Channels, Spring 2019

Channels • 2019 • Volume 3 • Number 2 Page 13 sequential order and subdivisions belong to the text of the canon itself and are of primary importance.” 71 Koorevaar goes on to argue that there may be value in seeking the theological implications of different orders that are found among witnesses, but he draws attention to the fact that these different orders “belong to the interpretative history of the canon, but not to the canon itself.” 72 He goes on to argue that various orders follow a basic structure. Koorevaar disagrees with the “Torah model”—the model that is supported in this study—but does find evidence to conclude that the Hebrew Bible must have an intentional order within its collection of books. The very nature of paratextual features and their effect on interpretation and meaning almost require it. It has been conceded above that the “original” order is almost impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, but the order is important. It benefits the reader to find the best possible explanation for the final form of the Hebrew Bible. 73 Kooevaar points out that theological meaning lies behind the composition of the whole collection. To take a book outside its place within in the canon is synonymous with taking any text out of its original context, which changes its theological interpretation. Placing Chronicles at the end of the collection is intentional and has theological meaning in light of the biblical material that precedes it. If it is true that a biblical reader is able to examine the potential meaning of a book by accepting multiple orders for the Hebrew Bible, then the final form of the Hebrew Bible and its overall theological message becomes irrelevant. The message is now being interpreted by a foreign concept that is being thrust upon the text by the reader. This denies the Bible the right to determine its own context and structure by which the reader encounters the Bible’s theology. Conclusion This study has sought to present both the external and internal evidence of a “right” order to the Hebrew Bible, specifically by focusing on Chronicles, its place in the Writings, and its role as the conclusion to the Hebrew Scriptures. Below is a brief summary of the main points within this study. The Composition of the Hebrew Bible was a process that included each author’s recognition of a select group of texts with a distinct order. They understood the book’s place amongst the other books and their material was further redacted to fit together as a compositional unit. This presentation of composition presupposes a conceptual canon which eventually grew into the final tripartite form of the Hebrew Bible. The final text exists in a composed and theologically significant order. Two witnesses to the shape of the Writings (The Leningrad Codex and Baba Batra) provide two different orders of the Writings. L.C. places Chronicles at the beginning and B.B. places the book at the end, which demonstrate a set of theological decisions made by a faith community. These witnesses show that among faith communities, the order mattered because of its theological significance. 71 Ibid, 66. 72 Ibid, 66. 73 For some, the idea of an authoritative or “right order” interferes with the doctrine of Scripture. To say that the order is authoritative and meant by the author/composer of the Tanak would mean that the order is inspired. A full argument is not given in this essay. It is fair to say that the doctrine of Scripture as Scripture itself testifies does not seem to limit the inspiration of the text to the “original” manuscripts.