by the late Dr Ernest Martin
Introduction
There is no doubt that the world has the complete Bible in
its midst. One of them is the beloved King James' Version
published in 1611. There have been many other complete versions
produced over the last 100 years. So, why do we need "The
Original Bible Restored"? The fact is, there needs to he a
drastic revision within all Bible translations and versions (and
that means all Bibles in existence no matter in what languages
they have been published). Truly, there is not a Bible on the
market today which follows the arrangement of the earliest
manuscripts! One might think that such a state of affairs could
not exist, but it does! Publishers have assiduously neglected to
produce a complete Bible which positions the books in the correct
manuscript order. The outcome has been a mass of Bible
translations and versions which are literally topsy-turvy in
their design and arrangement.
One might at first glance dismiss this infraction as being
of minor consequence. But this represents a prime misjudgment
when anyone looks seriously at the issue! In truth, the Bible of
the manuscripts has all its divisions, parts and order of books
in a symmetrical balance which shows a harmonious story-flow from
beginning to end. But publishers have abandoned all attempts to
restore this Bible to the general public!
Look at it this way. Suppose you bought a novel containing
49 chapters which introduced the various characters and plot in a
progressive way from start to finish. Would it not be difficult
to understand what the plot was all about if chapter 16 followed
immediately after chapter 6, and especially if the chapters were
not properly numbered? What then if chapter 22 were placed after
after 7, chapter 22 before 21, chapter 14 after 21, chapters 12
and 3 followed 14, chapter 18 positioned after 13, chapter 17
followed 8 and 9, chapter 20 after 10, and finally chapter 11
after chapter 20. This would represent utter confusion! But if
one reckons the chapters of our hypothetical novel as being the
books of the Old Testament, this is the exact sequence we are
saddled with in our present Bibles'.
Let's not stop with the Old Testament! Look at what has
happened to the 27 New Testament books! Return once more to the
illustration of our novel. It means that chapters 23 to 27 follow
immediately after chapter 11. Chapters 28 to 34 are found after
chapter 44, while chapter 44 itself follows chapter 48, and
chapters 35 to 43 are positioned after chapter 27. This is
further confusion!
Some might say, however, that a comparison of the Bible with
a novel is not proper. But this is exactly where the first
mistake is made in appreciating the manuscript order of the
biblical books. It will be shown in this book that there is a
definite weaving together of a single story theme through the
biblical books. And it is a remarkably consistent account which
often amazes people when they see it for the first time. The only
reason that such a homogeneous narrative has not been recognized
by most people today is because none of our published Bibles has
the books of the Old and New Testaments in the original
manuscript order. When the proper design is restored, a marvelous
and revealing series of connected subjects is seen running
through the Bible which illustrates a compatible and coherent
account from beginning to end. This book will reveal some of
those amazing relationships which exist between and among the
various books. This information may well prove to be an
eye-opener to many students of the Bible - facts that have never
been realized before!
Other matters are considered in the body of this book. It
will be seen that the responsibility for canonizing the New
Testament fell to the apostles themselves. It was they who had
the authority to write and collect the various books of the New
Testament, and that two apostles in particular were given the
special assignment of formulating the New Testament into a
complete and final book! It will also be shown that the original
number of both the Old and New Testament books should be reckoned
as 49 - not the 66 that we have in our modern Bibles! The present
enumeration reflects a numerical pattern which is very unlike the
original. Indeed, some Bibles even have an extra eleven (or
fourteen) books included in their contents. This divergency
represents an abandonment of the original number and arrangement
of the books.
The subject of this book is almost like an adventure story -
a story of re-discovery. Yet, in actual fact, this book contains
not one bit of new evidence (regarding the manuscript order of
the biblical books) that has not been known by New Testament
textual scholars for over a century and a half. It is an
incredible circumstance that most readers of the Bible are
totally unaware of this evidence. Such proof has long been in the
hands of scholars but not one attempt has been made to provide
the English speaking world with a complete Bible which follows
the manuscripts. And it is a rare occasion indeed that the
introductions to any English version even deem it necessary to
inform the general public what the manuscript order really is,
and even then it is usually a brief and inconsequential reference
that the reader would hardly think important.
It is time that the world be presented with "The Manuscript
Version of the Bible." Publishing such a work would provide a
proper canon of the Bible. The word "canon" means rule or
standard. There is no version being published today that
resembles the canonical Bible of the manuscripts. But why not?
Should not Christians want to perpetuate the biblical canon
devised by the men who formed it? In this book we provide a great
deal of internal evidence from the Bible itself which goes a long
way in showing that the early manuscript order of the books is
not only correct, it is an essential factor which helps to
emphasize some significant biblical themes. There is one which is
most important! If the books of the Old and New Testaments are
restored to their manuscript arrangement, the center books of the
whole Bible are the five New Testament books which describe the
life and times of Jesus Christ. In a word, Jesus Christ is
featured as the focal point (the fulcrum) of all Scripture. But
only the manuscript order is able to demonstrate this.
In this book we stress the importance of letting the Bible
itself speak about its own origin and arrangement of books. It is
now being recognized in the scholarly world that such internal
evidence is a valuable tool in understanding canonical matters.
We provide a considerable amount of information on this internal
evidence that is often overlooked by many students of the
Scripture.
Since the year 1983 (the year in which this book is being
written) has been designated by the President and Congress of the
United States as "The Year of the Bible," there is no better time
for modern man to return to the manuscript order of the books.
One of the main reasons for writing this book is to awaken an
enthusiasm among New Testament scholars (who have been telling
the scholarly world for a century and a half about the true order
of the 27 New Testament books) to get busy and tell the
publishing companies who produce the Bibles to return to the
proper order! If ministers and preachers of the Gospel, priests
and a concerned laity would also provide an incentive of
encouragement, the publishers would respond. There is a dire need
for a "Manuscript Version of the Bible." It would present the
messages of the Bible in the original format that left the hands
of the canonizers. When the general public would see the Bible in
its proper arrangement, a new interest and appreciation for the
Word of God could be the result. This book is designed to show
some of the interesting insights that are possible when this
restitution is accomplished. We think that the public would
respond favorably to the "manuscript Version of the Bible" and
when it is made available, the world will finally have within the
pages of a single volume (for the first time in modern history)
"The Original Bible Restored."
The THE ORIGINAL BIBLE RESTORED
It can be demonstrated in a clear and positive way that no
popular version of the Bible in modern times has followed the
ancient manuscripts in the arrangement of the biblical books. It
is almost unbelievable that such a situation could exist,
especially in our highly critical age, yet publishers in their
quest to print numerous versions of the Bible have been led to
avoid the actual manuscript positioning of the biblical books in
favor of a later ecclesiastical order which has no justification
from early Hebrew and Greek texts.
Let us look at the New Testament first:. When the textual
scholars of the last century printed their final results of
surveying the early New Testament manuscripts, they all without
exception placed the resultant arrangement of the books in the
same order. They felt compelled to do this because of the
overwhelming evidence from the manuscripts. Scrivener, after
surveying over 4000 manuscripts, said:
"Whether copies contain the whole or a part of the sacred volume,
the general order of the books is the following: Gospels, Acts,
Catholic Epistles, Pauline Epistles, Apocalypse" (Introduction to
the Criticism of the New Testament, vol.I, p.72).
The fact is, all textual scholars who led the pioneering
work in the evaluation of New Testament manuscripts consistently
recorded the proper manuscript order of the books in their
editions intended for biblical scholars. They placed the seven
Catholic Epistles (James, I & 2 Peter, 1,2 & 3 John and Jude)
before the fourteen of the apostle Paul. This is a very
significant feature of the early manuscripts. (It ought to be
stated that the word "Catholic" in this instance does not refer
to any Christian denomination. It only means that the epistles
themselves are "Universal" or "General").
"This is the position [of the Catholic Epistles] assigned them in
the critical editions of Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,
Westcott and Hort" (Hastings, Dict. of the Bible, vol.l, p.360).
The early manuscripts which most textual critics uphold as
the best in existence (notably the Vaticanus, the Alexandrinus
and the Ephraem) position the seven Catholic Epistles before
those of Paul. There can be little doubt that this is where they
belong. But in our modern versions, the translators have
abandoned this order and adopted an ecclesiastical one which most
will admit is provincial and sectarian and one that cannot
represent the original arrangement of the New Testament books,
This, on the other hand, was not the case with the ancient
scholars and leaders of the church.
Early Christian Beliefs
Almost all the Greek speaking ecclesiastical authorities
from the areas of Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, and Greece refer
to the books of the New Testament in the manuscript arrangement
mentioned above.
Athanasius said the order was "the four Gospels; the Acts of
the Apostles; the seven Catholic Epistles; the fourteen epistles
of St.Paul; and the Revelation of John" (Home, Introduction.
vol.IV, p.253).
Leontius of Byzantium mentioned the order as "Matthew, Mark,
Luke, John; the Acts of the Apostles; the seven Catholic
Epistles; the Epistles of Paul; and the Apocalypse" (ibid.).
Philastris was even bold in his statement that the seven
Catholic Epistles must be positioned before Paul's because in
Galatians 1:17 Paul said that the Jewish apostles were "before
me" (Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the N. T., p.13).
The normal manuscript order was also advocated by the
clerics at the eastern Church Council of Laodicea (Canon LX,
NPNF, vol.XIV. p.159) and it was further maintained by Cyril,
Bishop of Jerusalem, (Catechetical Lectures 4.36, NPNF, vol.VIl,
pp.27,28).
John of Damascus (born 675 A.D.) -- author of the standard
textbook on Dogmatic Theology for the Greek Church - referred to
the manuscript order of the books as the proper one. Without
qualification he stated that the seven Catholic Epistles must be
placed right after the Book of Acts (Lardner, Credibility, vol.V,
p.147).
Further names could be cited in support of this prevelant
view among eastern churchmen. These included Cassiodorus,
Nicephorus and also the Peshitta Version of the New Testament
(Moffatt, p.14). These were followed by the Stoichiometry from
Cotelerius (806 A.D.) and Oecumenius (950 A.D) the Bishop of
Thessaly who wrote a short copy of verse on the New Testament in
the proper manuscript order (Lardner, vol.V, pp.89,154,155).
This order (with the Catholic Epistles positioned before
those of Paul) was even recognized by Jerome, the translator of
the Latin Vulgate Version of the Bible. However, when Jerome
wrote a personal letter to his friend Paulinus, he followed an
order peculiar to Epiphanius who even placed Paul's letters right
after the four Gospels (Lardner, vol.IV, pp.437,438). This order
is also found in the Sinaiticus manuscript.
But what about the order of New Testament books which we
find in our Bibles today? This arrangement had its origin in the
areas of Rome and Carthage and came essentially from Latin
speaking eccelesiastical authorities. The western fathers were
prone to place Paul's epistles immediately after the Book of
Acts, thus violating the early Greek manuscript arrangement. This
re-adjustment (from the western point of view) had the advantage
of placing the epistles of Paul (the apostle to the Gentiles)
into a first rank position over and above the "Jewish" apostles.
It especially was fortuitous because it elevated the Book of
Romans (the first epistle in Paul's collection) to first rank
above all other epistles of the New Testament! The upshot of this
re-positioning by western authorities provided a supposed
biblical sanction for advancing the jurisdiction of the Roman
church into a position of first rank over all other church areas!
Let me state at the outset that this evaluation of mine is not
intended as a censure of the Church at Rome. But it is a simple
fact of history that the "authority" arguments which were going
on in the third and fourth centuries played a major role in the
re-designing of the New Testament books by those in the western
(and Gentile) sections of Christendom.
The reason for the western advancement of Paul (and Rome)
over the seven Catholic epistles (which were considered "Jewish")
was given in the last century by M'Clintock and Strong:
"The Western Church . . . as represented by Jerome and Augustine,
and their successors, gave priority of position to the Pauline
epistles. The tendency of the Western Church to recognize Rome as
the center of authority may perhaps, in part, account for this
departure from the custom of the East. The order in the
Alexandrian, Vatican and Ephraem manuscripts gives precedence to
the Catholic Epistles, and as this is also recognized by the
Council of Laodicea. Cyril of Jerusalem and Athanasius, it would
appear to have been characteristic of the Eastern churches"
(CBTEL, vol.I, p.800).
It is really easy to see that the "western re-arrangement"
(which we find in our Bibles today) was an attempt to exalt the
political position of the western church over early Christendom.
It put Rome ahead of the churches of the East.
A reflection of this type of re-designing is found in the
writings of the Latin theologian Rufinus, born about 330 A.D., a
churchman of the "western school" (Lardner, vo1.IV, pp.483,484).
The western arrangement was also advocated by the Third Council
of Carthage (ibid. p.487). Innocent of Rome did the same (ibid.
p.586) and so did Gelasius, Bishop of Rome (492 A.D.) (ibid.
vo1.V, p.76). These wanted Rome (not Jerusalem or eastern cities)
in top authority among the Christian churches.
There were even two easterners who followed the western
order. One was Gregory of Nazianzus. This might be expected with
Gregory because he championed a universal orthodoxy for both the
eastern and western sections of the church against the doctrines
of eastern Arianism. Associated with him was Amphilochius, Bishop
of Iconium (ibid. vo1.IV, pp.292,293).
There is no doubt that the main reason for the westerners'
replacement of Paul's epistles to a position before those of
James, Peter, John, and Jude, was to exalt Paul (the Gentile
apostle) over the Jewish apostles, which in turn helped to
elevate the later western ecclesiastical authorities of the third
and fourth centuries into a supreme political position within
Christendom. There was, however, a major problem with the
exaltation of Paul because it put Peter (whom most people felt
was the first Bishop of Rome) into an inferior position. This may
have been an embarrassment, but it was avoided by pointing out
that the two epistles of Peter were written to Jews, not Gentiles
as the Romans were. So even the first "Pope" got put into a last
position!
In spite of these sectarian reasons for placing Paul's
letters before the seven Catholic Epistles, the proper order of
the New Testament books was well known and maintained by the
majority of early Greek manuscripts. And this is exactly how the
New Testament books should be positioned today! Professor
Gregory, who devoted his life to the study of the manuscripts,
summed up the real order of the New Testament books.
"The order in which we place the books of the New Testament is
not a matter of indifference. Every Christian should be familiar
with these books, and should know precisely where to find each
book. Every New Testament should have the books in precisely the
same order, the order of the Greek Church, which in this case is
of right the guardian of this ancient literature. The proper
order is, I think: First, the Four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke,
and John. Second, the Book of Acts. Third, the Catholic Epistles:
James, First and Second Peter, First, Second, and Third John, and
Jude. Fourth, the Epistles of Paul: Romans, First and Second
Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, First
and Second Thessalonians, Hebrews, First and Second Timothy,
Titus, Philemon. And fifth, the Book of Revelation... The Greek
order is that which places the Epistle to the Hebrews between
Thessalonians and Timothy, and that is the order to which we
should hold. The Latin order places Hebrews after Philemon. But
we must keep to the old order or we shall have the New Testament
turned upside down in connection with every fancied discovery as
to authorship and date of books" (Canon and Text of the New
Testament, pp.467-469).
There can be no question that Professor Gregory was right in
his scholarly evaluation. In fact, one wonders why the
translators and publishers of our modern Bibles have completely
abandoned the obvious manuscript order? This must be reckoned a
major oversight! It is time that New Testament scholars today and
also the publishers of Bibles return to the proper order and
inform the general public about the original disposition of the
New Testament books. The rewards for restoring the manuscript
order can afford us with a much better understanding of the
messages of the New Testament. And when both the Old and New
Testaments are returned to their original designs (and combined
together) a brand new appreciation of the Bible could be the
result!
The Old Testament
The books of the Old Testament also need to be re-positioned
to accord with the manuscripts maintained by the Jewish
authorities.
Our Christian Old Testament follows an order of books which
had its origin in Egypt in the second and third centuries A.D.
This was finally accomplished about 200 years after Christ when
the codex form for producing books became popular (this is the
type of book with which we are familiar today). Before this was
done, however, it was customary to use scrolls for the
reproduction of books and in Egypt there was no standardization
of book arrangement for most of the Old Testament books. Their
positioning and design did not seem important to those in Egypt
as long as the Old Testament books were in scroll form.
There was, on the other hand, an early interest among the
Egyptians in the sacred writings of the Jews. As early as the
third century before Christ, the Egyptians were having parts of
the Old Testament translated into Greek. By the time of Christ we
can be reasonably assured that all the Old Testament was
translated into Greek. The apostles were accustomed to refer to
these Greek translations from Egyptian sources. They were called
the Septuagint (from the belief that seventy-LXX-elders of the
Jews began the translations over two and a half centuries before
the birth of Christ).
Though all the books of the Old Testament were able to be
consulted in the Greek by the time of Christ, still the order of
those books was not established until the invention of the codex
form of book. As stated before, this is the kind of book that we
are familiar with today. In ancient times (and even throughout
the early period of the apostles) it was common to read documents
from scrolls - from rolled up pieces of papyrus or animal skins.
But the codex form of producing books was brought into existence
in the latter part of our first century. It was about 200 years
later that the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament was
finally assembled together into our modern codex form. This
codexing of the Old Testament books had the effect of
standardizing the Egyptian order for the Gentile Christians who
could only read the sacred books in the Greek. This caused the
later Christians in Egypt to abandon the Jewish arrangement which
was maintained in Palestine. But, the Old Testament, reckoned as
official by the Jews for their synagogue services, is the proper
and original one. The arrangement can be shown to be in existence
at least back to the second century B.C. It is this order that
all Christian Bibles should retain - not the ecclesiastical (and
traditional) one which had its origin at the time the Septuagint
was codexed in Egypt. The Palestinian design needs to be
restored! When it is, there will emerge some revealing and
important teachings which will go a long way in showing that we
have the complete and proper Old Testament today!
The manuscript order of the Hebrew canon is as follows:
I THE LAW (TORAH)
1) Genesis
2) Exodus
3) Leviticus
4) Numbers
5) Deuteronomy
II THE PROPHETS
6) Joshua and Judges
7) The Book of Kingdoms (Samuel and Kings)
8) Isaiah
9) Jeremiah
10) Ezekiel
11) The Twelve (Hosea to Malachi)
III THE HOLY WRITINGS (or THE PSALMS)
12) Psalms
13) Proverbs
14) Job
15) Song of Songs
16) Ruth
17) Lamentations
18) Ecclesiastes
19) Esther
20) Daniel
21) Ezra-Nehemiah
22) The Book of Chronicles
These 22 books of the Old Testament (and their arrangement
as indicated above) should be the standard followed by every
version of e Bible today! They represent the exact number which
are presently in our King James Version but, as one can observe,
they are arranged and enumerated differently.
Notice also that the Old Testament was divided into three
parts called "The Tripartite Divisions." These divisions were
maintained among the original Temple scrolls and reproduced for
particular use in synagogue services. Christ himself referred to
these official Tripartite Divisions as the Law of Moses, the
Prophets, and the Psalms (Luke 24:44,45). (His reference to "the
Psalms" was, as we will show, to all the eleven books of the
Third Division which got its title from the book which introduced
the division.) Remarkably, Christ designated these Tripartite
Divisions as "the Scriptures" (verse 45). This recognition by
Christ of the three divisions of the Old Testament is the only
place in the New Testament where the Old Testament revelation is
defined. This provides the highest possible authority for the
retention of those three divisions!
When these features are restored to modern Bibles there will
be an amazing relationship to be seen between all the books of
the Old and New Testaments. The Bible would become interesting to
most people, and a great deal of important information about the
Bible would come on the scene that people have not realized
before.
A Numerical Summary
The standard manuscript disposition of the Old and New
Testament books shows a symmetrical balance between the divisions
and parts that is truly inspiring and instructive. We will look
at the significance of this matter later on in this book, but as
a preliminary synopsis, note that the original Scriptures had
exactly 49 books: 22 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New. This
number is, of course, 7 times 7, and seven represents the
symbolic number of completion or finalization. One could spend
many pages giving biblical references to the significance of the
number seven. But as a simple illustration of its symbolic
meaning, look at the basic features of the Jewish calendar. The
Hebrews recognized that the seventh day of the week completed the
week. The seven weeks of grain harvest (the 49 days from Passover
to Pentecost) completed the firstfruits harvest. The first seven
months of the Hebrew calendar contained the times for the seven
annual festivals commanded by Moses. In a sense it could be said
that the festival year of Moses was seven months long, and those
seven months contained and completed the holyday schedule for the
Israelites. And let us not forget that every seventh year was
reckoned a Sabbatical Year and it commemorated the completion of
six years of agricultural activity for the Hebrews in Palestine.
After seven of those Sabbatical Years were completed (a period of
49 years), the Year of Jubilee was reached - which was supposed
to be a time of agricultural and financial rejuvenation for all
Israelites in Palestine. This was the time when all social and
economic activities were supposed to return to the same condition
as at the beginning of the previous 49 years.
Why are these sevens and multiples of sevens important? They
show that it was no accident that the total number of Old and New
Testament books came to 49 in number in the enumeration
maintained by the early Jewish and Christian authorities.
But there is more to it than that. There are also three
divisions to the Old Testament: 1) The Law, 2) The Prophets, and
3) The Writings' (the Psalms) Division. To these can be added the
four divisions of the New Testament: 1) The Historical Books
(Gospels and Acts), 2) The seven General (or Catholic) Epistles,
3) The fourteen (2 times 7) epistles of Paul, and 4) the final
Book of Revelation. When one adds the three divisions of the Old
with the four of the New, we arrive at seven divisions to the
complete Bible. This was no happenstance matter either!
Throughout this book will be shown many more numerical
relationships within and among the various books of the Bible
involving the number seven. The divine Scripture is truly a
marvelously arranged book and it has a message from those
numerical patterns that will help enhance one's comprehension of
the biblical revelation. For the general public to appreciate
this fact, however, the first thing that ought to be done is for
publishers of Bibles, biblical scholars, and modern preachers of
the Gospel to abandon the sectarian arrangement of the biblical
books (which had its origin some two or three hundred years after
Christ) and return to the early manuscript order as maintained by
the Jews and Greeks! This would be a major undertaking of
revision because every version combining the Old and New
Testaments being published in the world today is in error and
should be adjusted! It would also be an enormous task to
reeducate people to accept the original manuscript divisions and
arrangement of the biblical books. The biggest problem of all is
to change people's minds from the apathy that is presently
expressed over the issue, and get them excited about a return to
the original Bible! We must not forget that there could be a
resistance to any change because it might rekindle the doctrinal
arguments of the third and fourth centuries regarding the place
where proper authority rests within Christendom. If one accepts
the retention of our present catalog of books, then some might
imagine that the Roman church has credentials for a top position.
But if one returns to the original manuscript order and restores
the seven Catholic Epistles to their rightful position in the New
Testament canon (and placing the Book of Hebrews after 2
Thessalonians), this would tend to exalt the "Jewish apostles"
over the apostle Paul and the Gentile section of the Christian
Church. This is clearly the proper thing to do. Even the apostle
Paul said that the message of Christian salvation should go to
"the Jew first" (Rom.2:10; 3:1,2). And in Paul's personal
evaluation of his rank in the Christian Church, he admitted that
the pillars in the Church were James, Peter, and John at
Jerusalem (Gal.2:9) and that they were apostles "before me"
(Gal.1:17). Indeed, the apostle Paul even considered himself the
"least of the apostles" (I Cor.15:9), and that he was a person
"who am less than the least of all saints" (Eph.3:8). There can
be no question that if the apostle Paul himself would have had a
say in the positioning of his own fourteen epistles, he would not
have insisted they be placed before the pillar apostles!
The actual fact is, there is no need to lessen any church's
jurisdiction when the world returns to the manuscript order of
the Old and New Testament books. Such authority is based on a
host of other considerations, not simply the positioning of the
canonical books. Indeed the apostle Peter (the first recorded
Bishop of Rome) would then assume his rightful classification of
rank ahead of the apostle Paul who was "the least of the
apostles." (No there is no Scripture proof that Peter was the
first bishop of Rome and no such teaching of "rank" is taught in
the New Testament - Keith Hunt).
One of the main reasons why I have written this book is to
reawaken an interest in this important matter in the minds of
scholars, preachers and laity alike. Our modern world is entitled
to have the versions of their Bibles (in their own languages) in
the same manner in which the early Christians had theirs! We
think that a new appreciation of the Holy Bible would be the
result.
....................
Note:
Certainly Martin is correct as to the order of the books of the
Bible from the ancient MSS, and as he will point out, the order
does have a logical pattern, especially in the New Testament,
that goes from important and basic foundation teachings, to Grade
school, to High school, to College.
Keith Hunt
Canonization of the Old Testament #2Order of New Testament books
by the late Ernest Martin (published 1984)
The Biblical Keys to Canonization
This book on the design and development of the Old and New
Testaments differs substantially from studies made over the last
hundred and fifty years. In this work, a principle has been
adopted which has the potential for solving a great number of
perplexing problems now confronting scholarly investigation in
the field of biblical canonization. It is a proper procedure
which should be used to evaluate any historical account, but
strangely, in major studies involving scripture canonization it
has not been emphasized as a main guideline. Its lack of use is
especially apparent in matters concerning the original design and
development of the Holy Scriptures. In this book, however, the
principle will be placed in prime position for interpretation.
The results can be a satisfying and stimulating advance towards a
real understanding of what books belong in the Holy Bible and in
what order they ought to appear.
The method of which we speak involves a recognition of the
environmental elements which governed the social, political, and
religious conduct of the people who formulated the Bible. It is a
well known fact that people find it psychologically difficult, if
not impossible, to keep from absorbing the social concepts which
permeate the environment in which they live and function. When
the external surroundings influencing the canonizers are
recognized, and those factors are employed in the interpretation
of their writings, a fuller comprehension of what the Bible
teaches can be the result.
The Religious Environment for Canonization
The age in which the New Testament was written and canonized
was very different from that of modern times. This is especially
true when one compares our present world with the religious
atmosphere of the peoples who once existed in the Roman and
Parthian Empires. Preeminent among all others in their desire to
promote religious teachings were the Jewish people. Their society
was dominated by scriptural teachings and interpretions
maintained by the rabbis and priests. There has never been a
communal existence more regulated by rigorous biblical customs
and philosophies than that of first century Jews. And though
their reliance on Old Testament standards may seem unreasonable
to many moderns, early Jewish mentality regarded the performance
of their religious duties as normal and natural. They were most
interested in keeping the Laws of Moses. In actual fact, they
even went beyond the strictness of Moses (Matt.23:1-3), and
created a hide-bound religious community which the apostle Paul
called a state of bondage (Ga1.4:25). Peter and the other
apostles agreed (Acts 15:10).
Nevertheless, that uncompromising religious system and the
principles that governed it played a profound role in the
canonization of the New Testament. Without a comprehension of its
major features (to which all the apostles were subjected) is a
prime reason why some scholars are at a loss to explain how or
why the books of the New Testament were selected and positioned
within the canon.
In this chapter we wish to describe some of the important
aspects of that first century Jewish environment. It will help to
show why the manuscript order of the Old and New Testament
writings is proper.
SEVEN Environmental Factors
FIRST
The first of seven social factors which influenced all
historical periods covered by the Bible is that involving the
recognition and respect for eldership. Let me explain the
importance of this concept. It simply means that anyone older
than someone else was accorded a superior respect in all matters
concerning the social graces. And though this principle could be
put aside if someone younger was of more political or religious
importance, the general feeling of all ancient people was that
those who were older in age were given a position of prestige and
honor.
A good example of this is the account of Elihu (in the Book
of Job) when he desired to give his opinion on why Job had
suffered misfortunes. The Bible is clear that the younger man
Elihu waited until the older and supposedly more wiser men had
their opportunities to instruct the patriarch Job. Only after
their discourses were completed did Elihu speak (Job 32:1-9).
This concept of elders having the first chance to be heard
is one which monopolizes all historical narratives of the Bible
from beginning to end. Are we to imagine that the canonizers of
the Bible would disallow this principle of elder supremacy when
they thought of positioning the books of the Bible? It would seem
highly unlikely. And, in fact, when one looks at the arrangement
of the biblical books, it is obvious that they held to the
concept in a definite way.
Let us first look at the order of the books in the New
Testament. Notice the books which followed the four Gospels and
the Book of Acts. The ancient manuscripts have: James, 1 & 2
Peter, I, 2 & 3 John, Jude. These seven epistles were placed
before the fourteen assigned to the apostle Paul. But why? For
one reason, the four men who wrote these seven books were men who
heard Christ teach while he was in the flesh, and they were
ordained to preach the Gospel before the apostle Paul was
convert on the road to Damascus. Simply, they were elders of
Pau1. The apostle Paul recognized this fact and said that they
were ministers "before me" (Ga1.1:17). Paul even considered
himself as the "least of the apostles" (I Cor.15:9). Indeed, he
even demoted himself to being "less than the least of all saints"
(Eph,3:8).
If one had to rely solely upon the statements of Paul (and
comprehending the principle of eldership predominance) then the
writings of those men who were apostles before Paul should have
their teachings positioned before those of Paul! Interestingly,
this is exactly the position in which we find them in the early
manuscript order of the New Testament books. There can be no
doubt that the advancement of the seven epistles of these early
apostles before the fourteen of the apostle Paul is the correct
procedure.
(It maybe so, but not for the reason Martin would like you to
believe. He has quoted a few verses by Paul, but like so may who
want to create proof texts, for their proof or argument, he
leaves out other verses of Paul - Galatians 2:6-9, 11-14; 2
Cor.11:5. While Paul was humble at times, remembering where he
came from and what he did before being called of Christ, he would also
never have put himself one wit behind any other apostle. I have
proved in detail in my studies on "Church Government" that there
was NEVER any "rank" of Elership in the New Testament church.
Hence Martin's argument here is very weak indeed for the idea
that Paul's writings should automatically be PUT AFTER those of
James, Peter and John, and even of Jude. It was NOT because of
"eldership rank" that Paul's writings should be read and studied
AFTER those men just mentioned. It is because those men laid down
foundational teachings and Paul was into more of the meat or
nitty-gritty teachings of Christianity. When you have the
foundational basics correct, then you can move on to
understanding the "sometimes hard to understand" [as Peter put
it] writings and teachings of Paul - Keith Hunt)
SECOND
There is a SECOND environmental principle which must be
taken into consideration, and it is akin to the first. This is
the deference afforded those who were in high positions of
government or those who occupied august religious offices, no
matter what their ages might be. A notable example of this is
found in the actions of the apostle Paul. The New Testament shows
that Paul was at one time extremely critical of the decisions
advocated by one of his persecutors. But when he found out that
the person was the High Priest (who was probably not wearing his
pontifical robes at the time), Paul respected his rank and
apologized for speaking to him abusively (Acts 23:1-5). Many such
examples of esteem for authorities (no matter if they were good
or evil) can be cited throughout Scripture. Even today in Jewish
circles, if a member of a synagogue possesses a name associated
with the priesthood (Cohen, Kahn, Conn, etc.), that person has
the inalienable right to read the lessons before anyone else.
This rule also applies to Jews having Levitical names (Levi,
Levine, etc.) - they are only a step removed from priesthood
positions in rank of importance. However, if no one attending the
synagogue has names of sacerdotal significance, then any
Israelite male today can assume the duties of reading the
scriptural lessons. This courtesy to administrational rank is
sustained consistently throughout all parts of the Old and New
Testaments. An example of this is found in the order of the three
divisions which make up the Old Testament. The first section are
the five books of the Law written by Moses. (Moses was the
highest ranking man of the Old Testament, followed by his brother
Aaron who was the first High Priest.) The second section are the
six books titled "the Prophets." This part was called "the
Prophets" because it was written by men of prophetical rank. The
third section of eleven books was called "the Writings." We will
later see that these books were composed by or written about
kings, queens, statesmen. It came to be called "the Royal
Division."
Now note this. In matters of rank, Moses and the Law which
he was commissioned to write were head and shoulders above all
succeeding prophets, priests, or kings. All Israelites were
expected to be subservient to Moses. But, on the other hand, all
kings and rulers were inferior in rank to the prophets (most of
whom were priests). Recall that Nathan the prophet had authority
over David (2 Sam.12:1-15), and that Elijah and Elisha were in
supreme power over Gentile as well as Israelitish rulers as far
as the teaching of the Bible is concerned (2 Kings 5:1-19). And
this rank of authority (Moses over prophets and prophets ahead of
rulers) is shown in the order of the three divisions of the Old
Testament. First comes "the Law of Moses," then "the Prophets,"
and finally "the Royal Division" (the last eleven books)!
(This argument may have some truth to it as pertaining to the Old
Testament, but under the New Testament it was a different ball
game entirely. Respect for some office originally ordained of God
is one thing, but in writing "Scripture" for the New Testament
and placing them in a certain order, is quite a different subject.
This argument from Martin is again very weak, it is like trying
to compare oranges to apples - Keith Hunt)
For a further example of this recognition of rank, note that
the apostle Paul's name always follows that of Barnabas (who was
a Levite - Acts 4:36) until Paul later took over the apostolic
leadership at Antioch of Pisidia (Acts 13:14,46). Paul's primacy
is then upheld, except when he and Barnabas were in the presence
of the "pillar" apostles, for among those in Jerusalem the
Levitical rank of Barnabas reassumed its elevated position (Acts
15:12).
(Arguing from this perspective is also very weak. Paul would have
never consented to such an argument meaning anything when it came
to preaching and writings the truths of the Gospel. His attitude
towards James, Peter, John and other apostles is clearly expressed in
Galatians 2:6-9. It mattered not to him if they were or "seemed
to be something" - God had no respect of persons, neither did
Paul. The argument from "rank" or "placing whose name before
another name" would have meant absolutely nothing to Paul. And we
should know what Jesus thought about "Jewish traditions" from
Mark 7. Man made traditions have no bearing on truth; truth
always stands by itself on solid ground and needs not
"traditions" of men, even if they be correct traditions, to hold
itself upright - Keith Hunt)
It is also a fact that Peter's name always precedes that of
John in contexts involving both apostles (Luke 22:8; Acts 3:1,
etc.), simply because Peter was given a higher rank than John
(Matt.16:18,19). And when the "pillar" apostles are mentioned
together, it is James (the Lord's brother, and leader of the
Jerusalem church) who precedes Peter and John (Gal.2:9).
This positioning of names in the New Testament is both a
conscious and unconscious attempt to show honor and respect to
the ranks of the men involved. Such a procedure represents the
normal concepts of protocol in Middle Eastern societies. What is
important to our present study is the fact that this principle
was one which prevailed in the psychological make-up of the men
who wrote and canonized the books of the Bible.
(Martin is way off base with his idea of "rank" in any form in
the New Testament church. I have taken much time and detailed
studies to prove to you what was, and is the "government" of the
New Testament Church of God. That government was from the
beginning of the start of the NT church on the Day of Pentecost,
and that government has never changed. What was always then is
always today - Keith Hunt)
Note, again, that the seven general epistles of James,
Peter, John, and Jude precede the fourteen of the apostle Paul's
in the original manuscript order of the books. And even within
the positioning of the seven epistles, James is placed before
Peter, while Peter appears before John, and John is before Jude.
The arrangement of these books is precisely as one would expect
if the ranks of the men were being considered.
(No, it was other factors as to why the general epistles were
placed in the order, and it had nothing to do with a so-called
"rank" - Keith Hunt)
And recall that even the apostle Paul, when referring to the
three Jerusalem apostles, mentioned them in the order of their
positions of authority in the Jerusalem church, "James, Cephas
(Peter), and John, who seemed to be pillars" (Gal.2:9). This
courtesy of mentioning the apostles in this fashion was no
arbitrary incident. It had deliberate and conscious significance
as anyone studying the customs of the biblical periods would
realize. The order of the scriptural books echoes the use of this
formality.
(There is no Biblical evidence that certain names should be in a
certain order, especially because of some supposed "rank" that
Elders had in the New Testament church. There may have been some
natural leaders in some churches, based upon any number of
factors, but the bottom line was still as Paul put it "whatsoever
they were, it makes no matter to me: God accepteth no man's
person..." Gal.2:6 - Keith Hunt)
THIRD
There is yet a third principle that must be considered.
There was in the first century among the Jewish community (of
which the apostles were a part) a distinct belief that those who
could claim a connection with the race of Israel had a special
relationship with God that no other people had. The apostle Paul
shared this belief. He stated most assuredly that only Israelites
possessed the sonship, the shekinah glory, the personal
covenants, the Mosaic law, the right to perform the Temple
services, and the only ones in the world who had the promises of
salvation (Rom.9:4). Paul insisted that before the introduction
of Christianity, all other races were completely cut off from
"the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of
promise, having no hope, and without God in the world"
(Eph.2:12).
There is no doubt that this recognition of a special
association with God was the universal belief among Jews of the
early first century, and even Gentiles who wanted to be in
covenant with God also felt the need to join the society of
Israel. And though in Christ, Paul taught that all peoples were
on an equal status with Israel (Gal.3:28), the spiritual
ascendancy of the favored nation over all Gentiles was never
forgotten by the apostles - including Paul himself. Notice what
he said to the Gentile Romans.
"What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there in
circumcision? Much every way: chiefly because that unto them were
committed the oracles of God" (Rom.3:1,2).
The Old Testament had been placed in the hands of the Jewish
people. This gave the Jews a superior position. This covenant
relationship with God was never diminished in the eyes of the
apostle Paul (nor among the other apostles who at first were
commissioned to preach only to Jews). Paul readily acknowledged
the principle that the Jews were to have first choice in
receiving the Gospel. They were in a legal position ahead of the
Gentiles.
"Glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the
Jew first, and also to the Gentile" (Rom.2:10).
This first rank for the Jewish people was always given, even
in matters of judgment (Rom.2:9). And in regard to Christ's
salvation, Paul was adamant that the message should go to the
Jews first.
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the
power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the
Jew first, and also to the Greek" (Rom.1:16).
The apostle Paul never deviated from his belief in the Jews
having first position to receive the Gospel. In fact, he had been
commissioned by Christ to preach both to Israelites and Gentiles
(Acts 9:15) and he never shirked his responsibility of going to
the Jews first. Note Paul's example.
When Paul went to the Gentile island of Cyprus, he spoke
first to the Jews (Acts 13:5). When he went to the central area
of Galatia, he first preached in the synagogues of the Jews (Acts
13:14) - and only secondarily did he speak to the Gentiles (Acts
13:42). This was also the case at Iconium (Acts 14:1), later in
Macedonia (Acts 16:1-13; 17:1,10), at Corinth (Acts 18:4),
Ephesus (Acts 19:8), and even Rome itself (Acts 28:17-27)! It was
only at places where the Jewish community almost totally rejected
him did Paul turn exclusively to the Gentiles (Acts 13:46; 18:6;
28:28).
It is also shown in the Book of Acts that the Gospel of
Christ went first to the Jews at Jerusalem, and then
progressively it finally got to the Gentiles at Rome. Jerusalem
was first and Rome was last. Indeed, for the first few years the
Gospel was taught "to Jews only" (Acts 11:19) without a thought
that the Gentiles themselves would one day be graced with the
Gospel message. And even when it became clear that the Gentiles
were meant to receive the Gospel, Paul said: "It was necessary
that the word of God should first have been spoken to you [Jews]"
(Acts 13:46). This was of prime importance to the apostles.
This fact of apostolic history is also reflected within the
design of the New Testament canon. This is because the
psychological motives dominating the thinking of the apostles
demanded that the Gospel of salvation must, in all cases, be
presented to the Jewish people first. This is just another reason
why the canonizers of the New Testament followed the conviction
that first position among the 27 Christian books within the
divine library must be awarded to the books designed primarily
for the Jews. This is why the seven general epistles of James,
Peter, John, and Jude (who were commissioned to preach to the
Jews--Gal.2:7-9) should logically precede the fourteen of the
apostle Paul who was the apostle to the Gentiles (2 Tim. 1:11).
There can be no doubt that the early Christian apostles (when
presented with the responsibility of forming a New Testament from
the available writings) would have placed the apostles specially
assigned to the Jews before those of Paul who was the apostle to
the Gentiles! All knew that the Gospel was to the Jew first. And
interestingly, that is exactly how the majority of early
manuscripts of the New Testament have the books arranged.
(The arrangement of the New Testament by the NT apostles had
nothing to do with what Martin has spoken about. Paul's letters
were to various "churches" which were BOTH Jewish and Gentile.
The MAIN reason as to WHY Paul's writings should follow those of
Peter, James, John and Jude, and why the four Gospels should be
first and the book of Acts second behind the Gospels, and the
book of Revelation last in order, Martin will yet come to the
MAIN reason - Keith Hunt)
FOURTH
The fourth principle which motivated the thinking of the
biblical writers and canonizers was their perception of the
manner in which people attained to a proper religious conversion.
Nothing is more important to people with deep religious
persuasions than recognizing the methods by which individuals are
able to reach a proper relationship with God. And in the New
Testament we have the methodology clearly delineated. The
step-by-step procedure by which Christian conversion is
accomplished is found in the Book of Hebrews. The author records
the stages that will lead a person into a full, adult
relationship with Christ. There were seven phases which direct a
person to a complete salvation in Christ. These are shown in a
harmonious story-flow from beginning to end.
The seventh and final stage was considered as having a
priority position. This conclusion to the salvation process -
which is the attainment of perfection (Heb.6:1) - is followed by
the step by step means by which salvation is reached. The most
important factor is mentioned first. Then is shown in sequence
the six primary steps of doctrinal accomplishment which have to
be executed before a person can reach that final and seventh
stage called perfection. When one fulfills the first requirement,
then one can proceed to the second, the third, and progessively
to the seventh. Let us notice those seven levels of development.
They are:
1) a repentance from dead works (v.1),
2) having faith toward God (v.1),
3) understanding the doctrine of baptisms (v.2),
4) the laying on of hands (for receiving the Holy Spirit) (v.2),
5) doctrines concerning the resurrection from the dead (v.2),
6) a recognition of matters concerning the judgment (rewards)
from God (v.2), and finally one is taught the last phase of
Christian attainment which is
7) the desired perfection - which represents salvation (v.1)!
The foregoing procedure for acquiring redemption under the
New Covenant was so a part of the psychological make-up of those
who wrote and canonized the Bible that we find it cropping up in
a stage-by-stage fashion in the theological books of the New
Testament. This seven-fold doctrinal attainment provides the
sequence of Paul's subjects which he discussed in the Book of
Romans. The information in Hebrews 6:1,2 constituted the outline
for the logical presentation of Paul's theological teachings.
Notice that the first subject Paul speaks about in Romans is
repentance (see the first chapter of Romans leading up to Romans
2:4 - "the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance"). The
second topic dovetails with the second in Hebrews, faith. And
Paul's discussion on faith in Romans occupies all of chapters 3
to 5. Then Paul in Romans 6 and 7 (and right in the sequence of
Hebrews 6) proceeds with a discourse on baptism and its spiritual
consequences. The author of Hebrews then follows with the mention
of "the laying on of hands." This concerned factors associated
with the Holy Spirit and its functions. And remarkably, the Book
of Romans continues with the same sequential theme - a major
discourse on the attributes and role of the Holy Spirit (Romans
8). The fifth and sixth subjects in Hebrews concerned the
resurrection and judgment, and in Romans 9 through 11 Paul
presented his account of how Israel, though temporarily cast
aside, will experience a thorough salvation and a judgment (their
allotted rewards) when Christ finally returns to rescue them.
This redemption will lead to what the Book of Hebrews, seventhly,
calls perfection, and what Paul in Romans corresponds to the
prophesied salvation which will be extended to all Israel
(Rom.11:25).
The progressive doctrinal theme of Hebrews 6:1,2 is seen
also in First Corinthians. Whereas the Book of Romans
concentrates primarily on the first three subjects of 1)
repentance, 2) faith, and 3) baptism (with lesser emphasis on the
Holy Spirit, the resurrection, judgment, and perfection), the
Book of First Corinthians reverses the order with only scant
attention to those first three topics but fully elaborates with
major discussions on the doctrines of 4) the Holy Spirit
(chapters 12 to 14), 5) and the resurrection (chapter 15). In
First Corinthians Paul, like in Romans, touches upon the subjects
of 6) judgment and 7) perfection, but these matters are more
thoroughly treated in the later books of Ephesians, Philippians,
Colossians, and (of course) Hebrews ("leaving the principles of
the doctrine of Christ, let us go on to perfection" - Hebrews
6:1).
When one looks at the canonical order of the books of Romans
and First Corinthians (followed by the remainder of Paul's
letters), it will be seen that all the sequential doctrinal
subjects (which Hebrews calls the elementary teachings) are dealt
with in orderly fashion!
(While somewhat interesting, it is not iron clad proof, just
certain facts about a few of Paul's books. He certainly did not
retain that pattern in many of his books. A snatching at straws
is what Martin is doing here - Keith Hunt)
This procedure is seen in the positioning of all the New
Testament books. The four Gospels give the basic teaching of
Christianity (and we will later observe that Matthew gives the
Jewish approach, while Mark presents the Jewish/Gentile, Luke the
Gentile/Jewish, and John gives a thoroughly Gentile or universal
one). The design is to give teaching which progresses from the
physical (the expected Jewish kingdom of the Messiah) to the real
spiritual one (the universal, heavenly Kingdom of God). The
Gospels and Acts are followed by the seven general epistles. The
subjects discussed in those seven books are primarily
non-theological, and are intended to give an introduction to the
fourteen epistles of Paul where the subjects of repentance,
faith, baptism, the Spirit, resurrections, judgment, and
perfection are rehearsed in detail. The Book of Revelation ends
the canon with a prophetic account of eschatological events
concerning Christ's second advent which will usher in the hopes
and promises which were mentioned in the preceding books of the
New Testament.
(True to a point. But the greater point being that the foundation
of Christ comes first, the church moving forward in the book
of Acts. The "general" epistles answer the perverted and false
gospel being proclaimed by false apostles. They nail home in no
unsure manner and teaching the very foundations of Christianity
and what is Godliness, the Ten Commandments being in full force
and effect, and teach you to follow in the steps of Christ, as
being the sure rock-bed of salvation. Put together the Gospels,
book of Acts, and the "general epistles" of John, Peter, James,
and Jude, and you have the solid rock of Christian salvation.
Most certainly those books should be read and studied FIRST by
all new converts to Christianity. The writings of Paul that can
sometimes be hard to understand, will be easier to understand
when the basic foundation is laid in stone. Revelation is the
last book of the Bible because you'll need to have studied the
prophets of the Old Testament and the foundational books of the
New Testament, and the writings of Paul, before you can
understand the last book of the Bible - Keith Hunt)
What we find in the manuscript order of the New Testament
books is a progressive account of doctrinal teaching. If the
books are left in the order that the canonizers intended, the
matter of doctrine would be understood much better. But our
modern Bibles have misplaced books, which were intended to give
elementary (and preliminary) teaching, into a later position and
elevated the epistles of Paul (which are more doctrinally mature)
into a location ahead of the introductory ones. This causes
confusion! We feel that it is far better to leave the books in
the order that the majority of manuscripts have them.
(FOR THAT REASON I CAN FULLY AGREE THE MARTIN - IT'S A
PROGRESSION FROM GARDE SCHOOL, TO MIDDLE SCHOOL, TO HIGH SCHOOL,
TO UNIVERSITY - Keith Hunt)
FIFTH
There was a fifth principle which pervaded the consciousness
of the writers of the Bible, particularly with those of the New
Testament. Though there are many virtues of the Holy Spirit
mentioned in the Bible, the apostle Paul mentioned three prime
ones (stated in order of importance): faith, hope, and love (I
Cor.13:13). And note this! The first eight chapters of Romans
essentially cover the matter of faith, while chapters 9 to 11
emphasize the hope of Israel, and the final chapters (12 to 16)
focus on the concept of love - to mankind in general, the
brotherhood in particular, and to God especially! But it
doesn't stop there. In the canonical order of the epistles of
James, Peter and John, it will be seen that the first emphasizes
true faith and religion (James), the second hope in suffering
(Peter), and the third underlines love for the brotherhood
(John). The positioning of those books in this way is not an
indiscriminate affair. There appears to be a conscious design in
operation relative to the order of the books. It reflects a
method of teaching in which the important attributes of the Holy
Spirit are progressively mentioned and emphasized. We will have
more to say about this type of design within the books of the
Bible as we progress through this book.
(AAAHHH ... now we are getting to the strong MAIN common sense of
it all, as to why the apostles arranged the NT in their original
MSS arrangement. The general epistles are in the order of FAITH
(James), HOPE (Peter), AND LOVE (John), AND AN ENCOURAGEMENT TO
HOLD THAT FAITH ONCE DELIVERED TO THE SAINTS, (Jude). That is why
they are in that order and it had nothing to do with any "rank"
among the Eldership. What epistles would be better placed after the
Gospels and Acts than those foundational teachings of faith, hope,
love, and striving for that faith once delivered to the saints.
In all that teaching and knowledge you will move on to High School.
From there you are into the years of High School theology with the
books of Paul; finally you are in University studying the book of
Revelation. The beauty of that order is so wonderful, so step by
step edifying, building you up from a milk to strong meat
progression of true Christianity - Keith Hunt)
SIXTH
The sixth principle which dominated the thinking of the men
of the Bible (and this certainly applied to those who wrote and
formulated the New Testament) concerns the proper methods for
teaching. It is well-known that the best way to teach is to begin
with the elementary aspects of a subject and proceed to the more
advanced. We certainly find this principle very much in action in
the arrangement of the biblical books. We find that the writings
were placed to give the "kindergarten" teaching first, followed
by "grade school, high school, college, and then post-graduate
studies."
This can be easily demonstrated by the writings of the
apostle Paul. His first book in the canonical order is Romans.
This book clearly represents the ABC's of Christian doctrine on a
level for those not having heard much about the plan of
salvation. Recall that Paul had never been to Rome before. He
wrote the book for people who were needing to be established
(Rom.1:11). In the Book of Romans, Paul proceeded to give them
the elementary doctrinal teachings of Christianity. This is why
the Book of Romans comes first in the canonical epistles of Paul.
This book is followed by First Corinthians. Though some progress
was being made in doctrinal understanding (Paul had taught the
Corinthians for 18 months, unlike the Romans whom he had never
taught), Paul's emphasis in Corinthians was on corrective
measures and shows how new and immature the Corinthians were in
the Christian faith. In fact, Paul made the plain statement that
they were still spiritual babes in the faith.
"And I brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but
as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with
milk: for hitherto you were not able to bear it, neither yet now
are ye able" (I Cor.3:1,2).
The Corinthians were only capable of receiving elementary
teachings from Paul. Not only were they acting like "children"
(see a further reference in I Cor.14:20), but their spiritual
performances were more like baptized heathens. Paul demanded that
they grow up and behave like mature Christians! Thankfully, the
Corinthians learned some vital lessons by the time Paul wrote his
second epistle, but in spite of their progress, Paul still said
in Second Corinthians: "I speak unto you as children" (II
Cor.6:13).
As for the Galatians (the next book in the canonical order),
Paul was upset with them for returning so quickly to an "infancy"
in Christ and resorting to the rule of the "schoolmaster" (the
Mosaic law) (Ga1.3:24-29; 4:1-10). The Galatians were
re-instituting "elementary" teachings (Gal. 4:9). They were going
back to a "grade school" type of instruction in Christ. They were
returning to the lowest level of Christian development - the
keeping of the Law! The Galatians were retreating into Mosaic
rules (observing weekly and annual sabbath days, new moons and
months, and sabbatical years). These doctrines were intended for
spiritual children who were in "grade school," and not (as Paul
looked at it) befitting mature Christians!
(THE LAST PARAGRAPH BY MARTIN IS UTTERLY INCORRECT. HERE HE SHOWS
A LACK OF THEOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE AS TO WHAT PAUL WAS ADDRESSING
AND CORRECTING. THE LAW, SABBATHS, FESTIVALS OF GOD HAVE NEVER
BEEN DONE AWAY WITH. THE FULL AND DETAILED ANSWER OF THESE SECTIONS OF
PAUL ARE COVERED IN DETAILED STUDIES ON THIS WEBSITE - Keith
Hunt)
Thus, the epistles of Paul to the Romans, Corinthians, and
Galatians (in our regular canonical order) were designed for
those just coming into a knowledge of Christ. And note: the
message in the Book of Romans was for people that Paul had never
instructed before, while his teaching to the Corinthians was for
those whom he had taught for 18 months, and that to the Galatians
was designed for those who had been taught the Gospel for more
than four years! Yet in all of these first four epistles, the
messages of Paul were intended for spiritual children.
But when it comes to the next three epistles of Paul in the
New Testament canon (Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians),
they were designed to give instruction to mature and fully
developed Christians! In Ephesians the subjects are directed to
those who are "no more children." These teachings of Paul were
advanced doctrinal discourses:
"For the perfecting [maturing] of the saints, for the work of the
ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: till we all
come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son
of God, unto a perfect man [a fully mature man], unto the measure
of the stature of the fullness of Christ: that we henceforth be
no more children tossed to and fro, and carried about with every
wind of doctrine" (Eph.4:12-14).
There could hardly be any plainer teaching. The readers of
these latter epistles were far advanced in spiritual knowledge
than the early Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians. Paul was even
able to write the latter three epistles in very sophisticated
language.
Paul's letters to the first three churches were arranged to
provide information from the ABC's of doctrinal teaching, to the
XYZ's of knowledge with the latter three. These are followed in
the manuscripts by the epistles to a seventh church - that of the
Thessalonians. And what is the subject matter of those two
epistles? It is teaching about the appearance of the Man of Sin,
the second advent of Christ back to this earth, and the
resurrection from the dead which will accompany Christ's advent!
The number seven (as is evident) has the ring of completion and
finality in its symbolic meaning. Thus, the seventh church
epistles discuss the end of the age and the completion of the
church age. While the first six churches had epistles which
described the doctrines of the church (and how one must walk in
the Christian life), the seventh church had two epistles which
have information about the conclusion of the church age and the
attainment of the promises which the previous epistles talked
about!
The next book in the manuscript order is Hebrews. It is very
mature teaching. "Leaving the principles of the doctrine of
Christ, let us go on to perfection" (Heb.6:1,2). Its commentary
explains how the Temple and physical rituals were types of things
to come, but how the reality is found in Christ. It discusses the
true kingdom of God which is to appear on earth. Emphasis is
given to "the sabbath to come" (Heb.4:9) and the new Jerusalem
(Heb.12:22,23).
In the Book of Hebrews the author says that the elementary
doctrines of repentance, faith, baptisms, laying on of hands, the
resurrection, and the judgment (which Paul discussed thoroughly
in Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians) were to be left behind,
and only subjects dealing with perfection were then appropriate
(Heb.5:11-14; 6:1-3).
The remaining four books in Paul's canon were instructions
for the pastoral duties of ministers. Obviously, these later
teachings are most mature - after all, they were written from one
professional minister to other professionals. The teaching
contained in them was hardly for spiritual infants. And, finally,
the manuscripts have the Book of Revelation last of all. This
covers all aspects of the end of the age - and its contents
pertain to the whole world, not only to the Christian church (as
the two to the Thessalonians do). It is the most mature and
difficult book to understand. It comes last! And it is a fitting
conclusion not only to the New Testament but to the Bible as a
whole!
When we get further into the body of this book, we will find
that the subjects of the various books of the Bible, plus the
arrangement of the books in relationship to one another, echo the
principle of progressive revelation - that is, a teaching which
begins with elementary (or general) matters and proceeds to the
more sophisticated (the particular). This is the normal way to
teach. When the apostle Peter said that Christians ought to grow
in grace and knowledge (2 Pet.3:18), he expected all people to
progress in the normal step-by-step fashion of doctrinal
development that people throughout the ages have been used to. It
should not seem odd that the books within the canon of the Bible
were arranged in the same fashion. Proper teaching methods demand
this approach.
(I agree fully in what Martin has explained in this point - Keith
Hunt)
SEVENTH
A seventh and final principle in canonization involves the
use of symbolic numbers. The number seven was of prime
consequence. It had a special signification of which there was
little ambiguity. Professor Muirhead had this to say on the
meaning of seven.
"Seven-Examples: 7 churches, spirits (Rev.1:4,11; 3:1), stars
(1:16,20), candlesticks (1:13), lamps (4:5), seals (5:1; 8:1),
horns and eyes (5:6), trumpets (8:2), angels (8:2), thunders
(10:30, heads (12:3; 17:3), angels with plagues (15:1), vials
full of the wrath of God (15:7), kings (17:10), In view of this
pervasiveness of 7, it is proof that 7 is pre-eminently the
number of perfection or completeness. Seven represents the
perfect of God in mercy and judgment in relation to men (as well
as the total works of creation)" (Dict. of the Apostolic Church,
vol.II, p.93, italics mine).
One could take a whole chapter to show the wonders found in
the symbol of seven in the Bible and still not exhaust the
subject. It provides an accent of completion and perfection to
any theme!
One might wonder why we are mentioning this matter of
symbolic numbers? This is because the subject is important in
regard to the canonization of the Bible. The prime number
associated with canonization is seven. The number is found in a
variety of ways in the symmetrical design which exists within and
between the books of the Old and New Testament. The recognition
that numbers played an important symbolic part in the religious
thinking of the writers of the Bible will go a long way in
helping to show just what books represent the complete
Scriptures.
In closing, the seven principles mentioned within this
chapter, which motivated the actions of the men who wrote and
canonized the Bible, are important ones to consider if one wishes
to know just what books represent the Holy Bible in its earliest
form. Throughout this book we will pay attention to all these
principles (and others which are akin to them) in order to
determine what the biblical writers themselves would say are the
actual and authorized books of the Bible - and in what order they
ought to appear in our modern versions!
.......................
NOTE:
I HOPE YOU NOTED WHAT I SAID WERE THE MAIN AND CORRECT POINTS AS
TO WHY THE APOSTLES PUT THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE
ORDER THEY DID, AND THE ORDER THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED TO
THIS DAY. THE TEACHING OF LOGICAL PROGRESSION FROM GRADE ONE TO
12 IS GOSPELS AND ACTS IN MIDDLE SCHOOL; THE GENERAL EPISTLES OF
JAMES, PETER, JOHN AND JUDE, HIGH SCHOOL, PAUL'S LETTERS FOR
UNIVERSITY, THE BOOK OF REVELATION FOR POST GRADUATE WORK.
NOW I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT MAKES LOGICAL SENSE FOR THE 1, 2, 3, 4
STEPS TO READ AND UNDERSTAND THE NEW TESTAMENT BIBLE.
Keith Hunt
(December 2008)
Canonization of the Old Testament #322 Original Books! The Original Number of Old Testament Books
The first century Jews believed there were 22 holy books
that comprised the complete number of their divine scriptures! In
almost all modern versions it is common to numerate the Old
Testament as 39 books. This at first glance might give the
impression that modern scholars have added extra books which the
early Jews did not accept as divinely inspired. This, however, is
not the case. We will show that our present versions have simply
divided the official books of the Old Testament divergently than
those who originated the canon. There can really be no doubt that
we possess today the exact canon which Christ and the apostles
accepted as the Holy Scriptures. But, true enough, the early Jews
numbered the books differently, And the early numeration ought to
be maintained today! When we do, some significant symbolic
teachings emerge that can make us appreciate that we do indeed
have the complete Old Testament scriptures! We must learn to
accept the early Jewish viewpoint, not our modern way of looking
at things. Thus, the original 22 numbering should be retained in
all versions of the Bible today!
Throughout the New Testament we read that the Jews possessed
the Scriptures. It was taken for granted, without argument or
definition, that a commonly understood body of books was in
existence which the Jews recognized as sacred. There is a good
deal of contemporary testimony to substantiate this. Josephus,
who was a priest and thoroughly conversant with Jewish affairs in
the first century, referred to the standard copy of the Holy
Scriptures which was deposited in the archives of the Temple and
under the supervision of the priests (War, VII.150). Among the
Jews this copy was known as "The Book of the Court" because all
official synagogue scrolls were based on the text of this
approved archetype (Mishna Moed Katan 3,4: Pal. Tal. Sanhedrin
II, 200). The Book of Deuteronomy stated that such a standard
copy should be retained by the priests in the Temple (Deut.17:18;
31:9-12).
In regard to the canonization of the Old Testament, these special
Temple scrolls are important. They represented nothing less than
the basic "constitution" governing all political affairs in
Judaea, and the religious life of Jews everywhere. Though the
Romans were in supreme command in Palestine, they nonetheless
permitted native kings or rulers (for certain periods) to govern
the people in a direct sense. Those administrators (even an
autocrat like Herod the Great) found it necessary to heed the
principles of the Mosaic legislation and the precedential laws
that developed over the years. There was no way for any Jew to
escape an expression of reverence for the lawbooks of Moses and
the teachings of the Prophets. All Jews accredited the Temple
scrolls as divinely inspired.
These sacred books were looked on as the "constitution" of
the Jewish people. They not only recorded religious duties for
Jews to perform (but more important to our discussion on the
canonization), they were also the basis for all civil, financial,
agricultural, and social activities. In a word, the Jewish state
in Palestine (no matter who was governing it) was reckoned a
theocracy and the heart and soul of its government had to rest,
by popular demand, squarely upon the words in the sacred
scriptures.
This point is vital in understanding matters concerning the
canonization of the Old Testament because the Temple scriptures
not only contained religious teachings but they provided laws and
principles involving human politics - laws pertaining to the
daily living of all Jews. Such basic "constitutional" documents
would have been well known and of necessity must have been kept
with a purity of contents. It is a foregone conclusion that
people are keenly aware of laws which govern their daily
affairs. Let us note how this fact can testify to the reliability
of the Temple scrolls.
There were probably 8 to 10 million Jews in the world at the
time, and about 3 million were in Judaea. Just like our own
legislative or judicial systems, there were by the time of the
first century countless codified laws based upon the
"constitutional" laws of the Temple. With hundreds of
professional lawyers in daily practice who were constantly
involved in disputes and/or other matters of law, are we to
imagine that it was possible for a single letter or syllable of
the basic laws of Moses to be changed? Such a belief would be
absurd. Indeed, there were also a battery of precedential laws
which had developed over the years, supposedly based upon the
scriptures, and even those could not be changed without due
process. But in no way could "constitutional" laws be altered
unless it were done in a legal manner. That would be like some
American politicians trying to change the United States
constitution. A revolution would develop if any of those laws
were changed without proper legal procedures. It wouldn't make
any difference if someone modified the original text of the
constitution a hundred times over, there are literally thousands
of copies in city and school libraries alone of what the original
stated. If a single syllable of intended meaning in the
constitution were tampered with, without due process of law,
there would be a public outcry (even revolution). Surely the Jews
in Judaea (and throughout the world) would have done the same
thing if the standard copies of their "constitution" would have
been corrupted. True, constitutional laws can be changed, but not
without the knowledge and approbation of the people.
This is an important point in regard to the canonization of
the standard texts of the Old Testament. The fact is, the Mosaic
laws represented the civil, governmental, societal, and strict
religious regulators which thoroughly dominated the lives of all
Jews everywhere. Since matters of money, property and daily
social activities were governed by those laws embodied in the
Holy Scriptures (or the many precedential laws in existence), we
can be certain that all copies of the "constitution" were the
same throughout the country of Judaea, and even the Jewish world.
No priest or king could (or would) have revised the basic words
of the Temple scrolls. Even if this were possible, there were
hundreds of copies of the scriptures in the synagogues located
over the land. All these combined scriptural scrolls rendered
some good checks and balances for the continued purity of the
Temple and the synagogue scrolls.
Another point needs to be made. Ancient synagogues in
Palestine were not simply places in which to worship on the
sabbaths and holydays. They were nothing less than the Superior
and Local courts of the nation! Are we to imagine that the
synagogues (which were courts!) had basic constitutional laws
(and even precedential laws) which differed from one another?
Hardly! This fact has a great bearing on the matter of Old
Testament canonization. This means that one should look to
Palestinian Judaism as maintaining proper manuscripts of the Old
Testament because in Judaea their writings were not simply
religious documents, they were also a part of the civil and
government codes of Jewish national life! This meant they were
under the constant scrutiny of professional lawyers who would see
to it that no word was changed. True, there might be a score of
ways to interpret the words, but the words themselves could not
be tampered with. For example, to give clients every advantage,
lawyers could not pass the bar exam unless they could "prove" a
hundred ways that pork was proper to eat (Lieberman, Hellenism in
Jewish Palestine, pp.62-64), yet no lawyer could change the words
of Moses to say that swine was now permissible! Interpreting the
law to one's advantage was one thing, but to change the actual
words of the law was quite another-and this was impossible
without due process!
This guarantee of purity would not extend to those texts of
sectarians who wished to reside outside mainline Judaism, or if
they lived under the jurisdiction of Gentile governments in
Egypt, Rome, etc. Take for example the Dead Sea sects. Their
documents show that they did not agree with many Temple
regulations or its priesthood. And though some of their scrolls
did match remarkably with later Masoretic texts which reflected
the early (and official) synagogue versions of the Old Testament,
they also allowed into their libraries a mixture of
"non-mainline" books (some agreeing with Samaritan or Egyptian
Versions). Those Jews who joined such private communal societies
outside normative Judaism were prone to adopt their own rules and
regulations. That's why they could use unauthorized texts to
govern their activities!
The same could be said of the manuscripts of the Law
maintained by the Samaritan communities. Those texts were indeed
legal documents (as were those in Jerusalem) but they governed
Samaritan society, not Jewish! It is said that Ezra the priest,
back in the fifth century B.C., deliberately copied every Old
Testament manuscript in his possession into the Babylonian script
(rather than maintain the old Hebrew form of letters) in order
for all people in Judaea to recognize the official Jewish texts
from those of the Samaritans (who refused to accept the
"Babylonian" letter styles).
Also, the early translations of the Hebrew Old Testament
into Greek, (and intended only for the literary quests of King
Ptolemy II of Egypt), were never used as legal documents for the
functioning of a theocratic state. It is not to be expected that
they would have the professional scrutiny applied to their
accuracy as those retained by the Palestinian courts
(synagogues!). And when later Hellenistic Jews who had lost much
of their Hebrew language abilities wished to consult the
scriptures in Greek, this was possible, but this was done only
for curiosity or for private religious devotions. In no way could
such unauthorized translations be used in matters of court.
Imagine relying on a Greek text in law matters, when the Hebrew
was available, and it was the original! No citizen of Judaea
would think of placing his legal rights affecting his daily life
on some Greek translation - especially an Egyptian one which was
translated only for literary purposes! The only texts which those
in Judaea would naturally accept were the original Hebrew ones
deposited in the courts (synagogues) and the Temple. We must look
to Jerusalem for the authorized Old Testament books!
The Canon of Josephus
The Old Testament books today are usually reckoned as being
39 in number. But the earliest records show the official
numeration as 22 books! We will later see that the symbolic
meaning to the number 22 affords a significant symmetrical
balance to the Old Testament, and when those books are combined
with those of the New Testament, the number 49 (7 times 7) is
reached. This latter number figuratively means "completion" and
"finality." We will see, however, that even the number 22 has a
ring of "completion" to it when it comes to matters involving the
Hebrew language. Note that Josephus said the divine scriptures of
the Old Testament were 22 in number.
"We have not a countless number of books, discordant and arranged
against each other; but only two and twenty books, containing the
history of every age, which are justly accredited as divine"
(Against Apion l.8).
To Josephus, who was an Aaronic priest, the Old Testament
scriptures contained only 22 books. These were the official books
which were deposited in the Temple and represented the religious
constitution of the Jewish people. In no way was Josephus
speaking of a canon different from the normal Old Testament
maintained by Protestants today (Ryle, "The Canon of the Old
Testament," p.178). The only difference centered on the manner in
which the books were counted. For example, the early Hebrews
reckoned the twelve Minor Prophets - from Hosea to Malachi - as
one book in the canonical number of books, not twelve separate
ones as most versions count them todayl And also, the two books
of Chronicles, and other historical books, were not divided as
they are in most modern Bibles. There was anciently only one Book
of Chronicles. But church leaders after the canon was
established, and to please various Gentile peoples, divided many
of the early books into two (or even four) divisions. This
procedure resulted in the original numbering of 22 books being
counted as 39.
The Original Twenty-Two Books
There were only 22 books to the standard Old Testament. This
numbering can be traced back at least two hundred years before
the time of Christ. It is found in the Book of Jubilees. Though
Jubilees represents the theological opinions of Jewish sectarians
of the Dead Sea community, the information in the books still
reflects a great deal of normal Jewish sentiment. This is
especially true when the author makes a simple statement that the
Old Testament canon was reckoned as 22 books in number. Indeed,
there was a special reason why the books had to be 22.
Annotated to the restored text of Jubilees 2:23 is the
remark that God made 22 things on the six days of creation. These
22 events paralleled the 22 generations from Adam to Jacob, the
22 letters of the Hebrew alphabet, and the 22 books of the Holy
Scripture. R.H.Charles maintained that this information
concerning the 22 books should be retained in the text, even
though it has fallen out of a few manuscripts. See Charles' note
on Jubilees 2:23, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, II. p.15.
Cfaufmann Kohler, "Book of Jubilees," The Jewish Encyclopedia,
VII (New York: 1907), p.302. Thus, as early as the year 150 B.C.
it was common for Jews to reckon the Old Testament books as being
22 in number. Josephus must have been stating a well recognized
numerical canon which was prevailing among the Jewish people of
Palestine.
The 22 numbering is most interesting and fits in well with
the literary and symbolic meaning of "completion" among early
Jews. Recall that the Book of Jubilees insisted that the number
represented the "final" and "complete" creations of God. Adam was
the last creation of God (being the 22nd). Jacob, whose name was
changed to Israel, was the 22nd generation from Adam - and Jacob
was acknowledged as the father of the spiritual nation of the
Lord! Also the Hebrew language became the means by which God
communicated his divine will to mankind, it had as well an
alphabet of 22 letters! And, finally, when God wished to give his
complete Old Testament revelation to humanity, that divine canon
was found in 22 authorized books! The medieval Jewish scholar
Sixtus Senensis explained the significance of this matter.
"As with the Hebrew there are twenty-two letters, in which all
that can be said and written is comprehended, so there are
twenty-two books in which are contained all that can be known and
uttered of divine things" (William H. Green, "A General
Introduction to the Old Testament," vol.I, p.87).
Greeks, Syrians, Armenians, and Romans
Acknowledge the Original 22 Numbering
While early Jews have stated that the original Old Testament
was accounted to be 22 books in number, they were even outdone by
Christian scholars. It will profit us to list the evidence for
these wellknown opinions.
1) Melito (170 A.D.), in agreement with the original Jewish
reckoning, gave the number of Old Testament books as 22
(Eusebius, "Church History," 4.26.14).
2) Origen (210 A.D.) also gave the same numbering: "It should be
stated that the canonical books, as the Hebrews have handed them
down, are twenty-two; corresponding with the number of their
letters" (ibid. 6.25.1).
3) Hilary of Poitiers (360 A.D.): "The Law of the Old Tesatment
is considered as divided into twenty-two books, so as to
correspond to the number of letters" (Tractatus Super Psalmos,
prologue 15).
4) Athanasius (365 A.D.): "There are then of the Old Testament
twenty-two books in number . . . this is the number of the
letters among the Hebrews" (Letter 39.4).
5) The Council of Laodicea (343-391 A.D.): Twenty-two books
(Canon 60).
6) Cyril of Jerusalem (386 A.D.): "Read the divine scriptures,
the twenty-two books of the Old Testament" (Catechetical Lectures
2, 4.33).
7) Gregory of Nazianzus (390 A.D.): "I have exhibited twenty-two
books, corresponding with the twenty-two letters of the Hebrews"
(Carmina, 1.12).
8) Epiphanius (400 A.D.): Twenty-two books (De Nensuris et
Ponderibus, 4).
9) Rufinus (410 A.D.): Twenty-two books (Commentarius in Symbolum
Apostolorum, 37).
10) Jerome (410 A.D.): "That the Hebrews have twenty-two letters
is testified ... as there are twenty-two elementary characters by
means of which we write in Hebrew all we say... so we reckon
twentytwo books by which ... a righteous man is instructed"
(Preface to the Books of Samuel and Kings).
11) Synopsis of Sacred Scripture (c. 500 A.D.): "The canonical
books of the Old Testament are twenty-two, equal in number to the
Hebrew letters; for they have so many original letters."
12) Isidore of Seville (600 A.D.) said the Old Testament was
settled by Ezra the priest into twenty-two books "that the books
in the Law might correspond in number with the letters" (Liber de
Officiis).
13) Leontius (610 A.D.): "Of the Old Testament there are
twentytwo books" (De Sectis).
14) John of Damascus (730 A.D.): "Observe further that there are
two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of
the Hebrew alphabet" (An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith,
4.17).
15) Nicephorus (9th century A.D.): "There are two and twenty
books of the Old Testament" (Stichometry).
16) Jesudad, Bishop of Hadad, Syria (852 A.D.) recognized a canon
of twenty-two books (John E. Steinmueller, A Companion to
Scripture Studies, vol.I, p.80).
17) Hrabanus (9th century A.D.) said the Old Testament was formed
by Ezra into twenty-two books "that there might be as many books
in the Law as there are letters" (Whitaker, Disputation).
18) Moses of Chorene the Armenian historian (c. A.D. 1000 or
early 6th century) "speaks of twenty-two books of the Old
Testament. This was clearly the Jewish Canon" (Steinmueller, vol.
I, p.81).
19) Peter of Cluny (1150 A.D.): Twenty-two books (Edward Reuss,
Canon of the Holy Scriptures, p.257).
20) John of Salisbury (1180 A.D.): Twenty-two books (ibid.,
p.258).
21) Hugh of St. Victor (12th century): "As there are twenty-two
alphabetic letters, by means of which we write in Hebrew, and
speak what we have to say ... so twenty-two books are reckoned,
by means of which ... the yet tender infancy of our man is
instructed, while it yet hath need of milk" (Didascalicae
Eruditionis, 4.80).
22) Richard of St. Victor (13th century): Twenty-two books
(Tractatus Exceptionum, 2.9).
These testimonies supply ample evidence that over the
centuries (whether in Hebrew circles, or in Greek Orthodox,
Syrian, Armenian, or Roman Catholic ones) the knowledge of the
original number of Old Testament books was recognized as being
22. While the order of the books sometimes varied among the
observations of these early Christians (due to their attachment
to the Septuagint Version), they still persisted in retaining the
proper numbering. On some occasions they would increase the
number to 27. Epiphanius stated the Old Testament as having 22
books, but in two other places he increased the number to 27
(ibid. 22,23; Adversus Octaginta Haereses, 8.6). However, no
extra books were added to the canon. Since five of the Hebrew
letters, when used at the ends of words, take on different
shapes, some early scholars divided the original 22 books into
27. This procedure can be dismissed as an oddity of a few writers
which was really based on the original 22 letters. The
significance of the number 22 (as we will soon see) was too
ingrained in their consciousnesses to be lightly cast aside.
The Biblical Use of the Acrostic
There is a literary device found in the Old Testament which
is both a poetic method for expressing a unified design in
biblical composition as well as a technique of arrangement which
emphasizes completion and perfection. It is called the
"acrostic."
The acrostic is a feature in which the first letter of a
sentence begins with the first letter of the alphabet; the second
sentence begins with the second alphabetic letter; the third
sentence with the third letter, etc. In complete Hebrew
acrostics, there are always 22 sentences, or multiples of 22,
each beginning with the first letter aleph and successively going
through the entire alphabet until tau, the last letter, is
reached. If all the letters are utilized in a proper and
consecutive fashion, then the psychological feeling that this
literary device provides is one of accomplishment and fulfillment
- a feeling of wholeness, flawlessness, and perfect order!
This is one of the reasons the early Hebrews saw that Adam,
being the 22nd creation of God, represented God's prime and
perfect physical creation, and that Jacob (whose name was changed
to Israel) was the 22nd spiritual creation of God! The symbolic
significance of the number 22, as found in the Old Testament
acrostics, was recognized as emblematic of perfect attainment!
Let us now notice some of the biblical acrostics which
demonstrate this point.
The longest chapter in the Bible is Psalm 119. It is an excellent
example of a biblical acrostic. Note that it is divided into 22
sections, each one having 8 verses. In its Hebrew original, the
first 8 verses all commence with the first Hebrew letter "aleph."
The second set of 8 uses the second letter" bet." And so it goes
all the way through the Hebrew alphabet.
It should be apparent that there must be a purposeful design
which the author is trying to accomplish by the use of such a
literary arrangement. When all 22 letters are employed either
with single verses or with verses in a series, it is obvious that
the author intends to put an accent of perfection on the subject
of his text. Psalm 119 is a discourse on all the faculties of
God's law. The application of a perfect and complete acrostic is
an emphasis upon the perfection and completeness of that law.
Another complete acrostic is found in Psalm 111 and also
Psalm 112. These Psalms show that God will thoroughly and
permanently redeem his people, and the acrostical sequence means
to show this. Look also at the acrostic accent on the virtuous
woman (Prov.31:10-31). In this example every verse begins with
each of the Hebrew letters in a perfectly consecutive manner. The
author is stressing his portrayal of a complete and perfect
woman. There is also an acrostic accentuation in the literary
design occurring in the first three chapters of the Book of
Lamentations. The prophet Jeremiah implemented this acrostical
pattern to reinforce the completeness of God's destruction upon
the kingdom of Judah!
In one way, it is to be regretted that these alphabetical
refinements are not normally distinguished in English versions.
Of course, it is nearly impossible to adhere to the alphabetic
patterns and still give a faithful English translation.
Nevertheless, the King James Version, though it does not
retain the acrostics in translation, has shown its readers where
they belong in Psalm 119.
An Incomplete Acrostic
There is in the Bible an acrostic which is deliberately
deficient. This occurs when there are certain letters left out at
particular intervals. When an acrostic is complete, the
impression produces a feeling of perfection, but when one is
employed with some letters missing in sequence it gives the
feeling of frustration or let-down! When such incomplete
acrostics are used, the image of discomfiture is intended.
Such an acrostic is found running through Psalms 9 and 10. Seven
letters are purposely omitted. The author obviously determined it
to be noticed by the reader as a broken acrostic! If the
arrangement of the alphabetic letters is sequential in a perfect
sense, the theme was meant to be that of precision and
completeness, but if the acrostic style is broken and irregular,
the subject which the composition is supposed to describe is also
to be emphasized as broken and irregular. And look at Psalms 9
and 10! The Psalms are a connected pair which describe the same
historical or prophetical theme. Both of them refer to a time of
great tribulation on Israel (9:9; 10:1), and a time when a man of
sin will be at work (10:18). It may well be that the author was
meaning to emphasize the chaotic state of affairs which will
prevail in such circumstances! So, with broken acrostics, the
thrust of imperfection is given a decided stress, while with full
and perfect acrostics the keynote is that of consummation and
faultlessness. The 22 books of the Old Testament, of course, are
a full acrostic!
The Complete Old Testament
In regard to the Old Testament canon which was originally
written in Hebrew characters, it can be seen why the ancients
looked on the 22 books of the Hebrew Bible as corresponding to
the 22 alphabetic Hebrew letters. When one realizes the
significance of the acrostic style for emphasizing a completeness
and perfection, it is an easy step to acknowledge that the 22
books of the Old Testament canon represent (in a symbolic sense)
a complete and perfect canonical acrostic! Once the 22 books of
the Hebrew canon were authorized and placed within the Temple
archives as the ordained scriptures for Israel, no other books
could be canonized in the Hebrew language! Figuratively, all the
Hebrew letters have been used up. If any further revelation was
to be forthcoming, it would have to be in another language.
A Further Recognition of Biblical Completion
It is remarkable that by the time of the apostles they were
accustomed to refer to the Jewish scriptures (whether found in
Palestine, Egypt, Asia Minor, Greece, or Rome) simply as "the
Scriptures" or "the Holy Scriptures" (e.g. John 5:39; 11
Tim.3:15). And when the 27 books of the New Testament were
canonized, it became even more evident that the original number
of 22 books for the Old Testament was a divine and inspired
number. Why is this the case? The answer is simple. When one adds
the 27 New Testament books to the Old Testament 22, the number 49
is realized. What a significant number! This represents a figure
of 7 times 7 - or, in the symbolic way the Jews looked on the
number 7 in the first century, it expressed an emblematic sense
of double completion. Notice how this would be seen by the Jews
and Christians.
The number 49 was the sum of seven seven's or a multiple of
seven times seven! Recall that the figurative meaning of the
number 7 was that of completion. Prof. W. Taylor Smith said:
"Seven often expressed the idea of completeness. So in 7
churches, 7 parables of the Kingdom, the 7 Beatitudes, etc. Even
in Assyrian texts it denotes 'totality,' or 'whole'" (Diet. of
Christ and the Gospels, Vol.II, p.248).
All students of the Bible have long realized the
significance of the number seven in relation to the symbol of
completeness. It should not appear strange that the same number
(or its multiples - especially the sum of seven seven's or seven
times seven, 49) would surround the sacredness of the divine
canon of Scripture! It is because of this that I do not apologize
for stressing the 49 books as being the full canon.
This biblical theme involving the number 49 strongly implies
that the whole of the Bible is now complete when one combines the
original 22 books of the Old Testament with the 27 books of the
New Testament. We are thus given a numerical design which
suggests (by the use of the symbolic numbers of scripture) a
complete and final revelation from God.
The Present Number of 66 Books
When one counts the number of books in our present
Protestant canon of the Bible (which normally excludes the extra
apocryphal books) the number of books amounts to 66. This is an
interesting number! It is arrived at by dividing various Old
Testament books into a numerical pattern which corresponds to the
early Greek Version of the Old Testament - which was placed in an
arbitrary codex form in Egypt about the third century A.D. There
is no Hebrew manuscript that follows this Greek Version. And look
what happens when one pursues its enumeration of 66 books! The
number of man is found all over the book! The Bible makes it
clear that the number 6 is one squarely centered on fleshly man
(or mankind). Note that the first man was created at the end of
the sixth day (Gen.1:24-31). Throughout the Bible we have six
associated with man (as distinct from God). The number 666 is
found in the Book of Revelation as a number denoting man or a
wicked person to appear at the end of the age (Rev.13:18). Not
only that, when Daniel described the great image which began the
"Babylonian phase" in ancient religion, its measure was 60 cubits
high (6 times 10) and 6 cubits wide (Dan.3:1). Indeed, E.W.
Bullinger said that all the letters in Daniel 3:1 describing the
Babylonian image when added up (and all Hebrew letters had
numerical values) come to 4662 - which is 7 times 666 ("Number in
Scripture," p.285).
From these indications alone, it does not seem proper to
divide the Holy Bible into 66 books. This even becomes clearer
when we read what MacCormack said:
"But has the number [66] no significance? Unquestionably it has,
for six is man's number. . . . We find then, that the Bible,
according to the Protestant Canon, and also that of the Orthodox
Eastern Church, contains 49 books, if we take the reckoning
current when the last portion of it was written, or 66 books if
each one be counted separately. The latter number, in which 6 is
plainly and emphatically seen, denotes that outwardly it is a
human book and in human dress" (Heptadic Structure, p.145).
The number 66 does not look good from a biblical point of
view. In order to arrive at a different (and more attractive
number) the Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in the
sixteenth century officially accepted 11 of the 14 apocryphal
works, and added them to the Protestant canon. Among other things
one of the reasons this was done was to take away the odium
attached to the number 66. The addition of 11 extra books made a
much more appealing number, 77! However, this was still a modern
refinement and did not reflect the significance of the original
numbering. In fact, if one adds 11 apocryphal writings to the 49
books of the original, one arrives at 60 sections (a number that
also smacks of a human symbol). What ought to be retained, as we
will show throughout this book, are the original 49 books without
the addition of any part of the Apocrypha.
The Present Jewish Numbering
Sometime in the last part of the first century or the
beginning of the second, the Jewish authorities decided to
re-divide the books of the Old Testament into 24 books rather
than maintain 22. It appears that the Jews in Babylon were the
first to devise this new number (Julius Fuerst, Der Kanon des
Alten Testaments, Hamburg: 1850, p.4). This Babylonian influence
in theological matters among the Jews is well known. In fact, it
can be said that the Judaism that survived the first and second
centuries is decidedly "Babylonian" in orientation. The reason
for this is simple. Palestinian Judaism ceased to have major
prominence because the Romans restricted Jerusalem from exer-
cising its normal supremacy in religious matters. After all, the
Temple was destroyed in A.D.70 and after A.D.135 no Jews were
normally allowed within twenty miles of Jerusalem. This made the
region of Mesopotamia an area of prominence among the Jewish
community. And it was within that environment that the Jews began
to re-number the books of the Old Testament to 24. It is not to
be supposed that they added two extra books. They simply divided
two of the original ones and arrived at a new 24 numbering. At
some point in the second century, or perhaps as late as the third
century, the Babylonian number of 24 began to obtain official
status. The practice had certainly become current among the Jews
by the time of Jerome (about A.D.400).
There may well have been political and religious reasons why
the Jewish authorities made the change when they did. When the
New Testament books were being accepted as divine literature by
great numbers of people within the Roman world, all could see
that the 27 New Testament books added to the original 22 of the
Old Testament reached the significant number 49. This was a
powerful indication that the world now had the complete
revelation from God with the inclusion of the New Testament
books! Since the Jewish officials were powerless to do anything
with the New Testament, the only recourse they saw possible was
to alter, in an authorized manner, the traditional numbering. The
Babylonian schools simply divided two of the original books and
made the total to number 24. Adding these to the 27 New Testament
books gave a sum of 51 books - a wholly insignificant number!
The excuse given for re-numbering the books is amusing.
Since it was recognized that the original 22 books equalled each
of the letters of the Hebrew alphabet, it was felt that an
alphabetic relevance had to be maintained. The medieval Jewish
scholar Sixtus Senensis gave the normal explanation for the
change. Since there was only one "yodh" among the 22 letters, and
because the Jews started a peculiar habit of writing the
unpronounceable name YHWH with three "yodhs," it was necessary,
so Sixtus tells us, to re-number the Old Testament books by the
addition of two extra "yodhs." Such a procedure is clearly an
artificial literary device of late invention and could hardly
have any relevance to the original numbering of the books of the
Old Testament. One thing this contrivance does demonstrate is the
longstanding respect that the Jewish people held for the concept
that each book of the Old Testament equalled one of the Hebrew
alphabetic letters!
The Tradition of Second Esdras
There is one book from the first century, however, which
could be used as a witness that the change from 22 to 24 took
place as early as about A.D.90. That book is Second Esdras. This
work states that there were ninety-four books which were
canonical: seventy were esoteric or mystery books and twenty-four
were public ones. It has often been stated that this reference to
24 books refers to the official Jewish canon which was then
reckoned as authoritative. On the surface this might appear to
make sense, but there are major problems with the information.
First, there is the direct testimony of Josephus (who also
wrote about A.D.90 and was a Jewish priest of first rank) who
said that official Judaism accepted only 22 books - the normal
number of books going back all the way to the Book of Jubilees
(c.150 B.C.). If an authorized change of the number had taken
place by A.D.90, why didn't Josephus simply inform his readers
about it? Indeed, Josephus was insisting in his reference that
the Jews were stable and consistent with the appraisal of their
Holy Scriptures (Contra Apion, I.8). If they had recently made
the change, then the very
But there is another reason why Second Esdras is not all
that reliable a witness. The section about the canon has been
called into question by textual critics because of the variant
readings of the numbers. Some texts instead of 24 have 94, some
204, others 84, and still others 974 (Ludwig Blau, Jewish
Encyclopedia (1906), vo1.III, p.142). The fact is, one can take
24, 84, 94, 204, or 974 as Second Esdras' witness to the number
of canonical books. Do not all have equal authority? It seems
much safer to take the testimony of Josephus as more
authoritative than a book which has variant renderings of its
numbers!
There can really be no serious doubt that the early
numbering of 22 books for the Old Testament and the 27 books of
the New Testament are indeed the correct numbers. This provides a
divine canon of 49 books. When one looks at the symbolic
significance of this number, one sees the theme of completion and
perfection. We can also be assured that the external and internal
historical evidence demonstrates that the Protestant canon of the
Bible is the proper one which illustrates the complete and final
biblical revelation. But we will also find that the books within
the original canon were positioned very differently than is done
today. In the next chapter we will see that the original Old
Testament was divided into three distinct divisions, and that
Christ recognized this tripartite arrangement!
.....................
To be continued
Canonization of the Old Testament #4THREE divisions!
The Tripartite Divisions
The Old Testament was originally divided into three parts
called the Tripartite Divisions. The earliest documentary
evidence that we have available (going back to 180 B.C.) tells us
what the three sections were first called. This information is
found in the Prologue to the apocryphal Book of Ecclesiasticus.
While the man Sirach wrote the book about 180 B.C., his grandson
composed the Prologue about 132 B.C. He mentioned the sacred
books that his grandfather used in the writing of Ecclesiasticus.
In three different statements he referred to the Tripartite
Divisions of the Old Testament.
1) "The Law, the Prophets, and Others of like kind."
2) "The Law, the Prophets and the Other Books."
3) "The Law itself, and the Prophets, and the Remaining Books."
While the first two divisions are consistently called "The
Law and the Prophets," the third division was given no technical
name. But since the definite article "the" is used to describe
the second and third occasions of usage, it shows that Sirach's
grandson was no doubt referring to a definite set of books which
then composed the final division. Beardslee, in the Encyclopedia
Americana article "Bible," shows that the terminology imputes a
recognized set of canonical books divided into three divisions.
"In the prologue to Sirach is a reference three times over to
'the Law,' 'the Prophets,'... and the 'Others' with suggestions
of their unique value for culture and wisdom, and of their
fulness and significance. This was written about 130 B.C. It
seems to betoken a complete threefold canonical collection."
The Prologue is excellent documentary evidence that the
Jewish people had in their midst an authoritative body of books
in three divisions which was considered divine. The unanimous
opinion of early Jewish scholars expressed conviction that the
Old Testament scriptures were selected and placed in an official
order by Ezra the priest (with the help of Nehemiah) in the fifth
century B.C. For rabbinic assessment up to the seventeenth
century of our era we can quote Humphrey Prideaux.
"He [Ezra] collected together all the books of which the holy
scriptures did then consist, and disposed them in their proper
order, and settled the canon of scripture for his time. These
books he divided into three parts: first, the Law; secondly, the
Prophets; and thirdly, the Ketubim or Hagiographa, i.e. the Holy
Writings; which division our Saviour himself takes notice of in
Luke 24:44" (Connection of the Old and New Testaments, vol. 1.
[London:1858], pp.318,319).
What is important to the whole issue is the acknowledgment
of the official tripartite arrangement by Christ himself. After
his resurrection he rehearsed all the prophecies which were found
in "the Scriptures" concerning himself and his mission. And, most
significant to our present discussion, Christ then defined what
those Scriptures were. His definition is the only one in the
entirety of the New Testament which delineates the extent of the
Old Testament! This affirmation is in the Gospel of Luke (a
gospel intended especially for Gentiles). It was the Gentiles who
needed the Old Testament canon spelled out. Such detail was not
necessary for ordinary Jewish folk in the first century because
they were aware of what books represented the scriptures. This
must be the case because throughout the New Testament (at least
16 different times) the writers simply referred to the Old
Testament as "the Scriptures" - always without enumeration! But
for Gentiles it was a different story. The Gentiles, of course,
would have needed to know what the proper books really were. Even
the apostles themselves may have wanted an authoritative
statement regarding the canon. The definition that Christ gave
could hardly be more official, simply because he confirmed it to
the apostles after his resurrection from the dead! - after he had
once again assumed his glorified position with the Father! This
is when Christ defined "the Scriptures" as the Tripartite
Divisions.
"These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with
you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the
Law of Moses, and in the Prophets, and in the Psalms, concerning
me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might
understand the Scriptures" (Luke 24:44,45).
Notice that Christ referred to the Third Division as "the
Psalms." There is no doubt that he was alluding to the complete
Third Division, Since that section had no technical name in the
first century (it was either called "the Other Books," or "the
Remaining Books," or "the Writings," even "the Holy Writings"),
it became common to identifyit by the name of the book which
introduced it - the Book of Psalms! There was nothing odd in
using this procedure from the Jewish point of view because they
customarily named the Book of Genesis by the first Hebrew word
that introduced it. This was also true of Exodus, Leviticus,
Numbers, Deuteronomy, and even the Book of Lamentations! There
can be little doubt that Christ was referring to the whole of the
Third Division (all eleven books) when he made his reference to
the Psalms. There is a further proof of this. In Christ's
teaching about the martyrs of the Old Testament period in Luke
11:49-51, we find him saying that the blood of all the prophets
from Abel (the first martyr) to Zacharias (the last martyr in the
canonical order of the Old Testament books) would be required of
that generation to whom he spoke (cf. Matt.23:35). Though in
point of time the last person mentioned in the Old Testament as
having been killed for his righteousness was Uriah (as recorded
in Jeremiah 26:20-23), in the canonical arrangement of the books,
the last was Zacharias mentioned in 2 Chronicles 24:20,21. It
must be understood that First and Second Chronicles in our
present Bibles were reckoned as only one book by the early
Hebrews, and that this book was the final one of the Third
Division of the Old Testament! This indication could very well
mean that Christ was referring to all the Old Testament martyrs
from Genesis (book "A") to Chronicles (book "Z"). This is just
another biblical clue that Christ recognized the books within the
Tripartite Divisions (the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms - all
eleven books of the Third Division) as the official ones which
comprised the Old Testament. That these books, and these books
only, have been the authoritative Jewish ones from early times is
a recognized fact! They are certainly the books that now make up
their canon today.
The Witness of Second Maccabees
It was a well recognized belief near the end of the second
century B.C. that the canon of the Old Testament was completed
about three hundred years before the time of the Maccabees, in
the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. Notice 2 Maccabees 2:12-15.
Speaking about the Feast of Tabernacles, its author said:
"Solomon also kept the eight days. The same thing was related
also in the records and memoirs about Nehemiah, that he founded a
library and collected the books about the kings, and the
prophets, and the works of David, and royal letters about sacred
gifts."
The author then related that the Holy Scriptures had been
regathered after the Maccabeen War (from 168 to 165 B. C.) and
again could be read and followed. Notice that this reference has
Nehemiah building a library and collecting the sacred books! This
ties in well with the teaching of Josephus that the 22 books of
the Old Testament were brought together and canonized in the time
of Ezra and Nehemiah (Contra Apion, I.8). The library of Nehemiah
(who was a high government official in the Persian Empire) could
easily account for the mention of many ancient historical works
in the Book of Chronicles [which we will refer to later].
Chronicles, the last book of the Old Testament, describes
events which dovetail well with the historical environment during
the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. There were, however, editorial
remarks recorded in the book (genealogical records, etc.) until
the time of Alexander the Great (c. 330 B.C.).
Let us now notice a point made in Second Maccabees about the
canonization of the Old Testament. It said the literary works of
"the kings and the prophets" were gathered together in the time
of Ezra and Nehemiah! This indication could well be a reference
to the Prophets' (the second) Division of the Tripartite
arrangement of the Old Testament. This is because the books about
the "Kings" (our present books of Samuel and Kings) are
immediately followed in the canonical order by the Major Prophets
(Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel) then the twelve Minor Prophets. And
it is exactly this order that we find recorded in Second
Maccabees! But there is more! Second Maccabees then states that
those "kings and prophets" were followed by "the works of David."
Again, this is the precise order of the Jewish canon. The fact
is, the Third Division of the Tripartite arrangement begins with
"the Psalms of David," which even Christ himself recognized as
the book which introduced the final division of the Old Testament
(Luke 24:44,45). But the reference in Second Maccabees doesn't
terminate with "the works of David" (the Psalms). It continues to
state that the books to follow were "the royal letters." And in
the biblical canon maintained by the official Jewish authorities,
all the rest of the books in the Third Division were indeed
"royal" or "government" documents just as the Book of Psalms
itself was "royal" in origin. This fact has not been noticed by
most people, but look at all the books in the Third Division -
they have the theme of "royalty" running through them all just as
Second Maccabees records.
The Book of Psalms (the first book) is a book authored by
King David (Psalms 1 through 71), then a book by or for King
Solomon (72), then those by the priests of David (73 to 88), the
one for King Josiah (89), then the millennial or kingdom of God
Psalms (90 to 106), followed by sundry Psalms of David (107 to
150) - including the Degree Psalms (120 to 134) which were
composed for King Hezekiah (as we will also observe later). Thus,
the Book of Psalms which introduces the Third Division is a book
which has royal persons as authors or it presents themes which
concern the kingdom of Judah, Israel, and the kingdom of God!
The royal Book of Psalms is followed by the Book of Proverbs.
This book was authored primarily by King Solomon, with a section
devised for King Hezekiah (chapters 25 to 29 inclusively), and
Agur the King of Massa (30) and finally King Lemuel (31). The
whole of Proverbs is a "royal document" as Second Maccabees
describes the books positioned after those of the Prophets.
But it doesn't stop there. In the canonical order of the Old
Testament books, the Book of Job follows Proverbs. Job was
described as a king and represented royalty (29:25). The Book of
Ruth comes next, and is manifestly a work about the early
ancestry of King David (it is a royal book which gives the
genealogical history of David). Then follows the Book of
Lamentations. This was written by the prophet Jeremiah for, as we
will see later, King Josiah of Judah. It also is a "royal book."
Then we have Ecclesiastes which was traditionally composed by
King Solomon. After that, in the canonical order, is the Book of
Esther. She was Queen of Persia (again, a clear royalty
indication). Following Esther is Daniel. This book is one of
"royal" character. Not only does it discuss at length the history
of royal rulership from the time of King Nebuchadnezzar of
Babylon until the kingdom of God appears on earth, but it was
written by Daniel who was of royal Davidic stock - "of the king's
seed, one of the princes" (Dan.1:3). The next book in order was
that of Ezra (responsible for re-establishing the official
government of God in Jerusalem). With him was Nehemiah who may
have been of Davidic blood (cf. Nehemiah 6:6,7 where it states
the Jews wanted to make him king - and only those of Davidic
ancestry could then legally become king in the biblical sense).
It should be understood that in the original Jewish
numbering of the Old Testament books, the present two of Ezra and
Nehemiah were always reckoned as one. Thus, the predominant
person who put into action the affairs of state was Nehemiah. He
was probably of royal ancestry and responsible, so said Second
Maccabees, of collecting the books for his library and selecting
a divine body of books for posterity. The last book of the Third
Division was that of Chronicles. It takes little study to see
that this book focuses on the establishment of Jerusalem and the
family of David as the legitimate rulers for the divine
government on earth! It is indeed a royal book too!
Thus, all the books of the Third Division. (which commenced
with the Psalms) were royal books, or, as Second Maccabees called
them, "the royal letters." With this information in mind, it can
be seen that by 100 B.C., when Second Maccabees was written, the
Old Testament was already canonized and in the exact order as
maintained by the Jews today and also by Christ in Luke 24:44,45.
Christ called the Third Division "the Psalms." The use of
introductory books or even words to describe biblical divisions
or sections was common by the Jews. See Mishnah, Taanith 4:3;
Meg. 2:3; 3:4,5,6; 4:10.
This practice of using introductory words as titles of whole
sections or even divisions of literary works was well known. When
the Nag Hammadi Library of ancient books was discovered in 1945
it was soon found that the introductory words of a work gave the
whole composition its title. Prof. Frederik Wisse made this
comment: "It is not unusual for the opening words of a tractate
to function as the title for the whole tractate" (The Nag Hammadi
Library, p.394).
And so it was with the Third Division of the Old Testament.
It was called "the Psalms" by Christ because that was the book
which introduced the division. This designation was also followed
by the Jewish scholar Philo Judaeus who lived in the time of
Christ. He regarded the Jewish canon as "the laws, and oracles
that have come through the prophets, also with the hymns (psalms)
and the other books" (Cont Life). This is a reference to the
Tripartite Divisions.
The Apostolic Constitutions
The Apostolic Constitutions was written about A.D.200. It
purports to give some of the original teachings of the apostles.
And while the work was trying to bring in Old Testament authority
for some of its claims, it inadvertently confirms the commonly
understood order of the books and Tripartite Divisions of the
canon. It states that the Old Testament was composed of the Law,
the Kings and Prophets, and the hymns of David (Constitutions of
the Holy Apostles, 1.2.5). It is important to note that the Third
Division is again called "the Hymns," just as Second Maccabees
and Philo do. Such a description was a common variant of the name
"the Psalms" which Christ used in Luke 24:44,45. Ancient literary
usage shows this to be correct.
The Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan
In regard to the Tripartite Divisions of the original Hebrew
canon, attention ought to be made to these two Targums. In the
first century before Christ, many of the common people of Judaea
spoke an Aramaic dialect which had become popular among the Jews
while they resided in Babylon. Aramaic was akin to the Hebrew in
many ways, but it still represented a different language. Even
Ezra had to interpret the intent of the original Hebrew of the
early Old Testament because the Jews had forgotten the Hebrew
while in Babylon (Neh.8:1-8). From the time of Ezra onwards, it
became common to make Aramaic paraphrases of the Old Testament.
These works are called Targums. Near the time of Christ there
were two Targums which reached a type of official status among
the Jews. These were the Targum of the Law by Onkelos, and the
Targum of the Prophets by Jonathan. The Talmud reveals that these
two Targums were even used in synagogue services. And while the
first two sections of the Tripartite Divisions were recognized as
proper books to be read in synagogue services, the Third Division
(which existed at the time) was not permitted to be paraphrased
(so the story goes) because of a divine messsage against it
(Megillah, 3a, The Babylonian Talmud). Though the Third Division
was not at first paraphrased, this is still a testimony that that
particular section of the Scriptures was already recognized as
inspired and a part of the canon by the time of Christ.
And as far as the Talmud itself is concerned, it clearly
supports the Tripartite Divisions as representing the official
canon. Since the fifth century, the Jews have had a special name
for the Old Testament. They call it the Tanak. This word is a
manufactured one derived from the first letters of the titles of
the threefold divisions. The Law (the first five books) was known
as the Torah. The Prophets' Division was called the Nebi'um. And
the Psalms' (or Writings') Division was known as the Ketuvim. In
referring to these three divisions, they simply took the initial
letters of the three titles (i.e. T, N, K) and formed the word
Tanak. The Jews use this word to refer to the Old Testament canon
as commonly as Christians use the word "Bible."
This practice shows the Jewish steadfastness in maintaining
the Tripartite Divisions of the Old Testament which tradition
(and the early records) show was handed down from the time of
Ezra and Nehemiah. And since we have the express testimony of
Christ himself that "the Scriptures" represented "The Law of
Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms (the Third Division)" (L
24:44,45), it seems odd that any Christian today would question
the legitimacy of its official character. Should not Christ's
appraisal be sufficient?
It is my belief that these ancient divisions ought to be
retained in all versions of the Bible today. When this is done we
will be afforded a better understanding of the Bible.
.....................
To be continued
|
|
|
|
No comments:
Post a Comment