ScriptureWorkshop.com

A Comparison of Canonical Collections
Copyright © 2000, 2009 Gary E. Schnittjer

The significant point of departure between Judaic and Christian canonical collections is the New Testament in the latter (other points distinguish ancient Judaic and Christian use of scripture). Yet, the Tanak, Septuagint, and the various Christian Old Testaments attest much variety. I will compare, in an introductory fashion, some of the differences between the Tanak, Septuagint, and selected Christian Old Testaments, followed by a discussion of the New Testament.

The arrangements of the Prophets and Writings sub-collections of the Tanak have not been monolithic.[1] There are many variations within the traditions represented by manuscripts of the Septuagint (LXX) and Vulgate as well. The standard character of the arrangement of the Protestant Old Testament reflects the effects of the printing press more than something intrinsic to the nature of canon in reformation Christianity. The same kind of standardization can be seen in all traditions in the wake of mass production. Note that variations of Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical collections exist between the Vulgate and several Christian traditions.

The Arrangements of the Tanak, Septuagint, Vulgate Old Testament, and Protestant Old Testament[2]

The Tanak and the Protestant Old Testament contain the same writings, yet they are arranged differently. If the content is the same, does it matter? Nahum M. Sarna surveyed various ancient Jewish traditions and noted that, in general, the individual books of the Hebrew scriptures were kept on separate scrolls (e.g., Qumran practices). Sarna’s inquiry pertains not to the rationale for a particular order, but to the notion of “order” in general. That is, why were the scrolls of individual biblical books kept in an “order” at all? For Sarna, the best explanation in light of parallel cultural considerations was that libraries in the ancient Near East used systems of cataloguing and local synagogues likewise used the Tanak “order” as a way to store the scrolls.[4] More recently, Tim Stone’s work on the arrangement of the Megilloth (“little scrolls,” namely, Ruth, Song, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther) has dealt with the general phenomenon of canonical arrangement. For Stone, the arrangement of the scriptural scrolls in the second temple was emulated by the arrangement of the scrolls in the synagogues (little temples), which eventually set the order for the writings when they were bound together into books.[5] The New Testament generally refers to a two-fold canon: “Torah and prophets” or “Moses and prophets” (Matt 5:17; 22:40; Acts 13:15; Rom 3:21; Luke 16:29, 31), although once a three-fold canon, namely, “Moses, the prophets, and Psalms” (Luke 24:44; cf. prologue of Sirach 2nd cent BCE). I understand the term “prophet” not just to include the preachers (Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, the Twelve), but all scriptural writings in a broad sense of presenting God’s word (cf. 2 Sam 23:1-2; Mark 12:36 [Ps 110]; Prov 30:1; 31:1; Heb 1:1). An order, whatever it was designed to do, functions as a kind of commentary on the function of individual scriptures of a particular tradition. Moreover, the ordering of books can be both effect and cause in developing traditions, like public scripture reading.

Books/scrolls are not the only way in which the New Testament regarded its scriptures. Perhaps it is instructive to compare Philo’s approach to the scriptures. Naomi G. Cohen wrote:

Philo’s “conceptual units” seem to be similar to some and different from others of the New Testament’s scriptural conceptual units.

The New Testament regards its scriptures within many different kinds of contexts: individual scrolls/books (Lk 3:4; 20:42); God’s word (Heb 5:12); the scriptures (2 Tim 3:16); collections of writings like Torah/Moses (Jn 5:47; Rom 13:8), the Prophets (Acts 15:15), or the Torah and Prophets (Mt 7:12; Rom 3:21); a pericope (coherent unit) (Mk 12:26); a verse (Mt 13:35). The point at hand is the relationship between context and theology. Care must be taken that we do not automatically and exclusively read our conventional conceptual scripture units––i.e., assume a “book” context––back onto ancient uses of the scriptures.

Before the advent of the printing press there were a great variety of arrangements of the New Testament collection of writings.[7] In general, the Gospels were first and the Apocalypse last with Acts and the other sub-collections––Paul’s Letters, General Letters––in between. The common New Testament arrangement follows that of Eusebius (c. 263-340 ce) and Jerome (340-420 ce).[8] This differs from the arrangements in a majority of early manuscripts.

One implication of these arrangement variations among early New Testament collections is that a particular writing’s relative placement should not be considered the determinative interpretive issue. Bruce Metzger, who wrote, “The preceding survey of the very great variety in order [of NT arrangements], both of the several parts of the New Testament as well as of books within each part, leads one to conclude that such matters were of no great significance for the ancient and medieval Church; they became an issue only with later editors and publishers.”[9]

Having noted the ordering of the sub-collections, the arrangements within the sub-collections should be considered. The Gospels’ arrangement by Eusebius and Jerome was Matthew, Mark, Luke, John. Many other arrangements are attested in the manuscripts. Two exceptions are that Matthew is never last and Luke is never first. Perhaps those that place Luke last do so in order that it is side by side with Acts.

Paul’s Letters were arranged in many different ways (seventeen in all). The corpus of Paul’s Letters that we know is determined by the respective lengths of the letters and whether the letter was ecclesiastical or personal. The exception is Hebrews which although generally listed with Paul’s Letters was usually last. The General Letters are also basically arranged in descending order relative to length with the letters by the same author kept together.

In relation to the New Testament collection of documents, Acts provides a narrative context which should be related to the letters, especially those written and co-written by Paul. It seems to me that Brevard S. Childs has rightly distinguished how to read Acts and Paul’s Letters in relation to each other without drawing too narrow connections based on a/the precise New Testament arrangement. “The canonical function of Acts,” stated Childs, “was not determined by the order of its placement within the New Testament collection.”[10]

[1] For a survey of the variations of the arrangements of the Tanak see Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1971 ed., s.v., “Bible,” 4: cols. 816-32; Roger T. Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and Its Background in Early Judaism (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1985), 450-68. There are variations in the arrangements of the Writings––sometimes Chronicles is first and at other times it is last. Also see Roger T. Beckwith, “Formation of the Hebrew Bible,” 39-86, in Martin Jan Mulder, ed., Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading, and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990).

[2] See BHS; LXX; Biblia Sacra Iuxta Vulgatam Versionem (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1969); and NA27. Lawrence H. Schiffman argues that the “canonical” scriptures––the Tanak––served all Judaic traditions, even Qumran extremists, see Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library of Qumran, Anchor Bible Reference Library, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday, 1994, 1995), 161-80, esp. 161.

[3] For discussion of the possible implications of the differences in the arrangements of the Twelve Prophets between the Septuagint and Masoretic traditions, see Marvin A. Sweeney, The Prophetic Literature (Abingdon Press, 2005), 165-73. Also see, Christopher R. Seitz, Prophecy and Hermeneutics: Toward a New Introduction to the Prophets (Baker, 2007), chaps 7, 8.

[4] See Nahum M. Sarna, “The Order of the Books,” 407-13, in Charles Berlin, ed., Studies in Jewish Bibliography, History, and Literature in Honor of I. Edward Kiev (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1971).

[5] My summary of Tim Stone’s work on canonical arrangements is based on a presentation he gave at the Evangelical Theological Society (Providence, Nov 2008), as well as numerous conversations and personal correspondence. Stone is presently doing his doctoral research on these matter at St. Andrews.

[6] Naomi G. Cohen, “Earliest Evidence of the Haftarot Cycle for the Sabbaths … in Philo,” Journal of Jewish Studies 48 (1997): 245 (emphasis mine).

[7] This discussion regarding the arrangement of the New Testament canon indebted to Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 295-300. Also see Brevard S. Childs, The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984), 3-53; F. F. Bruce, “Some Thoughts on the Beginning of the New Testament Canon,” 85-108, in Everett Ferguson et al., eds., Studies in Early Christianity: A Collection of Scholarly Essays, vol. 3, The Bible in the Early Church (New York: Garland Publishing, 1993); F. F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1988); Linda L. Belleville, “Canon of the New Testament,” 374-95, in D. S. Dockery et al., eds., Foundations for Biblical Interpretation (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994); R. M. Grant, “The New Testament Canon,” 284-308, in P. R. Ackroyd and C. F. Evans, eds., The Cambridge History of the Bible, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1970).

[8] Note qualifications to Eusebius’ thinking in Pheme Perkins, “The Canons of the Bible,” 459 essays, in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, augmented third ed. (Oxford University Press, 2007).

[9] Metzger, Canon, 300. See also discussion in Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments: Theological Reflection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 73-77.

[10] Childs, New Testament as Canon, 239. Also see Brevard S. Childs, The Church’s Guide for Reading Paul: The Canonical Shaping of the Pauline Corpus (Eerdmans, 2008).