CBTS Logo

Canonical Structure of the OT – 2 (the Hebrew Bible)

by | Nov 27, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Hermeneutics, Old Testament

a. Caninical structure of the English Bible

b. Canonical structure of the Hebrew Bible: That the Hebrew Bible comprised the inspired Scriptures of the first century Jews seems obvious. The Hebrew Bible at the time of Christ was comprised of a three-fold division: I. The Law (Torah) – 5 books; II. The Prophets (Nebiim) – 8 books; and III. The Writings (Ketubim) – 11 books.[1] This simple three-fold division of the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible, probably compiled by the second century B.C., was recognized by Jesus in Luke 24:44, “…These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses, and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Jesus’ Hebrew audience would have understood him to be referring to the Hebrew Bible and its three-fold division.[2] In the words of Shaw:  

[W]e know that the Jews arranged their sacred books into three classes, the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiography, or holy writings. …The Psalms are here [Lk. 24:44] put for the Hagiography, probably because they were the principal book, or occupied the first place in that division.[3]

Jesus ratified the contents of the Hebrew Bible as Holy Scripture. Reymond agrees with Shaw, when he says:

In New Testament times Jesus Christ–the second Person of the Godhead present with his church as its ultimate “canon”–personally validated for his church the particular Old Testament canon of first-century Palestinian Judaism, namely, the twenty-four books of the Hebrew canon (see his allusion to the tripartite canon of Palestinian Judaism in Lk. 24:44), which corresponds to the thirty-nine books of the Protestant Old Testament …[4]

This three-fold division is known as the Tanak, an acronym for

…the Torah, consisting of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy; the Nevi’im (the Prophets), comprising Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Twelve; and the Ketuvim (the Writings), composed of Ruth, Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, Lamentations, Daniel, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles.[5]

It is of interest to note Luke 24:45-47.

Then He opened their minds to understand the Scriptures [in context this refers to the Tanak], and He said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in His name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem…”

The Hebrew Bible at the time of Jesus is what he explained to his disciples. According to Jesus, the sufferings and third-day resurrection of the Messiah are contained in the Tanak. Jesus also claims that the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins in his name to all nations, starting at Jerusalem, is taught in the Tanak.

There has been much recent study on the canonical structure and theology of the Hebrew Bible. Such study has caused John H. Sailhamer to say, “…the Hebrew Bible is both text and commentary.”[6] In other words, the Hebrew Bible comments upon what it reveals and is assumed to be a single, coherent book. When the Old Testament (and the New Testament) comments upon itself, this is called inter-biblical or inter-textual interpretation/exegesis. The PDBS defines inner-biblical exegesis as:

An approach to the text that seeks to address the re-interpretation and reapplication of earlier biblical texts by later texts. …Direct quotations are the most obvious application of this method, but inner-biblical exegesis looks at glosses in a text, the arrangement of material in its present form, and the use of words, themes and tradtions in texts. For example, a scholar studying inner-biblical exegesis might examine the relationship of Isaiah 2:2-4 to Joel 3:10 and Micah 4:1-3, or the use that Hosea puts to the traditions of Genesis 32 regarding Isaac and Esau. This approach to texts shares features with interpreting “Scripture in the light of Scripture” but focuses more on the literary and historical relationships rather than the theological or spiritual ones.[7]

Sailhamer says:

When the future [from the point of the Hebrew Bible] came at a specific time and place, there were people waiting for it. There were those like Simeon and Anna, who understood it in terms of the OT prophetic vision. In other words, the prophets’s vision was such that it preserved and carried with it a people who both understood the prophets and were there waiting for the fulfillment of their vision. By falling in line with that vision, the NT writers show that they accepted the OT not only as pre-interpreted, but they also were in fundamental agreement with its interpretation. That interpretation, we can see, began long before the time of its fulfillment. Already within the OT itself we can discover clear signs of an ongoing process of inter-Biblical, or (I would prefer to say) inter-textual interpretation.[8]

Stephen Dempster, while discussing explicit signs of textual coherence in the Tanak, says:

As mentioned earlier, within the biblical text itself there was an awareness that the many books were a unity. There is an exceedingly rich intertexuality in which there are many linguistic and conceptual echoes throughout Scripture. Later biblical books consciously echo and imitate events, concepts and language found in earlier books… Creation, exile and (occasionally) return form a recurring pattern that is stitched into the biblical narrative fabric. At the beginning, there is the creation of Adam and Eve, the placing of them in the Garden of Eden and the judgment of exile and death. Cain is soon born, and experiences the judgment of exile for the murder of his brother. The growth of the nations into a great power leads to sin at Babel and to exile as they are condemned to be dispersed throughout the earth. Abram is called into being to go to a land, which he leaves at times because of a lack of faith, only to return later. His descendants experience exile in Egypt and are brought back to the land. Their descendants also undergo exile before returning. Frequently the return is described in terms that echo the original creation and the placing of the first human pair in the Garden of Eden. Creation language often is employed to signal the return.[9]

These themes are not in the Tanak (or our English Old Testament) alone. When Jesus rose from the dead, he inaugurated a new creation, thus signaling that man could now return to God from his exiled state. This new creation (presently enjoyed only by Jesus in his glory and those who are his) will one day expand into “a new heaven and a new earth” (Revelation 21:1), “in which righteousness dwells” (2 Peter 3:13). The eternal state is depicted as a return to the Edenic state, yet without the possibility of sin (Revelation 22:1ff [“the tree of life,” no longer any curse, “they will reign forever and ever”]). The end of the Bible is the end or goal of the beginning to which Adam failed to attain.

It is also of interest to observe that the Hebrew Bible begins with the Pentateuch (as does our English Old Testament) and ends with Chronicles (unlike our English Old Testament). The Pentateuch, as has been mentioned, is the foundation upon which the entire Old Testament rests. The rest of the Old Testament assumes the Pentateuch as its historical and theological foundation. The prophets apply the theology of the Pentateuch to the contingencies of Old Covenant Israel. The prophets offer both rebuke, in light of covenantal disobedience, and hope, in light of God’s Messianic promises and purpose for creation. Post-pentateuchal revelation assumes, and is based on, that which precedes it. This is inter-textual or inter-biblical exegesis. The Bible itself often builds upon (and is thus explanatory of or a commentary upon) previous revelation.

The Hebrew Bible ends with Chronicles. Stephen Dempster comments:

It begins with a creation story of humanity in the garden of Eden, continues with their exile from this place of God’s presence because of disobedience, and ends with a nation in exile as a result of disobedience yet called back to the province of Judah to engage in the task of temple restoration – the supreme symbol of God’s presence. This temple is no ordinary temple either, as it has eschatological overtones, resulting in the restoration of Eden. The rivers of Eden will flow again, this time turning even the Dead Sea into a place of teeming life.[10]

When Jesus comes on the scene, he is often depicted as a temple builder (John 1:14; 2:19-22; Ephesians 2:19-22; 1 Corinthians 3:9, 16-17; 1 Peter 2:4-6; Matthew 16:18), the end of which turns out being described with many Old Testament creation (Eden) and temple echoes and allusions (cf. Revelation 21 and 22 [new heaven and new earth, holy city, new Jerusalem, bride adorned for her husband, tabernacle of God among men, no death, he will be my son, temple language, water of life, fruit, no curse, etc.]).

This area of study can be very helpful in understanding the overall thrust of the Old Testament. Canonical content and structure reveals to us themes that reoccur in the Old Testament and end up reoccurring in the New Testament as well. This, again, witnesses to the fact that God is in the business of bringing creation to its intended goal.

[1] Cf. John H. Sailhamer, “Biblical Theology and the Composition of the Hebrew Bible” in Scott J. Hafemann, editor, Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002), 32ff.; Stephen G. Dempster, Dominion and dynasty: A theology of the Hebrew Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 36ff.; and Ewert, From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations, 30-34.

[2] Sometimes the New Testament refers to the Old Testament as the law and the prophets, the law, or simply Scripture. This does not mean that the New Testament contradicts itself. It simply reflects the fact that the Old Testament can be summarized in various ways.

[3] Shaw, Westminster Confession, 43.

[4] Reymond, A New Systematic Theology, 61.

[5] Dempster, Dominion and dynasty, 36.

[6] John H. Sailhamer, “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible,” JETS 44/1 (March 2001) 13.

[7] PDBS, 63.

[8] Sailhamer, “The Messiah and the Hebrew Bible,” 13.

[9] Dempster, Dominion and dynasty, 31-32.

[10] Dempster, Dominion and dynasty, 33. Dempster references Genesis 2:10-14; Ezekiel 47:1-12; Joel 3:18; and Zechariah 14:8.

Tom Wells’ book on the Sabbath: Chapter Two (III)

by | Nov 25, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Book Reviews, Hermeneutics

Wells interacts with Exod. 20:8 in less than one page. He offers what in my mind gives the appearance of a cavalier dismissal of this text with these words: “This text, of course, contains the command to keep a Sabbath. It clearly addresses only Israelites and others who live within their land, so it does not seem to be relevant under the New Covenant” (29). He then adds, “Despite that fact many find an argument in the word “remember”” (29; emphasis mine). He assumes that an assertion is a fact. Something seems wrong-headed about that. As far as Exod. 20:8-11 goes, I have found these words by John Frame very helpful.

It is important to ask, what Sabbath does Ex. 20:11 refer to? Does “Sabbath” here refer to God’s rest after creating the world, or to man’s own Sabbath rest? The answer has to be, both. The first sentence of Ex. 20:11 refers to God’s own rest. But “Sabbath” in the second sentence must refer to the same Sabbath as in verse 8, the Sabbath God requires of Israel. Ex. 20:11 sees an identity between these. It teaches that when God took his own rest from his creative labors and rested on the seventh day, which he hallowed and blessed, he also hallowed and blessed a human Sabbath, a Sabbath for man (Mark 2:27). In other words, when God blessed his own Sabbath rest in Gen. 2:3, he blessed it as a model for human imitation. So Israel is to keep the Sabbath, because in Gen. 2:2-3 God hallowed and blessed man’s Sabbath as well as his own. (Frame, The Doctrine of the Christian Life, unpublished edition)

This is why elsewhere the Sabbath is called God’s, because He instituted it and owns it (cf. Is. 58:13, “…the Sabbath…My holy day…”; Rev. 1:10, “…the Lord’s Day…”), and it is something that was made for man (Mk. 2:27, “the Sabbath was made for man…”). The Sabbath is God’s because of His example and institution of it. The Sabbath is man’s because God made it for him. Surely “the everlasting God, the LORD, The Creator of the ends of the earth, Neither faints nor is weary” (Is. 40:28). God did not make the Sabbath for Himself because He was tired and needed rest; He made it for man. His example at creation is imperatival for man and predates the Sabbath as incorporated into Israel’s law.

As far as Ex. 20:8-11 being relevant under the new covenant, I agree with Frame’s interpretation that the Sabbath was instituted at creation and because of this it is relevant for all mankind (see previous posts).

Wells discusses OT prophecy and the Sabbath (i.e., Is. 56:2-5 and 58:13-14). He notes that some Reformed theologians who believe in an abiding Sabbath under the new covenant believe OT prophecy about the Sabbath under the new covenant has to be understood as the prophets utilizing old covenant forms of worship (i.e., Sabbath, new moons, incense, sacrifices, etc.) to describe worship under the new covenant, though not intending it to be understood literally. He says, “Here in the judgment of the men I have cited, they [i.e., old covenant forms of worship in new covenant prophecies] stand for New Covenant realities that would replace the Old Covenant customs in the gospel era” (39). Though I think these men are right, I do not think this necessarily means these texts do not teach that an abiding Sabbath is to be rendered under the new covenant. In other words, I think the prophets utilize old covenant language, but I also think these texts prophecy a Sabbath under the new covenant. I think this for at least two reasons related to OT prophecies of the Sabbath connected to the new covenant. The first reason is because of Jer. 31:33. I think this text implies a Sabbath under the new covenant because the law being referred to is the same law God wrote on stone tablets (I will just assert at this point. Those interested in my exegesis of this text can read my In Defense of the Decalogue).

A second reason comes from my understanding of Isa. 56:1-8. That text says:

Thus says the LORD: “Keep justice, and do righteousness, for My salvation is about to come, and My righteousness to be revealed. Blessed is the man who does this, and the son of man who lays hold on it; who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and keeps his hand from doing any evil.” Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD speak, saying, “The LORD has utterly separated me from His people”; nor let the eunuch say, “Here I am, a dry tree.” For thus says the LORD: “To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. Also the sons of the foreigner who join themselves to the LORD, to serve Him, and to love the name of the LORD, to be His servants — everyone who keeps from defiling the Sabbath, and holds fast My covenant — even them I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.” The Lord GOD, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, says, “Yet I will gather to him others besides those who are gathered to him.” (Is. 56:1-8)

Several observations will assist us in understanding how this passage prophesies explicitly the perpetuity and continuation of a Sabbath under the new covenant. First, the section of the book of Isaiah starting at chapter 40 and ending with chapter 66 is pointing forward to the days of Messiah and in some places to the eternal state. This section includes language pointing forward to the time primarily between the two comings of Christ, the interadvental days of the new covenant. It is understood this way by the NT in several places (see Mt. 3:3; 8:16, 17; 12:15-21; and Acts 13:34).

 

Second, Isaiah 56:1-8 speaks prophetically of a day in redemptive history in which God will save Gentiles (see esp. vv. 7 and 8). The language of “all nations” in verse 7 reminds us of the promise given to Abraham concerning blessing all nations through his seed (see Gen. 12:3 and Gal. 3:8, 16). This Abrahamic promise is pursued by the great commission of Matt. 28:18-20. Isaiah is speaking about new covenant days.

 

Third, in several New Testament texts, the language of Isa. 56:1-8 (and the broader context) is applied to the days between Christ’s first and second coming in the motif of fulfillment (Mt. 21:12-13; Acts 8:26-40; Eph. 2:19; and 1 Tim. 3:15). Compare Matthew 21:13, “My house shall be called a house of prayer,” with Isaiah 56:7, “For My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations.” This anticipates the inclusion of Gentiles in the house of God, a common NT phenomenon. Compare Acts 8:26-40 (notice a eunuch was reading from Isaiah) with Isaiah 56:3-5, which says:

Do not let the son of the foreigner who has joined himself to the LORD Speak, saying, “The LORD has utterly separated me from His people”; nor let the eunuch say, “Here I am, a dry tree.” For thus says the LORD: “To the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold fast My covenant, even to them I will give in My house and within My walls a place and a name better than that of sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that shall not be cut off. (Is. 56:3-5)

The old covenant placed restrictions on eunuchs. Deuteronomy 23:1 says, “He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD.” Isaiah is prophesying about a day in redemptive history when those restrictions no longer apply.

In Eph. 2:19 the church is called the “household of God” and in 1 Tim. 3:15 it is called “the house of God…” The context of 1 Tim. 3:15 includes 2:1-7, where Paul outlines regulations for church prayer. Now listen to Isa. 56:7, which says:

Even them [i.e., the foreigners (Gentiles) of v. 6a] I will bring to My holy mountain, and make them joyful in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and their sacrifices will be accepted on My altar; for My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations. (Is. 56:7)

The NT sees Isaiah’s prophecy as fulfilled under the new covenant. However, the privileges, responsibilities, and the people of God foretold here (Isa. 56) are transformed to fit the redemptive-historical conditions brought in by the new covenant. The people of God are transformed due to the new covenant; the house of God is transformed due to the new covenant; the burnt offerings, sacrifices, and altar are transformed due to the new covenant; and the Sabbath is transformed due to the new covenant. Isaiah, as with other OT prophets, accommodates his prophecy to the language of the old covenant people, but its NT fulfillment specifies exactly what his prophesy looks like when being fulfilled. Jeremiah does this with the promise of the new covenant. What was promised to “the house of Israel” and “the house of Judah” (Jer. 31:31), is fulfilled in the Jew-Gentile church, the new covenant people of God, the transformed/eschatological Israel of old testament prophecy.

With these considerations before us, it seems not only plausible but compelling to conclude that between the two advents of Christ, when the old covenant law restricting eunuchs no longer restricts them, and when the nations (i.e., Gentiles) are becoming the Lord’s and frequenting His house, which is His Church, a Sabbath (see Isaiah 56:2, 4, 6) yet remains. Isaiah is speaking prophetically of Sabbath keeping in new covenant days. The English Puritan John Bunyan, commenting on Isaiah 56, said, “Also it follows from hence, that the sabbath that has a promise annexed to the keeping of it, is rather that which the Lord Jesus shall give to the churches of the Gentiles.”[1]

The essence of the Sabbath transcends covenantal bounds. Its roots are in creation, not the old covenant alone. It transcends covenants and cultures because the ethics of creation are trans-covenantal and trans-cultural. The Sabbath is part of God’s moral law.

Don’t worry, my review of chapters 3-10 will be much shorter. 🙂

[1] John Bunyan, The Works of John Bunyan, Volume Two, (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991), 361.

The Law in the thought of those worth hearing: Part II

by | Nov 25, 2010 | Biblical Theology, Historical Theology

In part I of this series of posts, I said:

Too often while reading contemporary authors on the law in the life of believers, I find myself asking the question, “Haven’t these guys read the great minds of the past on this issue?” Sometimes I get the feeling (remember – feelings are “nothing more than feelings”) that much ink has been spilled prior to consulting the giants of church history and, in particular, Reformed theologians of previous eras. This series of posts will provide readers with some quotes from  and my interaction with some statments by a few guys I think are worth listening to on this issue. The reason why John Owen is prominant in the discussion below is becasue I wrote my dissertation on him (and Geerhardus Vos). The analysis below shows that Owen is main-stream Reformed orthodox in his view of the law.

Post I considered The Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others.

This time we will look at: 

Matthew 5:17 and the Perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant in Owen and Others

 

1. John Owen. In his Hebrews commentary, Owen argues for the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant from Matthew 5:17. While discussing the foundations of the Sabbath, he says: 

From these particular instances we may return to the consideration of the law of the decalogue in general, and the perpetual power of exacting obedience wherewith it is accompanied. That in the Old Testament it is frequently declared to be universally obligatory, and has the same efficacy ascribed unto it, without putting in any exceptions to any of its commands or limitations of its number, I suppose will be granted. The authority of it is no less fully asserted in the New Testament, and that also absolutely without distinction, or the least intimation of excepting the fourth command from what is affirmed concerning the whole. It is of the law of the decalogue that our Savior treats, Matt. v. 17-19. This he affirms that he came not to dissolve, as he did the ceremonial law, but to fulfill it; and then affirms that not one jot or tittle of it shall pass away. And making thereon a distribution of the whole into its several commands, he declares his disapprobation of them who shall break, or teach men to break, any one of them. And men make bold with him, when they so confidently assert that they may break one of them, and teach others so to do, without offense. That this reaches not to the confirmation of the seventh day precisely, we shall after-wards abundantly demonstrate.[1]

Commenting on Hebrews 9:3-5, Owen says:

Although this law as a covenant was broken and disannulled by the entrance of sin, and became insufficient as unto its first ends, of the justification and salvation of the church thereby, Rom. viii. 3; yet as a law and rule of obedience it was never disannulled, nor would God suffer it to be. Yea, one principal design of God in Christ was, that it might be fulfilled and established, Matt. v. 17, 18; Rom. iii. 31. For to reject this law, or to abrogate it, had been for God to have laid aside that glory of his holiness and righteousness which in his infinite wisdom he designed therein. Hence, after it was again broken by the people as a covenant, he wrote it a second time himself in tables of stone, and caused it to be safely kept in the ark, as his perpetual testimony. That, therefore, which he taught the church by and in all this, in the first place, was, that this law was to be fulfilled and accomplished, or they could have no advantage of or benefit by the covenant.[2]

Owen used Jeremiah 31:33 and 2 Corinthians 3:3 as proof of the perpetuity of the Decalogue. His use of Matthew 5:17 is to the same end.[3]

2. Zacharias Ursinus. While discussing how abrogation affects the Moral Law, Ursinus makes the point that “the moral law, or Decalogue, has not been abrogated in as far as obedience to it is concerned.”[4] He then argues, “God continually, no less now than formerly, requires both the regenerate and the unregenerate to render obedience to his law.”[5] As one of the reasons that he offers in proof of this proposition, he says:

From the testimony of Scripture: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets; I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matt. 5:17.) This is spoken, indeed, of the whole law, but with a special reference to the moral law, which Christ has fulfilled in four respects …[6]

Ursinus understands Matthew 5:17 in such a way as to demand the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant, as did Owen.

3. Francis Turretin. While offering “Proof that the law is not abrogated as to direction,”[7] Turretin says, “Christ ‘did not come to destroy but to fulfill the law’ (Mt. 5:17). Therefore as it was not abolished but fulfilled by Christ, neither is its use among us to be abolished.”[8]

It is now clear that Owen’s view of Matthew 5:17 (shared by Ursinus and Turretin) does not require the elimination of the Decalogue in all senses under the New Covenant.

[1] Owen, Works, XXIII:372.

[2] Owen, Works, XXII:215, 216.

[3] In IDOTD, I argued that Mt. 5:17 can be understood in such a way as not to eliminate the Decalogue from the New Covenant. As a matter of fact, I argued that it could be understood in such a way as not to eliminate the Old Testament from the New Covenant. For instance, after providing exegetical observations and conclusions and then testing my interpretation with the rest of the New Testament, I said: “The law of God, even the whole Old Testament, has its place under Christ, finding its realization in Him and its modified application in His kingdom. If the whole of the Old Testament is still binding, then certainly all its parts are as well.” See Barcellos, IDOTD, 65. I realize my explanation has nuances Owen’s may not.

[4] Zacharias Ursinus, The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Waters Revival Books, re. n.d.), 496.

[5] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.

[6] Ursinus, Commentary, 496.

[7] Turretin, Institutes, II:142.

[8] Turretin, Institutes, II:142.

Practical Shepherding

by | Nov 24, 2010 | Practical Theology

Evaluating practical issues of local church ministry biblically, theologically, and pastorally.

 

Really good stuff here by Pastor Brian Croft

Canonical Structure of the OT – 1

by | Nov 24, 2010 | Hermeneutics

Canonical structure refers to the final form of our English Bibles primarily – both order and content. This discipline is often called canonical criticism. Canonical criticism is defined as follows:

An approach that seeks to interpret the biblical books with respect to their authoritative status and theological context within the Bible. Canonical criticism thus focuses on the final form of the biblical texts rather than their earlier stages of composition or transmission (though recognition of the stages plays an integral role in some uses of this approach). Furthermore, canonical critics argue that the object of biblical interpretation is theological reflection within a community of faith. For example, Torah and the Gospels have a special function in the canon. They are set apart as first and foundational; hence the Prophets in the OT and Paul in the NT should be read in the light of the Torah and the Gospels respectively, even though the Prophets and Paul’s letters may predate the present form of the Torah and Gospels. Canonical criticism sees the Bible as “Scripture,” as authoritative writings of the community of faith,[1] and incorporates theological reflection as part of the reading of a text.[2]

Any text under consideration must be interpreted in light of its place and function within the entire canon of Scripture. Some books are theologically foundational to others and the latter must be understood in light of the former and the former is often explained by the latter.

1.      Canonical structure of the Old Testament:  We will consider the canonical structure of our English Bibles then the canonical structure of the ancient Hebrew Bible.

 

a.      Canonical structure of the English Bible: Our English Bibles are comprised of 39 Old Testament books. They follow the basic order and number of the Septuagint (LXX) – Genesis – Malachi. The LXX is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, translated by “Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria from the third to the second century B.C.”[3] LXX (Roman numeral for 70) stands for a tradition that says 72 Jewish scholars translated the Hebrew Bible into Greek in 72 days. It is an interesting phenomenon of history that the LXX changed the order of the Hebrew canon (see below) and number of books, though not the content, and added the Apocrypha. Why do our English Bibles have 39 books instead of the 24 books of the ancient Hebrew canon? The reason for this is due to the fact that the first English Bibles followed the order of the Latin Vulgate, which followed the order of the LXX[4] though Jerome translated into Latin from the Hebrew text.

Our English Old Testaments reflect a four-fold division of its 39 books considered from the standpoint of genre: I. The Law (Pentateuch) – 5 books; II. Historical Books (Joshua-Esther) – 12 books; III. Poetry (Job-Song of Solomon) – 5 books; and IV. Prophets (A. Major Prophets [Isaiah-Daniel] – 5 books; B. Minor Prophets [Hosea-Malachi] – 12 books) – 17 books.[5] The Pentateuch is the foundation for the rest of the Old Testament. The historical books trace ancient Old Covenant Israel’s history immediately subsequent to the death of Moses through the period of the judges and to the establishment of the monarchy and return from exile. The poetical books cover diverse issues related to Job, worship, and wisdom. The prophets are God’s prosecuting attorneys who both look to the past (i.e., the Pentateuch) and promise deliverance in the future.

b. Canonical structure of the Hebrew Bible (in the next post)

[1] This is important to note at this time. The Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments were brought together by the community of faith. They are the compositional and organizational product of believers. This means that theological reasons are behind the final form of the canon.

[2] PDBS, 23.

[3] PDBS, 105.

[4] Cf. David Ewert, From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations: A General Introduction to the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), 34, for a brief discussion of the order of the English Bible.

[5] This analysis of the division of the English Old Testament is found in Ewert, From Ancient Tablets to Modern Translations, 34.

Pin It on Pinterest