Channels, Spring 2019

Page 12 Shields • Chronicles Goswell also argues that Chronicles would not change the theological message of the Hebrew Bible when compared to the three other witnesses to the end of the canon. 66 The four different traditions conclude the Hebrew Bible with either Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Daniel, or Malachi, all of which lead to an “eschatological bridge to the NT.” 67 For those who push back on the thesis of this paper, most would align with what Gallagher and Goswell say. The paratext affects the meaning of each book within the collection of the Hebrew Bible. The question then is this: If the meaning of the book is determined or shaped by its placement within the collection, are there multiple meanings of these books due to the fact that there are multiple orders? It appears that both Goswell and Gallagher take more of a postmodern approach to the question of order within the Hebrew Bible. They identify that there could be theological significance to the placement of the books within the collection, but ultimately, the authors did not place them intentionally. The decision is left to the reader. This conclusion is problematic and does not take into consideration the intended meaning of the author, or their understanding of the canon as a whole. An Argument for Meant Contextuality Contextuality, as shown above, is a feature of the Hebrew Bible. If contextuality contributes to the theological message of the collection, it would follow that the order of the books matter. Certain texts were left out of the canon of the Hebrew Bible, and the books that were included were composed and redacted to fit within the whole. In this sense, it only follows that the Hebrew Bible contains “meant” contextuality. Hendrik Koorevaar argues that the paratext and the text must both be taken together when reading and interpreting the Scripture. 68 He says that the “Scripture embraces features such as the order of the biblical books, the names assigned to different books, and the differing schemes of textual division within these books.” 69 Because these elements are tied to the actual text, they influence the reader in his or her interpretation of the text. “The text and paratext are for all practical purposes inseparable and have an important interrelationship that influences the reading processes.” 70 He goes on to explain that there are some texts within the Hebrew Bible that appear to have been added later to form the collection into a single book (the work of an author/composer). For Koorevaar, the very existence of an author/composer who compiles and redacts the books presupposes a “right order”. The very act of this process shows the intention of setting the correct order for the books. This would mean that there is such a thing as an original or authoritative order in the Hebrew canon. After all, a number of added texts not only belong to the specific book, but have an added value that is only apparent at one particular place in the canon and not another. When these books are moved to another position in the order, this value is lost. … Because of (these added texts), the 66 Gregory Goswell. "Having the last say: the end of the OT." Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 58, (2015), 15-30. When looking at the other possible options for the ending of the Hebrew Bible (Ezra-Nehemiah), Goswell does not see any significant changes in the theological thrust of the whole collection. This paper argues that the overall message of hope is replaced with Israel’s failure if Ezra- Nehemiah were to end the Hebrew Bible in place of Chronicles. 67 Ibid. 68 Hendrik J. Koorevaar, “The Torah Model as Original Macrostructure of the Hebrew Canon: A Critical Evaluation”, ZAW 122 (2010): 64-80 69 Ibid, 64. 70 Ibid, 64.