8 The Canon of the Old Testament, Roger T. Beckwith
8
Roger T. Beckwith
The word “canon” (Gk. for “a rule”) is applied to the Bible in two ways: first, in regard to the Bible as the church’s standard of faith and practice, and second, in regard to its contents as the correct collection and list of inspired books. The word was first applied to the identity of the biblical books in the latter part of the fourth century AD, reflecting the fact that there had recently been a need to settle some Christians’ doubts on the matter. Before this, Christians had referred to the “Old Testament” and “New Testament” as the “Holy Scriptures” and had assumed, rather than made explicit, that they were the correct collections and lists.
THE CAUSES OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON
The Christian Old Testament corresponded to the Hebrew Bible, which Jesus and the first Christians inherited from the Jews. In the Gentile mission of the church, however, it was necessary to use the Septuagint (a translation of the Old Testament that had been made in pre-Christian times for Greek-speaking Alexandrian Jews). Because knowledge of Hebrew was uncommon in the church (especially outside Syria and Palestine), the first Latin translation of the Old Testament came from the Septuagint and not from the original Hebrew. Where there was no knowledge of Hebrew and little acquaintance with Jewish tradition, it became harder to distinguish between the biblical books and other popular religious reading matter circulating in the Greek or Latin language. These factors led to the uncertainty about the composition of Scripture, which the coiners of the term “canon” sought to settle.
DID THE HEBREW BIBLE CONTAIN THE SAME BOOKS AS TODAY’S OLD TESTAMENT?
The above analysis assumes that the Hebrew Bible, which the church inherited in the first century, comprised the same books as it does today, and that uncertainty developed only later. Many in modern times have denied this view, but for mistaken reasons.
Are the Sections of Scripture Arbitrary Groups, Canonized in Different Eras?
Until recently, the accepted critical view was that the three sections of the Hebrew Bible—the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (or Hagiographa)—were arbitrary groupings of books acknowledged as canonical in three different eras: the first section in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah (fifth century BC); the last section at the synod of Jabneh or Jamnia (as late as AD 90); and the middle section sometime in between (perhaps in the third century BC). The reasons given for the datings were as follows: (1) Because the Samaritans acknowledged only the Pentateuch (the five books of the Law) as Scripture, therefore the Pentateuch must have constituted the whole Jewish canon when the Samaritan schism took place at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. (2) Because the synod of Jamnia discussed the canonicity of Ecclesiastes, the Song of Solomon, and presumably the other three books with which some rabbis had problems (Ezekiel, Proverbs, and Esther), these must still have been outside the Canon at the time. (3) Chronicles and Daniel, which are found in the Writings section of the Hebrew Bible, would have belonged more naturally with Kings and the oracular Prophets than with the Hagiographa; from this it was concluded that the Prophets section had been closed too soon to include them.
Recent study, however, has demolished this hypothesis. The five books of the Law are obviously not an arbitrary grouping. They follow a chronological sequence, concentrate on the Law of Moses, and trace history from the creation of the world to Moses’s death. Moreover, the Prophets and the Writings, if arranged in the traditional order recorded in the Talmud (see fig. 8.1), are not arbitrary groupings either. The Prophets begin with four narrative books—Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings—tracing history through a second period, from the entry into the Promised Land to the Babylonian exile. They end with four oracular books—Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, and the Book of the Twelve (Minor Prophets)—arranged in descending order of size. The Hagiographa (Writings) begin with six lyrical or wisdom books—Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, and Lamentations—arranged in descending order of size, and end with four narrative books—Daniel, Esther, Ezra–Nehemiah, and Chronicles—covering a third period of history, the period of the exile and the return. (The remaining book of the Writings, Ruth, is prefixed to Psalms, since it ends with the genealogy of the psalmist David.) The four narrative books in the Hagiographa are this time put second, so that Chronicles can sum up the whole biblical story, from Adam to the return from exile, and for this reason also Ezra–Nehemiah is put before Chronicles, not after it. A small anomaly is that the Song of Solomon is in fact slightly shorter than Lamentations, not longer, but it is put first to keep the three books related to Solomon together. That Daniel is treated as a narrative book may be surprising, but it is undeniable that it begins with six chapters of narrative.
Each of the three sections of the Old Testament canon has a narrative component, covering one of three successive periods of history, and a literary component, representing one of three different types of religious literature: law, oracles, and lyrics or wisdom. The narrative material is, as far as possible, arranged in chronological order, and the literary material, when not united with the narrative material (as in the Pentateuch), is arranged in descending order of size. The shape of the Canon is therefore no accident of history but a work of art, and in its final form must be due to a single thinker, living before circa 130 BC, when the three sections are first mentioned in the Greek prologue to Sirach (in the Apocrypha).
The datings assigned to the recognition of the three sections are also misconceived. First, it is now known that the Samaritans continued to follow Jewish customs long after the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, and that the schism did not become complete until the Jews destroyed the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim in about 110 BC. It seems that the Samaritans only then rejected the Prophets and Writings because of the recognition those books give to the temple at Jerusalem.
Second, the problems that some rabbis had with as many as five biblical books do not mean that those books were outside the Canon, since the rabbinical literature notes similar problems with many other biblical books, including all five books of the Pentateuch. The problems with the five disputed books may have been particularly difficult, but they, too, were eventually solved in the same way as the other problems. There was no “synod of Jamnia,” but simply a discussion at its academy that confirmed the canonicity of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon—though that discussion did not end the controversy. Esther, in particular, continued to be discussed long after AD 90. Further, the same kinds of questions were raised about Ezekiel, which is found in the Prophets, not in the Writings; if the reasoning of the critical view were sound, then the Prophets also could not have been in the Canon, which would be absurd.
Third, contrary to what the critical view suggested, there would have been no strong incentive to put Chronicles and Daniel in the Prophets, since they were both being treated as narrative books relating to the final period of Old Testament history and therefore belonging in the Hagiographa.
Fig. 8.1 The Traditional Order of Old Testament Canonical Books according to the Talmud
The Law
Chronological (from the creation of the world to Moses’s death): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy
The Prophets
Narrative books (from the entry into the Promised Land to the Babylonian exile): Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings
Oracular books (in descending order of size): Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, The Book of the Twelve
The Writings
Lyrical/wisdom books (in descending order of size): Psalms (with Ruth prefixed), Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Lamentations
Narrative books (from the period of exile to the return): Daniel, Esther, Ezra–Nehemiah, Chronicles
Was There a Distinct Alexandrian Canon?
A further fallacious argument that many critics have used to show that the Old Testament canon was still open at the beginning of the Christian era is the hypothesis of a distinct Alexandrian canon, including at least some of the apocryphal books. For discussion of this argument, see “How the Greek and Latin Translations Came to Contain the Apocrypha” on pages 91–92.
Did the Qumran Sect Have a Broader Old Testament Canon?
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls at Qumran has turned the attention of critics to the pseudepigrapha—notably 1 Enoch, The Testament of Levi, Jubilees, and The Temple Scroll. It is today frequently claimed that the men of Qumran (probably Essenes) had a broad canon that included these books. But it should be noted that (1) the pseudonyms used in these works belong to the biblical period, indicating a recognition that prophetic inspiration had now ceased; (2) the inspiration claimed at Qumran was an inspiration to interpret the Scriptures, not to add to them; (3) the quotations from authoritative works made in the Qumran writings are almost exclusively from the Old Testament books, and the formulas used for quoting Scripture are not used with the few quotations from elsewhere; and (4) though the Essenes may have added an interpretative appendix to the three standard sections of the Old Testament canon, containing their favored pseudepigrapha, it is significant that they did not try to insert them into the three standard sections, which were now evidently closed (i.e., seen as complete).
THE TRUTH ABOUT THE OLD TESTAMENT CANON
So much for fashionable errors regarding the assembling and recognition of the Old Testament canon. The true evidence of the process is comparatively simple. First, it was recognized from ancient times that, if revelation was to be preserved, it needed to be written down (see Ex. 17:14; Deut. 31:24–26; Ps. 102:18; Isa. 30:8). This process of writing the words had been begun by God himself at Mount Sinai, when he gave Moses the two tablets of stone with his own words written on them: “The tablets were the work of God, and the writing was the writing of God, engraved on the tablets” (Ex. 32:16). These tablets were deposited in the ark of the covenant (Deut. 10:5), and were the basis of the covenant relationship between God and his people. Then, later writings were added to “the Book of the Covenant” (see Ex. 24:7; Josh. 24:26; 2 Kings 23:2). A significant object lesson on the importance of preserving God’s words in written form was the later discovery of the Book of the Law by Hilkiah, after it had been lost during the reigns of Manasseh and Amon: its teaching came as a great shock because it had been forgotten (2 Kings 22–23; 2 Chronicles 34).
Second, on great national occasions the Book of the Law was read to the people (Ex. 24:7; 2 Kings 23:2; Neh. 8:9, 14–17; etc.). Deuteronomy provides for it to be read regularly every seven years (Deut. 31:10–13). An extension of the same practice was the later reading of the Pentateuch in the synagogue on the Sabbath, supplemented by a reading from the Prophets (Luke 4:16–20; Acts 13:15, 27; 15:21; etc.).
Third, Deuteronomy was to be laid up in the sanctuary (Deut. 31:24–26), and that was where Hilkiah found the Book of the Law (2 Kings 22:8; 2 Chron. 34:15). It is known from Josephus and the earliest rabbinical literature that the practice of laying up the Scriptures in the temple still continued down to the first century AD. To lay up any book there as Scripture must have been a solemn and carefully deliberated act of national significance.
Fourth, the calendar of the book of 1 Enoch, followed at Qumran, seems to have been devised in about the third century BC so as to avoid having any dated act recorded in the Scriptures occur on the Sabbath. At least ten (and probably more) of the present Old Testament books are shown to be acknowledged as canonical at this time by this listing.
Fifth, Sirach 44–49, written about 180 BC, provides a catalog of famous men, and these are probably all meant to be biblical figures, since they are all now found in the Bible. The end of Sirach 49 sums them up, while chapter 50 moves on to describe Simon the son of Onias, a later worthy figure not found in the Bible. Accounting for these men raises the number of books to at least sixteen for which there is specific extrabiblical attestation to canonicity.
Sixth, Josephus relates that the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes first became distinct and rival schools of thought in the time of Jonathan Maccabeus (d. 143 BC). To alter the Canon after this time would have been very controversial, and can hardly have occurred. So the Canon must have been acknowledged as closed before 143 BC.
Seventh, the final touches may have been put to the Canon in 165 BC by Judas Maccabeus (making it a listed collection of twenty-four books in three sections, beginning with Genesis and ending with Chronicles; see fig. 8.1), when he gathered the scattered Scriptures after Antiochus’s persecution (2 Macc. 2:14). This is the Bible that, two centuries later, the New Testament and other first-century writings reflect.
Eighth, in spite of numerous differences between Jesus and the Jewish religious leaders of his time, there is no record of any dispute between them, or any later dispute with Jesus’s apostles, over which Old Testament books were canonical. The Old Testament canon accepted by the early church was identical to the canon of books accepted by the Jewish people.
Ninth, Jesus and the New Testament authors quote the words of the Old Testament approximately three hundred times (see fig. 19.1; uncertainty about the exact number arises because of a few instances where it is not clear whether it is an Old Testament quotation or only an echoing expression using similar words). They regularly quote it as having divine authority, with phrases such as “it is written,” “Scripture says,” and “God says,” but no other writings are quoted in this way. Occasionally the New Testament writers will quote some other authors, even pagan Greek authors (see Acts 17:28; Titus 1:12–13; Jude 8–10, 14–16), but they never quote these other sources as being the words of God, as they do the canonical Old Testament books.
Tenth, Josephus (born AD 37/38) explained, “From Artaxerxes to our own times a complete history has been written, but has not been deemed worthy of equal credit with the earlier record, because of the failure of the exact succession of the prophets.”3 Josephus was aware of the writings now considered part of the Apocrypha, but he (and, he implies, mainstream Jewish opinion) considered these other writings “not . . . worthy of equal credit” with what are now known as the Old Testament Scriptures.
Eleventh, additional Jewish tradition after the time of the New Testament also expresses the conviction that no more prophetic writings had been given after the time of the last Old Testament prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.4
Sound historical study shows, therefore, that the Hebrew Old Testament contains the true canon of the Old Testament, shared by Jesus and the apostles with first-century Judaism. No books are left out that should be included, and none are included that should be left out.