Word Count: 880
Mark: Credit++
Comment: Obviously, this is just a very basic overview for this particular topic, but as this was my very first assignment, and I was extremely troubled by it, I was delighted by the result.
The Assignment
The study of the formation of the Old Testament canon is not so much a look at when and where God wrote it, but the involvement of humanity as God’s agents. The Old Testament was written at various times, by many people in various ways, and collected throughout history to make one scriptural whole.
The word “canon” is derived from the Greek word “kanon”, which in itself comes from a Semitic root, which means “reed” or “stalk”, and was thought of as a measuring rod. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines the word “canon” as, “A rule, law or decree of the Church… A general rule, formula…” In other words, a canon is generally thought of as a “rule of thumb” for various standards, including the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.
The Old Testament was written in various ways, the book of Jeremiah giving us one such example. In chapter 36, we are told, “So Jeremiah called Baruch son of Neriah, and while Jeremiah dictated all the words the LORD had spoken to him, Baruch wrote then on the scroll.” Exodus 17:14 tells us something similar, while Deuteronomy 9:10 states, “The LORD gave me two stone tablets inscribed by the finger of God.”
Soon after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., the Jews discovered a renewed interest in the Bible, led by Jochanan ben Zakkai, who got permission from the Romans to convene a council of rabbis at Jamnia. Various debates of canonicity were held at this council. R.K. Harrison states that by about the period of 100 A.D., Josephus was regarding the Old Testament as “holy books” or “holy writings”. His belief was that the essence of canonical scripture was its “divine pronouncement of unquestioned authority” which came from the original prophetic period. This is how people concluded which books deserved to be canonical: the ones that clearly had the “divine stamp”, those that contained words that obviously were written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. However, the Jews still continued to have some doubts about some books, an example being Esther, which does not mention God, and the negativity of Ecclesiastes.
The first part of the Old Testament is known as the Torah, and consists of the first five books as we know them today: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy. Around the period of 722 B.C., the Samaritans were known to have the Torah, also known as the Pentateuch, and they considered these writings sacred laws to live by. As time went on, other books were written and collected, until the original Hebrew Old Testament was completed in three sections: The Law, the Prophets (Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings, both counted as one book, the four so-called Major Prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the twelve so-called Minor Prophets, which were also regarded as one book), and finally the Writings (Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song Of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, as one book, and 1 and 2 Chronicles, which were also regarded as one).
The Septugaint, or LXX, was a Greek translation of the original Hebrew, and was believed to have been written at varying times, the most prominent period being between 250 to 150 B.C. This version contained what was to become known as the Apocrypha, additional writings that not everyone viewed as having the same Spiritual authority as the original Bible.
Many people had trouble accepting the Apocryphal books as part of the Biblical canon for several reasons. First, they weren’t part of the original Hebrew scriptures. Secondly, they are not viewed as having the same Spiritual authority as the original scriptures. John Calvin makes a very telling comment concerning this when he spoke about one of the Apocryphal books, II Maccabees: As if the author himself does not well enough show what deference is due him, when at the end he implores pardon if he has said anything amiss (II Macc. 15:39)! Surely, he who admits that his writings are in need of pardon does not claim to be part of the oracle of the Holy Spirit.
This is a very crucial argument. Also, in 1545 the Council’s of Trent’s acceptance of some noncanonical books brought forward certain beliefs that the Reformers believed clashed with the scriptures.
Some people also question the importance of the Apocrypha because in the New Testament, while Jesus and His followers often quoted from the accepted Old Testament, they never quoted the Apocrypha. However, they didn’t quote from all the OT books either. They also did occasionally quote from other sources, like Jude’s reference to the Book Of Enoch (Jude 14-15). This New Testament support on its own does not completely justify the noncanonical status of the Apocrypha. However, together with the other arguments, we can more readily come to such a conclusion.
As mentioned earlier, the writing of the Old Testament canon was done by various people over a considerable period of time, and formed into a canonical whole probably towards the end of the first century. It took the enlightening of the Holy Spirit to help people who brought the works together to see what were actually inspired words of God, and deserved to be included as canonical.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bromiley, Geoffrey W. (ed.), Everett F. Harrison, Roland K. Harrison, William Sanford LaSor and Edgar W. Smith, Jr. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. Vol 1. United States Of America: Eerdmans, 1979.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 2 vols. Edited by John T. McNeill and Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. London: SCM, 1961.
Chadwick, Owen. The Reformation. Hamondsworth: Penguin, 1972.
Ewert, David. From Ancient Tablets To Modern Translations: A General Introduction To The Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983.
Harrison, R.K. Introduction To The Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1969.
La Sor, William Sanford, David Allan Hubbard, Frederic William Bush. Old Testament Survey. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982.
Onions C.T. (ed.) The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. 3rd Ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1973.
