Quote and Question
Today I want us to ponder this quote from Harry Gamble’s The New Testament Canon: Its Making and Meaning.
In the nature of the case, canonization entails a recontextualization of the documents incorporated into the canon. They are abstracted from both their generative and traditional settings and redeployed as parts of a new literary whole; henceforth they are read in terms of this collection. In this way their historically secondary context becomes their hermeneutically primary context… More important still, the canon creates a presumption of unity and coherence among its contents and inevitably encourages a synoptic reading of them. Thus the canon operates to refocus the meaning of individual documents, as each is read with a view to others and in the light of the collection as a whole.
Here are a few questions to help us wrestle with the validity of the statement:
- Should the letters of Paul be read/interpreted as separate “letters” or interpreted as an intentional arrangement of texts?
- What are the differences between this view of canon and the traditional view of the NT (or OT) being an authoritative list of documents that have no intentional association or implications for reading?
- Can any intentionality be seen in the ordering of the NT books, or is the NT only a collection of inspired documents that are simply to be cross-referenced with one another?
- What kind of implications would this have for our preaching?
Blessings to you,
JC
Jonathan,
How would incorporation into the canon ‘recontextualize’ a book? Do I understand a passage through considering the ‘re:context’ of a book by simply making note of explicit quotations from the larger canonical context (i.e. Rom. 1:17–>Hab. 2:4), or does the entire re:context (i.e. the whole of Scripture) bear on a particular passage?
Another question concerns the inspiration of particular books. i.e. Can we ever consider the book of Ephesians, for example, by itself since it was of course inspired as a single letter, or is the case now that each book cannot be separated from its canonical context?
Matt Emerson
Matt, you raise an interesting question here about inspiration. I once had an esteemed professor raise a similar question in one of my classes – when does a book become an inspired text? Is it inspired on its own, as a separate entity from the rest of the canon? Or does a book become inspired upon its reception into the canon?
I think its an important question, and I know at least a few conservative scholars who debate about it. For instance, take Psalm 90. Was it an inspired psalm before it became a part of the Psalter? Or how about the creation stories or genealogies used by Moses to compose his book? I think you could make a good case that those texts were not “inspired” until they became part of God’s authoritative, canonical Word. In the present post, I think the idea is that the Flood story’s, for example (or any earlier source document in the Pentateuch), prior history as a text might not have any bearing on its intended use by the editor of the Pentateuch (Moses). I think Jonathan’s raising the question, could we say the same thing for Paul’s letters? Regardless of how the letters found their ways into various communities, they now come to us as a collection. This, I think, is the “re-context” – the editor’s collecting of them to be read as a whole. Trobisch demonstrated at the very least that the letters of Paul are a collection, are almost always found in the same order, and are rarely found without that collection. It is a significant point. We know virtually nothing about these letters apart from their placement in a collection. Surely, this “collection” context takes precedent over its prior one. That is, unless Paul (or whoever else did it) collected and arranged his letters “willy-nilly”, with no eye to what they might say when read together. If not, then it would be our duty to search for and demonstrate what purpose the entire collection was put together for.
I think it really comes down to the point of inspiration. When is the text inspired? Food for thought, at least for me anyway. Hope you are well.
Andy
Andy,
Great question. My follow up question/non-answer would be to ask if we should distinguish between an inspired book (e.g. Luke) and the redacted material within that book. I don’t think anyone would argue that the historical material Luke alludes to using in his prologue was inspired at the time of its recording (i.e. before Luke decided to use it in his Gospel); his use of it is what is inspired. However, is there a difference between Luke using historical sources and Paul establishing a letter collection? In other words, can I not separate between an inspired text being ‘recontextualized’ (i.e. Ephesians in the Pauline corpus) and source material being redacted into an inspired book (i.e. Luke’s use of sources)?
Matt Emerson
Matt,
Great follow-up question. Without backtracking though, I still think you’ll find the answer in defining ‘inspiration’ (which I do not do here). Could one be able to argue that Paul’s choosing of Ephesians as part of a letter collection is what in fact made it inspired? If that is the case, then there might not be a need to talk about ‘recontextualizing’ anything, simply supplying context. This might rend the need for a differentiation between sources and re:context at a minimum.
That said, do you think this is the same issue as the non-Mosaic material at the end of the Pentateuch, which describes Moses’ death and the lack of a prophet like him appearing in Israel at some time later in its history? Certainly this is a different ‘text’ than Joshua may have read, but its recontextualization into the larger Tanakh (if Sailhamer’s right) does not change the main thrust of the Pentateuch. Rather, it seems to draw out more distinctively that thrust. Could it may be the same with Paul’s letters?
Without a doubt they were well-read and well-received very early on in church history (cf. 2 Peter). Could the collection of Paul’s letters (which Peter might have been alluding to) simply help to draw out more distinctly the key thrust of each letter? The re:context, then, wouldn’t change the essentials, but would help to focus the reader on what the ‘collector’ deemed most important.
I hope that makes sense. Look forward to hearing more.
Andy Witt
Gentlemen,
Great conversation. As a proponent of a canonical approach to the OT, I have often thought about how inspiration figures in, and how a canonical approach would affect NT studies. This has been a helpful conversation.
As far as inspiration goes, I think we have to deal with how it occurs on three levels: 1) the composition of the original source (say Psalm 90, the genealogy in Genesis 5, or the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel), 2) the composition of the biblical book (the Psalter, Luke, Chronicles), and 3) the compilation of the canon (and any redacting that took place then).
For me, I don’t think inspiration has to be operative on the first level at all times. The person who originally wrote down the genealogy of Genesis 5 need not have been inspired. Nor is it necessary to say Moses was inspired in writing Psalm 90 (though I think he was). What is most important on this first level, is that the author of a given biblical book was inspired when he complied, arranged, and edited his various source material.
I think inspiration is always operative on the second level, the composition of a biblical book. (of course this brings up the question of letters of Paul that we know existed, like the one to the Laodiceans and his other letters to the Corinthians. Was Paul only inspired at certain times? Yet, regardless of how we choose to answer that, we know for sure that the letters we have are inspired). While placement of individual books within the canon affects how we read them, I would say that books hold authority “on their own” because they are inspired. That is in fact way certain books are not others are in the canon.
The third level of inspiration, that of the canon is tricky. If we claim that the canonicler did any redacting, then we must also claim he was inspired. And if his editing forms literary seams, then it would appear he was inspired in his ordering as well. I would conclude from this that the actual canonical shape is then inspired as well. Of course to say that has tremendous implications on interpretation.
To apply this to a case I would say that all three levels are operative in the Psalter. Each psalm was inspired (since they are prophecy), the person who composed and shaped the Psalter was inspired, and its placement within the Hebrew canon was also inspired. (One could just as easily say that each Psalm was not inspired, but upon their incorporation into the Psalter they are inspired, but you see how all three levels come into play).
Hope that this helps, and can add to the discussion! Look forward to hearing more.
Matt Carter
When we speak of recontextualization, are we speaking of a major shift in meaning? I think Andy has asked this question, or a similar question, but I wanted to make sure that I had understood his question as this is the question that I have.
Matt Carter,
Thank you for concisely and clearly stating that. One question, though. Are authors inspired or are texts inspired? If authors, then I think most of your points are legitimate. If texts, then I think the idea of inspiration is a little more tricky. That said, Paul is clear in 2 Tim 3 that all *Scripture* is God-breathed. Then the questions are: when is a text inspired? which text? when does a text become Scripture?
DMcLaurin,
That is one of the questions that I raised. I think Sailhamer’s answer is very helpful – that any recontextualization or editing/adding to the text which remains in the final form of the text is meant to bring out the original author’s intent more clearly, that the reader may more easily understand what the original text meant.
Andy,
Great follow-up question. Thanks for pushing my thinking on this critical issue. I would say in terms of the inspiration of texts and authors it is not either/or but a both/and. I believe that the authors are inspired, and they then are led to write inspired texts. One of my biggest reasons for seeing the authors are inspired is 2 Peter 1:21: “For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.” In context, Peter is discussing the certainty we have as believers thanks to the “prophetic word”, which seems to be Scripture. So, while the authors are never referred to as theopneustos, I think it is clear from Peter that they are inspired (cf. also 1 Pt. 1:10-12).
Certainly the text of Scripture is inspired (2 Tim. 3:16), and I think this because it was written/composed by inspired authors. I think this follows from my previous post.
Even with inspired authors and texts, we can still ask when a text is inspired and becomes Scripture. Clearly, not all texts are inspired; see my previous post on this. For example, the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel was not inspired, but the information used from it in the composition of Kings became inspired as a part of that inspired book, once composed by the inspired author.
As for which text is inspired, I think we are safest to say that the final form we have now is inspired. I would say, however, that a text of Scripture does not need to be placed in the canon in order to be inspired or considered Scripture. I would say the books that are in the canon are there precisely because they are recognized as inspired books. So, was the Pentateuch inspired when Moses originally wrote it (Deut. 31:24)? Yes. Was the information Joshua added also inspired (Josh. 24:26)? Yes. Was any information a canonicler also added inspired (say, Deut. 34:10ff)? Yes. It seems that the prophets and later Israel saw the Pentateuch as Scripture even before the canon was compiled.
All that to say, I think both the author(s) and the text are inspired, and at times under God’s inspiration, texts could be added to by inspired men, however with the compilation of the canon, the books reached their final, inspired form. Those are my thoughts for now. Hope that is helpful.
Matt Carter
Matt,
Again, thank you for your well said response. There are only a few nuanced quibbles I might like to talk with you more about, but by and large I think you and I are on the same page. I’d like to apply what we’ve said to the original topic of the Pauline letters (or for that matter, the collection of the Gospels, of the Catholic Epistles, etc.).
To all,
The level of inspiration questioned here is what Matt called the “third level,” or, the level of canonical intentionality. From the discussions I’ve had with others, I think most of us are far more comfortable seeing the hands of editors in the OT rather than the NT. I’m not sure why, but that seems to be the case.
I think part of the reason is that no one has published anything on canonical intentionality in the NT that I’m aware of, except for Trobisch and Childs’ recent book on Paul (I hope I’m wrong here, as I’m sure more books/articles have been put out – please list them if there are, I’d love to read them). But Childs wasn’t even a NT scholar – and I doubt many in the field take him too seriously in his NT research. Without much being said, the few of us who are interested in these things have little direction, and few leads to run with.
That said, I think we can glean some principles from our approach to the OT that would apply to the NT. First, a text should be studied on its terms, before being mined for canonical intentionality. Certainly different ideas and topics from previously read Scripture will play a role in our interpretation of an individual book, but the letters of Paul, for instance, are certainly each individual texts that have meaning in and of themselves. So, just Jonah should be understood as a book, before seeing how it fits into the Twelve and the larger canon, so should Galatians or Ephesians or Romans. Second, we must ask whether or not any intertextuality would be at work which might refocus our interpretation and lead us into a better canonical understanding of the purpose of the book in general, and the meaning of the passage, in particular.
As far as Paul goes, if there is evidence that the letters were specifically collected and arranged as part of their inspiration at the third level, then certainly it would be important to the meaning of the collection to read them as just that, a collection. I think Trobisch and Childs have done much to help in this area, but the jury is still out (as much as I hate to say it). I mean, look at all the work Sailhamer and Dempster, among others, have done to argue for a compositional approach to the OT, and still their claims hold less weight than we’d hope. The lack of evidence, at this point, for the canonical arrangement of the NT, certainly argues against us. I’m not saying the evidence isn’t there, but we need something solid to go on before trying to tell others to read in this way.
All this is still new to me, but I’m intrigued.
Andy
Let me illustrate one of the problems in the discussion using something Matt said. He wrote ‘To apply this to a case I would say that all three levels are operative in the Psalter. Each psalm was inspired (since they are prophecy), the person who composed and shaped the Psalter was inspired, and its placement within the Hebrew canon was also inspired.’
Matt, by ‘placement’ are you referring to the fact that the Psalm was ‘placed’ in the corpus of the other books we consider inspired or do you mean that its particular ‘placement’ i.e., where is resides in relationship to what comes before and what comes after, is inspired?
And, Andy are you arguing (or suggesting the question) that it was not until the ‘canon’ was completed that inspiration attached when you wrote ‘Or does a book become inspired upon its reception into the canon?’
Shawn
Dr. Madden,
Thanks for the question. I realize you’re not addressing me but another Matt, but I thought I’d jump in any way. I personally am not willing to say that the placement of a book within the canon, i.e. what comes before and after, is inspired. The reason I am not willing to go here is not so much that I don’t think it’s possible but that I don’t think anyone has yet built a strong, text driven, intellectually rigorous argument for it. I’m open to one being made for it, but at present I don’t see it anywhere in publication.
Matt Emerson
There are and have been many canonical arrangements, and for the most part each is helpful in its own way. (I’m thinking of the canonical order of the Hebrew text versus the Old Testament of the English Bible. However, to say that one is inspired while the other is not, would make little sense. This is because, order aside, you need all of the books to do good theology, but it is also important to factor in the context of each book on its own. My point being that in order to do good theology you need to consider the book by itself, and consider the book as it relates to the cannon. It may be important to recognize that the books that were included in the cannon were not included based on the proximity of the book to another, i.e. a book was not chosen because it appeared between two other texts, instead they were chosen based on content. The order of our new testament goes as the gospels, the acts of the apostles, Paul’s epistles by length, then other epistles by length, finally the Revelation of Jesus Christ. It appears that our New Testament’s order holds little theological value, and is based more on convenience for a society that did not have versification within the text. Certainly there appears good reason for the ordering in the Hebrew Cannon, however the thing of greatest import is the fact that the texts were included. The order helps the reader recognize the unfolding of God’s redemptive plan, however, I think it would be a stretch to suggest that the textual order is inspired.
By, the way if the textual order were inspired, how would you decide which order? Also, would that mean that pocket New Testaments with Psalms and Proverbs should be banned because they arrange the text differently?
Kenny Hilliard
Kenny,
Thanks for your comment. I am not going to try to respond to all that you said, but there are a few things I’d like to point out.
1) Inspiration of order, at least for the Old Testament, is suggested textually (i.e. by pointing out specific textual links) by those who argue for it. You are correct in saying that books are not chosen based on a preconceived order, but on inspiration; however, this does not negate the possibility of God inspiring an editor to then arrange those books considered canonical. If we were to argue for that inspired order, it would be through demonstrating textual connections between books (i.e. the suggested ’seams of Sailhamer – Deut 34, Josh 1, Psalm 1, and Mal 3).
(I again want to affirm that I do not hold to an inspiration of a certain order, but am only arguing that it is still a legitimate possibility that we should not write off).
2) A consideration of order does not negate a consideration of a passage within the context of a particular book. To consider a passage of Scripture, we need to think about it’s immediate context, pericopal context, book context, and canonical context. These are all necessary for doing theology, and I would never suggest that we throw one out in favor of doing the others.
3) Your suggestion that the NT order holds no theological weight is particularly interesting to me, because that’s exactly what I’m writing my dissertation on!
I think there is actually quite a bit of theological significance to the NT order, but we’ll have to save that for a later post.
4) This brings me to my last point, which is that even if we cannot argue for an inspiration of a particular order, this does not make the order any less theologically significant. I’ve argued this in a previous post if you’d like to check it out. This means in deciding an order, at least for the OT since it’s the most disputed, I would say the best way to choose would be to try and emulate both how the later OT writers are interpreting the earlier canonical books (e.g. Chronicles interpreting Gen – Sam) and how the NT writers use the OT.
Matt Emerson
Dr. Madden,
First off, I like your little icon, it fits you well.
Secondly, in response to your question, I was simply asking that as one of the possibilities for inspiration. The reason is as follows:
1) Paul did say that *all Scripture* was inspired (breathed out by God). This does not necessarily mean that a book is recognized by a community as inspired and then becomes a part of the larger Scriptures. It could mean that a book becomes inspired when it is considered Scripture. If not, could there be the possibility of something being “inspired” but not being included as Scripture?
2) Would it be fair to call all Scripture authors “prophets”? If so, wouldn’t it follow that the ‘writing’ prophets (as it were) were just as aware of their prophetic office as the ’speaking’ prophets from OT history (e.g. Samuel). In other words, should we argue that the biblical authors knew they were writing Scripture as they wrote it? Certainly the OT prophets knew when they were prophesying, it was not as if they were in a strange trance and suddenly woke up to find a scroll with writing on it or a stunned crowd staring back at them. They were completely aware that they were communicating “thus sayeth the Lord” to their hearers. So to the writing prophets? If so, then I think the question is a legitimate one: a text is only considered inspired when it is considered Scripture, alongside the rest of Scripture. That is, unless something can be inspired but not be Scripture.
Am I being crazy here? I appreciate your input.
Andy
Gentlemen,
Great discussion, I am thoroughly enjoying it, and thank you for continuing to push me in my thinking. Before I reply to Dr. Madden’s question and some things Matt Emerson and Kenny said, let me give a quick disclaimer to protect the innocent! In explaining my stance on the order of the canon and how it relates to inspiration I’ll be citing Sailhamer, who I did not get to study under while at SEBTS. I did study with Drs. Cole and McKenzie, who are both proponents of a canonical approach to Scripture (as well as studying under profs who disagreed with this approach and some who avidly opposed it), but I never recall them saying that the ordering is inspired. So, the conclusions below are mine, so please don’t think my views necessarily represent any of their views on this topic! That being said, I’ll proceed.
To begin, and to answer Dr. Madden, when I used the term “placement” in an earlier comment in regards to the Psatler’s placement in the canon, I was referring to where it resides in relation to books around it. So, in essence what I am arguing is that the order of the OT Canon in the Hebrew (as presented in BHS, and witnessed to in various other historical writings) is inspired. I will keep my comments to the OT canon, as that is my main area of interest, and where I have done the most reading and studying.
Now, I realize that this is a “radical” view and somewhat controversial. And to answer Mr. Emerson’s comments, it has not really been discussed in the literature, and I readily admit that authorial intention, and thus inspiration, on the canonical level is probably the most difficult aspect of OT theology to demonstrate. Given this, it is the position I have found myself logically, and convictionally drawn to over the past several years. My reasons are this:
1. Canonical Seams: As Sailhamer and Dempster have pointed out (and Matt Emerson alluded to in his previous comment), there are a number of literary seams between books in the canon. Sailhamer states that these are “canon-conscious redactional seams that tie together the final pieces of the Hebrew Bible when viewed as a whole,” (Intro. to OT Theology, p.100). Thus, if these seams (Deut 34/Josh 1; Malachi 3/Ps. 1) were added to those texts, then the one(s) who authored the seams were inspired.
2. Order and Context: These seams then, are purposeful and enhance the meaning of the text. Sailhamer notes in the same work (p.249) that this shaping was a “deliberate attempt to establish certain fundamental notions about the Hebrew Bible.” Dempster further argues that these editorial ’splices’ were inserted by the final compilers of the canon to ensure that the text (i.e. all 39 books) were understood as a unity (Dominion and Dynasty, p.32). Seams indicate order, which is intentional.
This shaping creates a literary context which provides a messianic/eschatological understanding to the canon as a whole, and so to each book within the canon. Thus, if the order is changed, then the meaning of the texts is to some degree also changed.
3.Conclusion: So logically, in order to be consistent, I have been pushed to see the Hebrew order of the OT as inspired. My reasoning is this: if the order was created by the inspired author (via literary seams and placement of books), and was intended to provide meaning, then the order is also inspired. This is because the order itself provides meaning, so becomes a part of the meaning of Scripture as a whole. And if it is part of Scripture, it is inspired (cf. 2 Tim. 3:16).
I’ll admit this defense is by no means air tight. It comes down for me, that if I am drawing theological conclusions/interpreting a text based on its placement (order) within the canon, to be consistent with my understanding of inspiration, I ought to say the order is inspired.
So, what does this mean for other, competing orders, to answer Kenny’s question? Here is where I am still hesitant and working things out. Right now, I would simply say that other orderings (the LXX, for instance) give us a different literary context, and so a different understanding of individual books. So, these orders are less helpful than the Hebrew order for understanding the authorial intended meaning of each text.
As for pocket NT’s with Psalms and Proverbs, no I don’t feel they should be banned. I do have feelings on things like that, especially “chronological bibles”, but that is a discussion for another time. Suffice to say, I feel those pocket NT’s tend to minimize the OT in general, and present the Psalms simply as nice prayers and the Proverbs only as pithy sayings instead of actual theology.
Thanks again all for the discussion. I hope I have been clear in my view, and admit there is still a lot to be done to “demonstrate” the inspiration of the order of canon. Maybe we can break new ground here! Blessings,
Matt Carter
Matt, allow me to suggest caution. If I remember correctly the good Dr. Sailhamer was careful with his words and tended more to ‘perhaps’ and ‘maybe’ when suggesting the seams. I will double check tommorrow in my office. Even some ordering is a logical as it is literary, Deut-Josh for instance–what else would you follow Deut with but Josh, seam or no seam?
You are advocating the BHS ordering. That is a recent editorial ordering, adhering neither to the Talmudic explanation nor to its underlying text, B19a.
The question I ask and which I suggest folks to start with, ‘what was the canon and its ordering in the 1st century, when Jesus, John, Paul et al were writing, i.e., what canon were they using?’ (if, indeed, it can solidly and specifically [order of the 12] be discovered). As far as I can discover the Talmudic, B19a (etc.), BHK and BHS are much later orderings. That is why I head back to the NT and Josephus, two 1st century works whose theology, if it were canon based (I too am still looking at it when I have time-discoure analysis eats up my time!) should be given the first consideration.
Else you are arguing that the editors of BHS were inspired in their ordering against Matthew and Luke (perhaps), Josephus (whose ordering I will argue can square with Matthew and Luke, hence Jesus), the Talmud, and the Massoretes.
And, if there is indeed inspired ordering in the TNK (be that Josephus, B19a, Talmud, or BHS, etc.) then you would have to logically and theologically argue that such inspiration would find as its object not only the TNK but also the NT (and its ordering, as someone seems to argue above) and even more so the two together and that ordering. But, you would have to find and present solid, irrefutable evidence for that, wouldn’t you?
Shawn
It’d be nice to be able to go back and edit a text after it was posted to correct typos. For those who are in the midst of dissertations, once it is approved don’t look at it until you have it bound else you will want to go back and correct errors you discover after reading it again, after graduation!
Boy, glad I am a prof now.
Dr. Madden,
Dr. Sailhamer does tend to say “perhaps” and other such things when discussing the seams and their significance. Dempster is more conclusive in his language. I was not trying to claim either of them take a view of an inspired order, as I do not know their view on that topic. I also should have been more careful in my own language, as I am less dogmatic about the inspiration of the order of the canon than my post may convey. I should have said I am leaning toward an inspired canonical order, and that I am inclined to accept such a view.
In terms of the specifics of the order of the canon, I agree we want to get back to the Bible Jesus was reading, in terms of an OT order. I think Luke 24 and Matthew 23 argue for a tripartite order, with Psalms at the beginning of the Writings and Chronicles end of the canon. Reading your previous comments on an earlier post, I don’t think you necessarily dispute a tripartite shape with Chronicles last as supported by things such as Baba Bathra, Ben Sirach, and 4QMMT (though only Baba Bathra gives an ordering of books out those three).
So, while I certainly don’t consider the editors of BHS inspired, I should have said I believe the order of the OT in Jesus’ day was very similar to the one presented in BHS. I think the biggest questions are the order of the 12 and even to some extent Jeremiah/Isaiah. In sense, if we are to argue for an inspired order, that becomes an issue of text criticism and not a reason for dismissing the inspiration of the order.
I completely agree that arguing for an inspired order raises more questions than answers at this point. Indeed, much more work needs to be done and evidence provided about the intentionality of the NT canon’s order (go Matt Emerson!) and the relationship between the two. It is discussions like this that I think will help push us to dig for just that evidence that will then either prove or disprove it. And yes, it would be wonderful to be able to correct typos after posting, so forgive any I miss here!
Matt Carter
To all,
I just want to point out that a) I have not argued for an inspired OT order, only suggested that it is a *possibility*, and b) I have not argued for an inspired NT order, but only suggested that there is indeed theological significance to be taken from that order.
Matt Emerson
Matt,
Great discussion on a great topic!
As I mentioned I am looking for a 1st century canon, the canon that Jesus was using. I light upon Josephus as he is a 1st century Jewish writer and he does give a canon, albeit without much of specifics regarding order within a tri-partite arrangement.
I do see Chronicles as ending one of the sections. I used to argue that it was then final book in the whole TNK corpus but have since modified my position while still maintaining what is found in Matt. 23.35. In Matt Jesus gives delimiters of a corpus based on history—i.e. the death of the ‘righteous Abel’ and the death of ‘Zechariah’. This, of course eliminates the wider, Catholic and Orthodox canons whose historical books go through the Maccabean period and revolt with the death of several Jewish martyrs. Keep in mind that Jesus is making an historical reference which doesn’t necessarily require that Chronicles be the last book of the TNK.
Josephus (Contra Apion, 40-41) gives the canon in a matter of fact way suggesting that there was little controversy over the it at his time, the same time as the writing of the NT. After noting the five books of Moses (which, as you well know, contains a heap of history), he goes on to lay out the books after those of Moses as ‘but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books.’ The order in my table comes from Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985), 451 with a modification putting Chronicles last as per his p. 159 discussion where he notes that Chronicles found its way toward the end ‘as a recapitulation of the whole biblical story’ because it goes from Adam to the return. Such an arrangement would square with the note in Matthew as it involves historical references. Josephus notes that ‘The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life’ which most folks recognize as Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, which, for me, gives a much better ‘definition’ to the term ‘Writings.’ So too, in Josephus’s canon Daniel is found with the rest of the prophets, which too squares with Jesus who says ‘Daniel the prophet’ in Matt 24.15.
So, to sum up my argument, Josephus is a 1st century Jewish writer, writing at the time of the NT writers and he gives a canonical arrangement that could very easily be squared with that found in Matthew.
Shawn
Andy,
I would think that to be included in an established ‘inspired canon’ a book would first have to be recognized as inspired–it had to be recognized first as qualified to be included. I head that direction because it seems that Mose’s books were already recognized as ‘inspired’ or ‘authoritative’ and that others were joined to that already extant canonical corpus.
Of course it would be handy if somewhere along the lines the folks responsible for the ‘canon’ would have told us how they did it. Baba Bathra doesn’t do that, it only says that that was how they arranged and already extant and acceptd canon.
Of course, as some have noted, what we have hear is more than anything else speculation on how things were arranged. The only thing solid that we have to go with is the tripartite arrangement given in the NT which, happily, is reflected in each of the sets of ‘canons’ (Josephus, B19a, BB, BHS, etc.) each of us has put forth.
It is a pretty good avitar isn’t it? I borrowed it with permission from Marine artist.
Shawn
Matt Emerson,
Sorry if anything I said misrepresented your views in anyway. I was not trying to imply you were arguing for an inspired canon in either testament.
Also, sorry that we have the same name and differing views on the issue!
Matt Carter
No problem Matt! I just wanted to post a little comment clarifying where we stood, seeing as two people with the same name are commenting on the same issue.
Matt Emerson
I can’t believe you guys are still talking about this and I’m glad my name isn’t Matt.
A book that I am finding interesting on this topic of OT canon is Stephen Chapman’s The Law and the Prophets. Don’t even try getting it from SEBTS library because I’m not bringing it back anytime soon… that is, if MeanDog Dr. Madden doesn’t demand it!
Have I told you about the biker I sub-contract with to retrieve books? He is a Christian so he will give you the choice as to which knee to break!
hey guys, great conversation. i enjoy checking this blog out everyone once and a while. my question is concerning the NT use of the LXX or at least some Greek version in some places that doesn’t exactly match thee LXX. Anyway how should that fact shape or effect how we do exegesis and interpretation within a canonical framework? If we take seriously the shape of the Hebrew OT and we should but we look at what NT writers used, the LXX which was another order? Basically if the NT writers did not sense the neccessity to quote or reference the Hebrew text should we really be putting a whole lot of stock in the Hebrew canonical order? Or perhaps the use of the LXX was more of a cultural contextualization issue than an exegtical one. I had Cole for OT and really enjoyed it, and J Cat and I enjoyed taking OT Narratives this past spring, we had much conversation about it? So basically my question is how do we best understand the role of the LXX in the NT if we are so concerned with a canonical understanding of the OT and NT?
Stephen,
I don’t see that the use of the Greek translation of the OT (G-OT; the LXX was just the Torah) bears on specific passage interpretation. First, because, though the individual books of the G-OT were translated by the Jewish community, it was the Christian community that selected, included, and arranged them in the corpus we commonly refer to as the LXX. The Jewish NT writers probably used the G-OT when they did as it was a handy and available translation and probably with the idea that the arragnment of the Greek would be the same as the Hebrew–again because the LXX books and arrangement was Christian and at least 300 years after the NT was written.
Dr. Madden,
So you are saying that even though the NT writers would be utilizing the G-OT because of its availability in the first century they would still had interpreted that text just as they would had in the canonical order of the Hebrew text? So the order of the G-OT and that order we have in our English Bibles today was developed later, right?
Have any of you guys been reading “Introducing Theological Interpretation of Scritpures” by Daniel J. Treier? Just wondering what your thoughts might be on that?
Stephen,
What I am saying is that as the NT writers utilized the Jewish translation of the TNK books, if they gave thought to the canonical ordering it more than likely would have been what we find in Matthew, Luke, and Josephus (1st century Jewish writers), not the Christian ordering found in the great Greek Manuscripts (א, B, A) which came centuries later and whose ordering was not Jewish.
Shawn