Second, when literature outside the corpus of what is now recognized to be the Old Testament canon is cited (e.g., Cleanthes in Acts 17:28; Menander in 1 Cor. 15:33; Epimenides in Titus 1:12; 1 Enoch in Jude 14-15), it is not referred to as Scripture (γραφή [graphe, G1210]) or assigned to the Holy Spirit or to God as the ultimate author.
Third, there is no hint that the New Testament writers want to jettison any of the canonical Old Testament as being incompatible with their developing Christian faith. Paul goes so far as to insist that the reason why "the Scriptures” were written was for the instruction and encouragement of Christians (Rom. 15:3-6; see also 1 Cor. 10:11; 2 Tim. 3:14-17; 1 Peter 1:10-12; Heb. 11:39-40).
Fourth, many New Testament passages, although cast as refutation or correction of traditional Jewish theology, nevertheless appeal to what both sides have in common, namely, agreed Scriptures (e.g., Mark 7:6-7, 10-13; 11:17; 12:10-11, 24; Luke 4:16-21; John 6:45; 10:34-35; 15:25; Acts 17:2-3, 11; 29:23; 18:28; 24:14-15; 26:22; Rom. 3:1-2; Gal. 3).
Fifth, it is probable, though not certain, that Jesus’ reference to all the blood from that of Abel to that of Zechariah son of Berekiah (Matt. 23:35) runs from the first man to be killed to the last one in the Hebrew canon to be killed (Zechariah son of Jehoiada, in 2 Chron. 24:20, 22). Zechariah was certainly not the last to be killed on any chronological scale: within the period of time represented by the Old Testament, the last chronologically was probably Uriah son of Shemaiah (Jer. 26:20-23). If the identification with the Zechariah of 2 Chronicles 24:20, 22 is correct, he was chosen because of his place in the recognized canon.
It appears, then, that there is adequate evidence to support the view that there was a (closed) canon of Scripture to serve as a model in the formation of the New Testament canon. Even if this point was disputed, there is entirely convincing evidence that the Torah and the Prophets were viewed as closed collections by the first century A.D.