Maccabean Chronology in the Pentateuch?

One idea that occasionally pops up in discussions of the stabilization of Hebrew scripture is that pro-Hasmonean scribes in the second century BCE redacted the chronology of the Pentateuch so that the rededication of the Jerusalem Temple by the Maccabees would fall in year 4000 anno mundi (in world history, from creation). The alleged motivation for this redactional move is that the Hasmonean government would somehow receive legitimation by being able to show that its rededication of the Temple occurred in such a propitious year.

According to some presentations of this view, the 'original chronology' of the Pentateuch aimed at validating the Solomonic temple. This was revised in the Samaritan Pentateuch with the goal of validating the temple on Mt. Gerizim. The Septuagint chronology perhaps aimed at validating the second (post-exilic) Jerusalem temple, and the MT aimed at validating the Hasmonean rededication of the temple. 

This is the way the argument runs, for instance, in Siegried Kreuzer, "From 'Old Greek' to the Recensions: Who and What Caused the Change of the Hebrew Reference Text of the Septuagint?" in Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures, ed. Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden, SCS 53 (Atlanta: SBL, 2006), 232-33.The end of this post gives a list of some (not at all complete) other works that assume or argue for this idea of a Maccabean chronology in the Pentateuch.

In his 2005 book Writing on the Tablet of the Heart (Oxford), David Carr accepted this line of thinking.

Finally [i.e., the last point in a discussion of how the Hasmoneans gave the Hebrew Bible its final shape], the entire chronological system of the proto-Massoretic textual tradition of the historical books is structured so that the Hasmoneans' rededication of the temple falls exactly four thousand years after Creation, with the Exodus occurring in year 2666 after Creation--two-thirds of the way to the temple rededication. (p. 264)

[In my copy of Carr's book, in the margin beside this sentence, I find that I once wrote: "this would be awfully subtle, complicated, & pointless." I think that evaluation still holds, and perhaps Carr would now agree (see below)] 

In the footnote, Carr cites Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology, JSOTSup (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 233-37, which, Carr says, "provides a discussion of how the MT tradition deviates from other systems and possible problems with reading it as linked to the Hasmonean rededication."

But, in his more recent book The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction (Oxford, 2011), Carr reduces the argument to a footnote and signals a change in his view.

The most evocative proposal of Hasmonean-period revision of the Pentateuch (and Deuteronomistic history) is the observation that the sum of the dates of the proto-Massoretic biblical history, when combined with known dates for Persian- and Hellenistic-period rulers, gives exactly 4000 years from creation to the rededication of the temple by Judas Maccabeus (with the exodus placed at 2666 years after creation, two-thirds of the way to temple rededication). The problem with this proposal is that it depends on the authors of the proto-MT chronology having an accurate knowledge of the historical chronology extending from Cyrus to Judas, whereas our documented examples of Jewish historiography of the period (e.g., Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, Daniel, Josephus) display apparent ignorance of that chronology. Cf. my Writing on the Tablet of the Heart [Oxford, 2005], 264 where I advocated this idea (building on earlier discussions by many others). I thank John Collins for bringing the problems with this proposal to my attention. (p. 171 n. 28, italics original)

This note is most interesting, mostly because it agrees exactly with my own thinking before reading Carr's book. My biggest problem with the idea that the MT chronology was redacted so that Judas' rededication of the Temple would fall in year 4000 anno mundi was that Second Temple Jewish authors seem not have had a good grasp of Second Temple chronology, and it was precisely John Collins, in his Commentary on Daniel (Hermeneia), that helped me realize this.

One proponent of the view does at least acknowledge this problem, though he does not give it its full weight. Marshall D. Johnson, The Purpose of the Biblical Genealogies (2d ed.; Cambridge, 1988), prefixes to his calculation the caveat: "Assuming that the post-exilic Jerusalem community in all probability kept historical records of some accuracy [...]" (p. 32).

One should note that the calculation of the exodus falling in year 2666 anno mundi is found already in Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 308, and he cites previous scholarship.


A Few Proponents of Maccabean Chronology in the Pentateuch 


A. Murtonen, "On the Chronology of the Old Testament," Studia Theologica 8 (1954): 133-37.

Philip R. Davies, In Search of "Ancient Israel", JSOTSup 148 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), 154.

Thomas L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives: The Quest for the Historical Abraham, BZAW 133 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1974), 14-16.

Jeremy Hughes, The Secrets of the Times: Myth and History in Biblical Chronology, JSOTSup 66 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 234-35.

Klaus Koch, "Sabbatstruktur der Geschichte: Die Zehn-Wochen-Apokalypse (1 Hen 93:1-10; 91:11-17) und das Ringen um die alttestamentlichen Chronologien im späten Israelitentum," ZAW 95 (1983): 423-24; repr. in Vor der Wende Zeiten: Beiträge zur apokalyptischen Literatur, Gesammelte Aufsätze 3 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1996), 68-69. 

Martin Rösel, Übersetzung als Vollendung der Auslegung: Studien zur Genesis-Septuaginta, BZAW 223 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1994), 129-44.

SBL 2012 Greek Bible Paper Accepted

Last night I received the acceptance notice for the paper I submitted to the Greek Bible section for the SBL meeting this Nov. in Chicago. Here's the abstract.

The Patristic Reception of Zechariah ben Jehoiada

The Old Greek of 2 Chronicles 24:20 speaks of a character named Azariah son of Jodae, whereas the Masoretic Text calls this person Zechariah son of Jehoiada. This alteration of names had a significant impact on the patristic interpretation of Matt. 23:35 // Lk. 11:51, a dominical statement referencing the blood of Abel and Zechariah. While most modern scholars locate Jesus’ Zechariah in 2 Chron. 24:20, this interpretation was not obvious to the Fathers who did not find the name Zechariah in this passage, bur rather Azariah. For instance, Origen knows the character of 2 Chron. 24:20 by his traditional LXX name (Azariah), so that this passage from Chronicles never appears in Origen’s multiple discussions of Matt. 23:35. Instead, Origen relates this Zechariah to the canonical prophet, or alternatively to the father of John the Baptist. However, Josephus does attest the name Zechariah in his retelling of 2 Chron. 24 (A.J. 9.168–71), and this may have been the source for a confused statement by John Chrysostom regarding the Zechariah mentioned by Jesus. Nevertheless, it does not seem that the Fathers were able to confidently link the Zechariah of Matt. 23:35 to the character in 2 Chron. 24, in the manner of modern scholars, until Jerome argued forcefully for this identification, partly at least, it seems, so that it would allow him to display his knowledge of Hebrew, demonstrate its great usefulness for biblical exegesis, and highlight the insufficiency of relying on a Greek translation of scripture.

The Sequence of the Hagiographa in Recent Hebrew Bibles

In a previous post, I surveyed the order of the Hagiographa in early printed Hebrew Bibles, from the editio princeps of the Hagiographa (1486-87) to the Second Rabbinic Bible (1524-25), edited by Jacob ben Chayim. We saw that while the editio princeps of the Hagiographa was a bit of an oddball--because of the strange order of the Five Megilloth: Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Ruth, Esther--the editio princeps of the entire Bible (Soncino, 1488) established a standard order for the Hagiorapha which was carried through almost all printed Bibles (excluding the Complutensian Polyglot, which intentionally followed the Christian [LXX or Vulgate] order) until quite recent times. 


Thus, the first four editions of the Bible (Soncino, 1488; Naples, 1491-93; Brescia, 1494; Pesaro, 1511-17) all printed the Hagiographa in this order, as did the first two Rabbinic Bibles (Venice, 1516-17; Venice, 1524-25). 


Psalms
Proverbs
Job

Song of Songs
Ruth
Lamentations
Qoheleth [Ecclesiastes]
Esther

Daniel
Ezra-Nehemiah
Chronicles


There are three issues with regard to this order that we will explore in this post: (a) the order of the first three books, (b) the order of the Five Megilloth, and (c) the placement of Chronicles. 


Now, the sequence of the Hagiographa I have just listed has become more-or-less standard, just as the Ben Chayim text itself (Second Rabbinic Bible) became standard for a long time. That is, the Ben Chayim text was reprinted many times and became the basis for further editions, including the first two editions of Rudolf Kittel's Biblia Hebraica (1906; 1912). Not only did Kittel adopt the Ben Chayim text as his base text, but he also adopted the order of books from Ben Chayim. This same order of books is still represented in the Jewish Study Bible and Marvin Sweeney's recent critical introduction and theology, Tanak. Thus, this order has become somewhat normative. 


However, the Biblia Hebraica editions no longer follow this exact order for the Hagiographa. When Paul Kahle determined to make the Leningrad Codex B19A--the earliest complete Hebrew Bible now in existence, dating to 1008 or 1009 CE--the basis for the third edition of Biblia Hebraica (1937), he also determined to follow the order of books in this codex, at least, to a point. That is, even though Chronicles is at the beginning of the Ketuvim in the Leningrad Codex, Kahle left it at its by-now traditional place at the end of the Ketuvim, but he altered the order of the first three books and the Five Megilloth to agree with the Leningrad Codex. Thus, the order for BHK-3, as also for the fourth edition, known as BHS (1977), is: 


Psalms
Job
Proverbs

Ruth
Song of Songs
Qoheleth
Lamentations
Esther

Daniel
Ezra-Nehemiah
Chronicles

Again, this exactly reproduces the order for the Leningrad Codex, except for the placement of Chronicles. By the way, this is also the order in which Brevard Childs discussed the books in his Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Fortress, 1979), though he made nothing of it, as far as I can tell. (He did consider it correct to follow the tripartite arrangement of the Hebrew Bible--see his last chapter--but I do not see any place where he says that this particular order for the Hagiographa should be followed.)

The order of the first three books is thus altered in BHK-3/BHS as opposed to the traditional order represented in the first two editions of BHK. I am not sure about the significance of this, or why one order might be preferred to another. It looks to me like the order of BHS would be based on the length of the three books, from longest to shortest. And, this allows for Prov. 31--with its acrostic about the virtuous woman--to sort of introduce Ruth, as long as Ruth is also printed as the first of the Five Megilloth, as it is in BHS. The traditional order of Psalms, Proverbs, Job, I learned once-upon-a-time formed the reverse acronym in Hebrew Emet ('truth')--Iyov (Job), Mishlei (Proverbs), and Tehillim (Psalms). But it's doubtful to me that that is a reason they were put in this order; probably it just developed as a mneumonic after the fact.


As for the order of the Megilloth, the two possibilities do reflect some logic. The traditionally printed order reflects the liturgical order, that is, the order of the festivals to which each of the Megilloth is tied (see here).

Song of Songs--Passover
Ruth--Shavuot
Lamentations--Ninth of Av
Qoheleth--Sukkot
Esther--Purim

The order in the Leningrad Codex and BHS (and the Aleppo Codex) reflects a chronological order according to the events related or the presumed author. 


Ruth--period of the Judges, leading to a genealogy of David
Song of Songs--traditionally attributed to Solomon, in his youth
Qoheleth--traditionally attributed to Solomon, late in his life
Lamentations--traditionally attributed to Jeremiah
Esther--post-exilic period


The last issue concerns the placement of Chronicles. As I mentioned, Kahle apparently decided to leave Chronicles at the end of the Ketuvim, as it had been in all printed Hebrew Bibles since the days of the editio princeps of the Hagiographa, even though in all other respects he followed the order of the Leningrad Codex, which itself placed Chronicles at the head of the Ketuvim. [I have not found anything actually attributing this decision to Kahle, so possibly it was not he who decided this. But, the fact is BHK-3, edited by Kahle, left Chronicles at the end of the Ketuvim, and BHS has followed BHK-3 in this sequence.] 


But, apparently Biblia Hebraica Quinta (BHQ), being published now in fascicles, will completely follow the Leningrad Codex in terms of order, including placing Chronicles (being edited by Zipora Talshir) at the head of the Ketuvim. Now, I'm almost positive I read this somewhere some years ago, but many Google searches and a perusal of the General Introduction to BHQ published along with the Five Megilloth in the first fascicle (numbered fasc. 18, published in 2004) has failed to reveal where I might have come across this. Maybe somebody said it at a conference, I don't know. At any rate, the fact that Chronicles will be at the head of the Ketuvim is shown by the fascicle numbers. You can see at the Wikipedia entry that the Twelve Minor Prophets--which concludes the order of the Prophets--is fasc. 13, and Proverbs is fasc. 17, so Chronicles, Psalms, and Job must come in between these two. Moreover, Ezra-Nehemiah is fasc. 20, and according to the BHS Wikipedia entry, BHQ will be published in 20 installments. So, Ezra-Nehemiah must be at the end of the Ketuvim, not Chronicles.


In a later post, I'll try to do some evaluation of these orders, bringing in some of the arguments by Roger Beckwith in favor of the Talmudic order, which is not represented here.

Will OHB Become Scripture?

It's been a year-and-a-half since I made note of Ron Hendel's response to H.G.M. Williamson's published critique of the Oxford Hebrew Bible project, which Hendel is directing. At the time that Williamson's article came out in Biblica (simultaneously published in print and on-line), it was widely noted on the blogs. I haven't seen similar references to Hendel's response, but that could be because Hendel has still not published it in a journal, apparently. At least, on the website it is still listed as 'forthcoming'. Moreover, the version available on the web seems to be not the final draft, as there are some typos and other errors that I expect would be eliminated in a published form. (One example is 'periscope' for 'pericope' on p. 7, a problem with Word's spell check to which Mark Goodacre has drawn attention before.)

Anyway, I just now read Hendel's response. (Why did it take me so long? I don't know.) I found it to be a pretty well-reasoned answer to Williamson's objections, and pretty persuasive as to the feasibility and desirability of producing such an eclectic edition of the Hebrew Bible. According to Hendel, the disagreement essentially boils down to the alternative that whereas Williamson would prefer the type of information to be contained in OHB to be presented in a scholarly commentary instead, Hendel and his associates regard an eclectic edition to be an appropriate format.

However, what do you think about this statement from Hendel, near the end of his article (p. 15)?

The OHB, as a critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, will present critical texts that never previously existed precisely in this form. It will depart from the textus receptus of synagogue and church, and it will not become scriptural for any religious community.

I wonder if Hendel's belief that the OHB "will not become scriptural for any religious community" is correct. How do texts become scriptural for religious communities?

Is the NRSV scriptural for any religious communities? I would imagine that some Christians, anyway, if not perhaps some entire congregations, or even entire religious communities, regard the NRSV as scripture. I bring it up because the NRSV adds a paragraph from 4QSam(a) before 1Sam 11, and a verse from 11QPs(a) to Psalm 145 to fill out the acrostic. This is the most obvious example of an eclectic translation that uses the Dead Sea Scrolls--that is, the NRSV is not based solely on the MT (i.e., BHS), but takes readings that it judges to be correct from any ancient text, especially the MT, LXX, and DSS. Of course, just about all English translations do this. Our English translations have actually been based on an implicit critical text, just as Hendel (pp. 15-16) cites Tov as saying with regard to critical commentaries.

So, eclectic texts have become scriptural for just about every religious community in the English-speaking world, and this is no doubt true for communities relying on non-English translations, as well. I can well imagine whenever the OHB is published, that some translations will be based on its text, and will become scriptural. The nature of OHB--presenting variant literary editions side-by-side--will complicate the process of producing translations based on it, but I would imagine that such translations would also present the variant literary editions. I don't know that this would prevent such translations from becoming scriptural.

Might such a process of 'scripturalization' for a variant edition (OHB) be comparable to the ancient variant editions that will be published in OHB. That is, Hendel recognizes the ancient variant editions (e.g., of Samuel, or Jeremiah) as texts of the Bible (pp. 14-15), so why wouldn't the OHB also become a text of the Bible?

It'll be interesting to see what kind of effect this has on people's view of the Bible. If we as teachers of the Word to God's people are diligent in understanding the issues and explaining them well, it might result in increased understanding of what the Bible is and where it came from. That would be a welcome development.

The Sequence of the Hagiographa in Printed Hebrew Bibles

This post continues a prominent theme on this blog of late (see here, here, here, here, and here). The information below comes from the following book.

Christian D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible (London: Trinitarian Bible Society, 1897), reprinted with a prolegomenon by Harry M. Orlinsky (New York: Ktav, 1966).

Editio Princeps of the Hagiographa (Naples 1486-87)

The first edition of the Hagiographa (Ginsburg 807-14) followed editions of the Psalter (Bologna?, 1477; Ginsburg 780-94), the Pentateuch (Bologna, 1482; Ginsburg 794-802), and the Prophets (Soncino, 1485-86; Ginsburg 803-7). 


The Hagiographa were printed in three volumes. The sequence of books is as follows (Ginsburg 811). 


vol. 1: Psalms
vol. 2: Proverbs
vol. 3: Job, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Ruth, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles. 

Editio Princeps of the Entire Hebrew Bible (Soncino, 1488)

See Ginsburg 820-31

The sequence of the hagiographa is different in two respects from the editio princeps of the hagiographa (Ginsburg 822). First, the Five Megilloth are extracted from the Hagiographa and placed as a unit immediately after the Pentateuch (cf. Ginsburg 847). Second, three of the Megilloth are rearranged into the order Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes.

Second Edition of the Entire Hebrew Bible (Naples, 1491-93) 

See Ginsburg 847-55

The sequence of the Hagiographa is exactly the same as in the editio princeps of the Bible (Ginsburg 847-48).

Third Edition of the Entire Hebrew Bible (Brescia, 1494) 

See Ginsburg 871-80

The sequence of the Hagiographa is exactly the same as in the first two editions of the Bible (Ginsburg 872; cf. p. 868). 

Fourth Edition of the Entire Hebrew Bible (Pesaro, 1511-17) 

See Ginsburg 895-906


The sequence of the Hagiographa is exactly the same as in the first two editions of the Bible (Ginsburg 897).


Complutensian Polyglot (Alcalá, 1514-17)


See Ginsburg 906-25


This Christian edition of the Old Testament and New Testament, undertaken by Cardinal Ximenes, Archbishop of Toledo, consists of six volumes and is responsible for several significant innovations in the text of the Hebrew Bible. Volumes 5 (New Testament) and 6 (Grammatical and Critical Apparatus) are beyond the purview of this post, as also of Ginsburg's treatment. 


The sequence of the Hebrew Bible is as follows (Ginsburg 908-10). Each volume prints the books in Hebrew, Greek (LXX), and Latin (Vulgate). The first volume also contains Aramaic (Targum Onkelos). The LXX column is supplied with a Latin interlinear translation.


Vol. 1: Pentateuch. 
Vol. 2: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Prayer of Manasseh.
Vol. 3: Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther with deuterocanonical additions, Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus.
Vol. 4: Isaiah, Jeremiah, Lamentations, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel with deuterocanonical additions, Minor Prophets, 1-3 Maccabees. 


The books absent from the Hebrew Bible are given only in the Vulgate and LXX, while 3 Maccabees (absent from the Vulgate) is given only in the LXX version. 


Ginsburg (912) remarks on some of the features of the Hebrew text in this edition. 

This unbounded veneration for the Vulgate naturally influenced the redactors of the Hebrew text. Hence they assimilated it in form to the central Latin Version. They made the folios of the Hebrew text go from left to right; they divided Samuel, Kings, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles respectively into two books, and named the first two books thus divided into four, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 3 Kings and 4 Kings; they inserted the deutero-canoncial Additions into the text; they discarded the Massoretic division of the text into sections and adopted the Christian chapters; they re-arranged the Hebrew order of the books and made them follow the sequence of the Vulgate; they discarded the accents and though they retained the vowel-points, they in many instances altered them into forms which are rightly rejected by grammarians as inadmissible.

First Edition of the Rabbinic Bible (Venice, 1516-17)

See Ginsburg 925-48

This edition, printed by Daniel Bomberg and edited by Felix Pratensis, contains several rabbinic commentaries alongside the Hebrew text and targum. It was issued in four volumes.

Vol. 1: Pentateuch.
Vol. 2: Former Prophets.
Vol. 3: Latter Prophets.
Vol. 4: Hagiographa, according to the order of the first four editions of the Hebrew Bible, with the Megilloth in their proper place among the Hagiographa. Thus, the order is: Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles.

First Edition of the Bible in Quarto (Venice, 1516-17)

See Ginsburg 948-52

This is a cheaper version of the above, reprinting the same text in the same sequence. 

Second Edition of the Bible in Quarto (Venice, 1521) 


See Ginsburg 952-56

This follow-up to the above was apparently designed to make an inexpensive Bible palatable to Jews. The Jewish-Christian editor Felix Pratensis is replaced by Jewish editors, and instead of dedicating the work to the Pope, as the First Rabbinic Bible is (Ginsburg 927), this edition is explicitly for the synagogue (Ginsburg 953). 


The sequence of the Hagiographa is exactly the same as in the first four editions of the Hebrew Bible, complete with the removal of the Five Megilloth from the Hagiographa to a position immediately following the Pentateuch (Ginsburg 953).


Second Edition of the Rabbinic Bible (Venice, 1524-25)
a.k.a the editio princeps of the Ben Chayim text


See Ginsburg 956-74


Ginsburg (956) on the significance of this edition: 

[...] the enthusiastic Massorite [Jacob ben Chayim] persuaded Bomberg in the course of a few years to undertake the publication of the justly celebrated Bible with the Massorah which finally settled the Massoretic text as it is now exhibited in the present recension of the Hebrew Scriptures.

This edition was printed by Daniel Bomberg in four volumes (Ginsburg 958-63).

Vol. 1: Pentateuch.
Vol. 2: Former Prophets.
Vol. 3: Latter Prophets.
Vol. 4: Hagiographa, in the same order as the First Rabbinic Bible.

This is more-or-less where Ginsburg concludes his survey of printed Hebrew Bibles; he does briefly report on one more quarto edition by Bomberg, which he says contains, in his personal copy, marginal notes in the handwriting of Luther (Ginsburg 974-76).

Perhaps in a later post I can bring this discussion up to the time of BHS.

John's View of Heaven

Tonight in my Revelation class at a local church (noted earlier here), we concentrated on the beautiful passage in chapter 4, where John sees the scene of God on his throne in heaven, with 24 elders surrounding the throne, and an emerald rainbow and a sea of glass, and four living creatures--one that looks like a lion, another a calf, another a man, another an eagle--ceaselessly flying around the throne praising the one who sits on it, and the 24 elders falling down before the throne in praise of its occupant.

Two thoughts about this:

1. The plot of the book.

I realized for the first time just as I was reading the passage aloud during the class that the very first verse says that these things I have just described "must take place" (Rev. 4:1). I take that to mean that what we see in ch. 4, and then on into ch. 5, must come true.

What do we see? First, all creatures worshiping the one who sits on the throne. That seems to me to be part of the point of describing the four living creatures as a lion, calf, man, and eagle. Certainly John is drawing on the imagery of Ezek. 1:10, but he does so because it fits his theology so well--God must be praised, and all creatures (not just man) must participate in this praise. This is not an option. It "must take place" (4:1).

The second thing we see--and this takes us into ch. 5--is that when the Lamb is counted worthy to open the book that is in the right hand of him who sits on the throne, "every created thing which is in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them" praised the Lamb (5:13). So, again, all created things praise the Lamb, just as they had praised the one who sits on the throne.

Now, the fact is, all created things currently do not praise the Lamb or the one who sits on the throne, but Rev. 4:1 tells us that this "must take place." I think that is a significant clue to the plot of the book. The mystery of Revelation is not whether all things will praise God--this must take place--but rather the mystery is how God will bring this about. That apparently has something to do with the book in his hand (5:1), but that takes us to another topic, perhaps for another post.

2. Worship

The second thing Rev. 4 brings home to me is the nature of worship. One of Walter Brueggemann's  essays on the Psalms (the reference appears below) gives a list of about 11 descriptions of proper worship as illustrated by the praise psalms. Over the years in my teaching I have especially emphasized two items from Brueggemann's list that I have found especially helpful, and they are both wonderfully illustrated in Rev. 4.

Praise is an act of doxological self-abandonment. When we enter into worship, what we seek, what we desire, what we want to "get out of it" is precisely the abandonment of ourselves, the refusal to focus on our own wants and desires and what we can get out of it, and to focus completely, solely, without reservation, on God. It is a reorientation away from that selfishness that characterizes so much of our lives. We need to imitate those 24 elders.

Praise is a polemical act. When we declare that God is worthy of our worship, we are at the same time making war on all those others that would claim to be worthy of worship. In the context of ancient Israel in which the Psalms were written, the Israelites would mean--Yahweh is worthy of worship, and Baal is not! In the context of Revelation, the Christians would be saying--The one who sits on the throne in heaven is worthy of worship, and Caesar is not! We moderns also (should) think of worship as a polemical act, in which we say--God is worthy of our worship, and _____ is not! It's a good exercise to have the class fill in the blank. Tonight they filled it in with money, power, possessions, career, and maybe some other things. No one said Alabama football.

Walter Brueggemann, “Praise and the Psalms: A Politics of Glad Abandonement,” The Hymn (October 1992); reprinted in The Psalms and the Life of Faith, ed. Patrick D. Miller (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 112–32.

Beckwith on the Order of the Hagiographa

Roger Beckwith's book on the Old Testament canon has held a prominent place in the discussion since it was published in 1985 (The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church, Eerdmans). Nevertheless, one of its odd theses--that Judas Maccabeus is responsible for the canon list found now in b. Baba Bathra 14b--can be difficult to evaluate (other than simply declaring it 'odd') because the arguments supporting it are scattered about on many pages. (Beckwith was rather wordy in this book, resulting in a 500-page tome.)

This post is my attempt to make Beckwith's argument more straightforward, and thus to see whether it has merit. I wont be able to offer much evaluation here; that would make the post even longer than it is. But I don't think I hide what I think about the idea.

Most of the main argumentation appears in Beckwith's ch.4, "The Structure of the Canon," pp. 110-66, with notes on pp. 166-80. It goes more-or-less like this:

1. The tripartite canon (Law, 5 books; Prophets, 8 books; Writings, 11 books = 24 books) was established by the second century BCE (pp. 111-18). Evidence:

(a) Sirach prologue (pp. 110-11), which mentions three times "Law, Prophets, Other Books," or some similar formula.

(b) Luke 24:44 (pp. 111-15), which mentions "Law, Prophets, Psalms." Beckwith spends some time arguing that "Psalms" = Writings, that is, that "Psalms" in Luke 24:44 refers not just to the Psalter but to the 11 books of the Writings as a unit. His argument for this is necessarily based on the idea that when Luke 24:44 refers to the "Prophets", it must mean the 8 books of the Prophets according to the current divisions of the Hebrew Bible. He does not even question this (on which, see Barton), and the same goes for his treatment of Sirach's prologue. His argument that "Psalms" can mean "Writings" goes as follows: (1) it would be odd for Jesus to omit the books of the Writings from his canon in Luke 24:44 since he quotes from Daniel and the like so frequently; (2) the prologue to Sirach does not have a set title for the third section of the canon; (3) Philo uses hymnoi as the title for some books beside the Law and Prophets, and this is probably also the third section of the canon; (4) the tenth-century Arabic writer al-Masudi spoke of the "Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, which are the 24 books"; (5) some passages in rabbinic literature (t. Kelim 5.8; y. Meg. 2.3; Sepher Torah 2.3-4; Sop. 2.4) mention the "Fifths," which might mean the Psalter (divided into five books), which might stand for the entire collection of Writings.

(c) Matthew 23:35 // Luke 11:51 (p. 115), which implies, on Beckwith's interpretation, that Chronicles constituted the last book of the canon, which again might imply that the canon was tripartite.

(d) Philo, De vita contemplativa 25 (pp. 115-18), which mentions the Law, Prophets, and Hymnoi (and other books), and hymnoi means again the entire third section of the canon.

"It is thus a well-attested fact that, by the first century AD, the division of the canon into three groups of books was widespread in the Jewish world, and that it was familiar to Jesus" (p. 118).


2. The distribution of books between the Prophets and Writings was the same as in the modern Jewish canon and in the Talmudic baraita found in b. Baba Bathra 14b (pp. 118-27).

The sources discussed so far do not list the books in the different divisions of the canon, so for that we must rely on Josephus, Jerome, and the Talmudic baraita. Josephus (Against Apion 1.37-43) has a canon of 22 books, divided into 5 books of Law, 13 books of Prophecy, and 4 books of "hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life." On the other hand, Jerome (Prologus Galeatus) and the Talmud both distribute the books more-or-less the same (Jerome attests two ways of distributing books, both very similar to each other, one exactly equivalent to that in the Talmud). Beckwith favors Jerome & the Talmud over Josephus in terms of representing the earliest and best distribution because:

(a) Jesus (Matt. 23:35 // Lk. 11:51) implies that Chronicles concludes the canon, as it does in the Talmud, to which arrangement Jerome nearly attests, while Josephus is way off.

(b) The Sirach Prologue implies that late historical works (e.g., Daniel, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles) are included in the third section of the canon, which is impossible in Josephus' arrangement. You'll have to read Beckwith's discussion for how he draws this inference from Sirach's prologue (p. 123).

(c) Josephus' arrangement can be explained as a modification of the Talmudic arrangement, but not vice versa.

3. Judas Maccabeus divided the canon into its three sections and distributed the books according to the manner of the baraita in Baba Bathra 14b (pp. 152-53).

Beckwith claims that the division of the non-Torah books into two distinct sections--Prophets and Writings--took place exactly in the mid-second century BCE, because while the Sirach prologue attests to its existence, the lack of an exact title for the third section--the prologue simply calls it 'the other books'--means that this third section cannot have long existed (p. 142, 152).

"The exact date of the division into Prophets and other Books was probably about 164 BC" (p. 152)

 For this surprisingly precise dating of the arrangement of the canon, Beckwith cites 2 Maccabees 2:13-15.

(13) The same things are reported in the records and in the memoirs of Nehemiah, and also that he founded a library and collected the books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings. (14) In the same way Judas [the Maccabee] also collected all the books that had been lost on account of the war that had come upon us, and they are in our possession. (15) So if you have need of them, send people to get them for you.

 How can Beckwith possibly see in this report the arrangement of the tripartite canon of scripture?

Judas knew that the prophetic gift had ceased a long time before (1 Macc. 9.27; cp. also 4.46; 14.41), so what is more likely than that, in gathering together the scattered Scriptures, he and his companions the Hasidim classified the now complete collection in the way which from that time became traditional, dividing the miscellaneous non-Mosaic writings into the Prophets and the other Books? (p. 152)

And that is his argument. [Maybe you think I've left out part of it? No, I have not.] Beckwith further speculates that since Judas could not have collected all the scriptural books into a single volume, thus resulting in a fixed arrangement, he "must have done it primarily by compiling a list" (p. 153).

One last stage in the argument: though we now know that Judas Maccabeus divided the canon into three sections and assigned the books to the three sections precisely in accordance with the baraita of Baba Bathra 14b, we have not yet established that the exact sequence of books reported in the baraita derives from the action of Judas. But Beckwith can also prove this. 

4. The internal order of the Prophets and Writings as reported in b. Baba Bathra 14b goes back to Judas Maccabeus (pp. 156-62).

(a)  Beckwith asserts that "Judas's division of the miscellaneous non-Mosaic books"--which has in a few pages gone from a bizarre proposal to a fact of history, apparently--"was a deliberate and rational act," and so the order thus created should show signs of this, as the baraita does, Beckwith thinks (p. 156).

(b) The concluding position of Chronicles, to which Jesus attests (Beckwith thinks; see esp. pp. 211-22), corresponds to the order transmitted by the baraita (p. 156).

Beckwith attempts to illuminate the rationale for the division and sequence of books. He says that each section--Law, Prophets, and Writings--contains two types of books: history and another type. The Torah contains history and law; the Prophets, contain history and prophecy; and the Writings contain history and wisdom. The history books for each section narrate progressively later history. Beckwith then discusses what he perceives to be the problems to this account of things (pp. 158-62), which I do not feel like surveying right now.

But let me just note one of his points. The reason Ruth is in the Writings and not after Judges in the Prophets (as in other arrangements of the books, reflected now in the Christian arrangement of the OT) is because it serves as an introduction to the Psalter, since it ends with a genealogy of David. Also, the reason Chronicles is in the Writings rather than with the other history books in the Prophets (as in the Christian arrangement of the OT) is because it stands "at the end of the canon as a recapitulation of the whole biblical story, from the Creation [Adam] to the return" (p. 158). He goes on to say:

It follows that the presence of Ruth and Chronicles in the Hagiographa cannot be isolated from the order in which they stand in the Hagiographa, and that the same hand which divided the Hagiographa from the Prophets must also have determined the internal order of the two sections. It further follows that the hand responsible must have been later in date than the Chronicler, who apparently intended his work to precede Ezra-Nehemiah, not to follow it, while of course being earlier than the grandson of Ben Sira, who refers to the existence of the three sections of the canon in his prologue to Ecclesiasticus. (pp. 158-59)

Strangely, some scholars would disagree with Beckwith by saying that he dates all of this too late, and instead it was the Chronicler himself, in the Persian era, who put the finishing touches on the canon (Julius Steinberg, his teacher Hendrik Koorevaar). Others (e.g. Georg Steins) would also attribute this action to the Chronicler, but would date him to the Maccabean date in line with Beckwith's timetable. More on them some other time.

Those are the fundamental points of Beckwith's argument that the baraita of b. Baba Bathra actually goes back to the second century BCE, nay, even to 164 BCE and the action by Judas Maccabeus. His next chapter--ch. 5, "The Order of the Canonical Books"--is mostly taken up with arguing against other ancient orders, such as reported in patristic lists and alternative Jewish orders. I might have more to say about this chapter some other time.