Channels, Spring 2019

Page 4 Shields • Chronicles The composition of the Hebrew Bible was both intentional and organic. It would seem natural then, that a single version of the final form would arise. Unfortunately, there are witnesses to multiple orders of the canon, and many argue that this denies the conclusion that the Hebrew Bible was shaped intentionally. In the same way, the many witnesses to different orders complicate an argument for the existence of a tripartite canon. John Sailhamer is helpful in this discussion. He examines the external witnesses alongside the internal evidence within the text to recognize which order would best fit the intentions of the biblical authors. 21 Sailhamer rightly identifies that the different orders are the result of theological viewpoints held by faith communities as they interacted with the text. “Canonical books took on varying compositional shapes that reflected theological viewpoints. Moreover, once established within a specific community OT texts began to take on essential characteristics of those communities in a way that stopped short of actual new composition. The result was the production of the Hebrew Tanak: The Law, the Prophets and the Writings.” 22 There are differences among the witnesses, and without exploring the internal textual evidence, one could argue that the difference could be simply attributed to reception history. 23 The shape of the Hebrew Bible is centered around two sets of seams: Deuteronomy 34 and Joshua 1, as well as Malachi 4 and Psalm 1. 24 These internal seams within the canon and the external witness to the shape of the Tanak as a tripartite work together, are a compelling explanation for the final form of the Hebrew Bible. The Shape of the Writings Within the Hebrew Bible, the Writings (the last section of the tripartite canon) has been presented in many different orders among faith communities. 25 Witnesses to multiple orders come from Jewish, Greek, Latin, and Syriac traditions. 26 Steinberg and Stone correctly point out that all of the these orders needs to extend beyond the theological beliefs of these faith communities. There is internal evidence that the authors of the biblical books composed the shape and order of the Hebrew Bible intentionally. 21 John H. Sailhamer. “Biblical Theology and the Composition of the Hebrew Bible”, in Biblical theology: retrospect and prospect , ed. Scott J. Hafemann. (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press; Leicester, England: Apollos, 2002), 25-37. 22 Ibid., 31. 23 This proves that external evidence alone cannot determine the intended final form of the Hebrew Bible. Without examining the text in the Hebrew Bible, it would be impossible to prove that the biblical authors intended a specific ordering of the books. This paper disagrees with the conclusion made by Gregory Goswell about the placement of Chronicles. “The different canonical placements reflect post-authorial evaluations of the book and its contents. Each position has its rationale and potentially contributes to the understanding of readers. There is nothing to indicate that any one position is the earliest or best. In particular, there is no proof that the Chronicler composed his work to sum up and conclude the OT canon.” Gregory Goswell. “Putting the Book of Chronicles in its Place." ( Journal Of The Evangelical Theological Society 60, no. 2, 2017), 283. 24 John H. Sailhamer, Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1995), pp.239-352. Deuteronomy 34 and Joshua1 connect the Law and the Prophets together. Deuteronomy anticipates the arrival of the “Prophet like Moses” and Joshua 1 introduces the wise man that meditates on the Scripture day and night. Malachi 4 and Psalm 1 connect the Prophets and the Writings together. Malachi 4 anticipates the coming of the Prophet Elijah and Psalm 1 quotes Joshua 1, again highlighting the wise man that meditates upon Scripture day and night. 25 Steinberg and Stone, “The Historical Formation of the Writings in Antiquity”, 5. “In the case of the Writings of the Jewish TaNaK, Bechwith and Brandt present about 30 orders without a grouped Megillot and about 90 orders that have the Megillot grouped.” 26 Ibid.