BREVARD SCHILDS

Introduction
to the
Old Testament
as Scripture
 BREVARD S. CHILDS

INTRODUCTION TO THE
OLD TESTAMENT
AS SCRIPTURE

FORTRESS PRESS

PHILADELPHIA
 First American Edition by Fortress Press 1979

COPYRIGHT © 1979 by Brevard S. Childs

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored
in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, elec-
tronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the
prior permission of the publisher.

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Childs, Brevard S
Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture.
Includes bibliographies.
1. Bible 0.T.—lntroductions. l. Title.
BSll40.2.C48 221.6 78-14665
ISBN 0-8006-0532-2

7400E79 Printed in the United States of America 1-S32

 To Ann
whose profound faith
and exuberant love of life
has brought constant joy
and surprise
 CONTENTS

Preface I5
Abbreviations 19

PART ONE
THE OLD TESTAMENT:
INTRODUCTION

I THE DISCIPLINE OF OLD TESTAMENT

INTRODUCTION ‘Z7
I The History of the Discipline 30
-i A Critique of the Historical Critical Introduction 39
Ii Old Testament Introduction and the Canon 4-l

I TH l-I PROBLEM OF THE CANON 46

I Terminology 49
') The Traditional View of the Canon and its Demise 5l
:4 The Nineteenth-century Historical Consensus and its
Erosion 52
-t The Search for a New Consensus 54
S .-\ New Attempt at Understanding the Canon 57
ti The Relation between the Literary and
(Ianonical Histories 60
7 .-\ Sketch of the Development of the Hebrew Canon 62
ll Su|nm;tr_y and Implications 67

( \f\'()l\' .-\l\'l) CRITICISNI 69

I l'Ixt-qt-sis in a (Tanonical Context 72
-1 The (I;mmtic;1l Approach Contrasted with Others 74
‘I The l"‘iu;1l Form 0|‘ the Text and its Prehistory 75
-I The (I;utu|tit‘;il Pr't>t‘t'ss and the Shaping of
St'.ri}>Iut't' 77
 CONTENTS

5 Scripture and Tradition 80

6 Canon and Interpretation 82

IV TEXT AND CANON 84

I The Nature ol‘ the Problem 88
‘Z History of the Discipline 89
3 The Goals of Old Testament Textual Criticism 9‘)
4 Canon and Text 94
5 Goal and Method olia Canonical Approach to
Text Criticism 96
6 Masoretic Text and Canonical Text I00
7 The Pre-stabilization Period in Old Testament
Textual History lOl
8 The Text-critical Task I03

PART TW O
TH E PENTATEUCH
V
lI\'TROI)UCTIO\‘ TO THE PENTATEUCH I09
I The History of _\-Ioclern Critical Research ll‘)
2 The Present State of Critical Debate on the
Pentateuch ll9
3 The Canonical Shape of the Pentatcuch I27

VI GENESIS I36
I Historical Critical Problems I4-O
Q The Canonical Shape of Genesis I4-5
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications I57

VII EXODUS 61
I Historical Critical Problems 64
2 The Canonical Shape of Exodus 70
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 76

VIII LEVITICUS 80
I Historical Critical Problems 82
‘Z The Canonical Shape of Leviticus 84
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 87

IX NUMBERS Ell)
I Historical (lriticatl Pmliletns 92
 CONTENTS 9

2 The Canonical Shape of Numbers I94

3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications I99

DEUTERONOl\/IY 202
I Historical Critical Problems 204
2 The Canonical Shape of Deuteronomy 2ll
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 224

PART THREE
THE FORMER PROPHE'l‘S
XI I.\lTRODUCTIO.\’ TO THE FORMER
PROPHETS 229
I Introduction to the Historical Critical Problems 230
2 The Canonical Shape oithe Former Prophets 232
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 236

X |l_KBHUA 239
l Historical Critical Problems 241
2 The Canonical Shape ofjoshua 244
T-I Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 0 =5->
-4;,-.

xtn _|t1not~;s 254

I Historical Critical Problems 256
2 The (Ianonical Shape ofjudges 258
3 'l'lu-ological and Hermeneutical Implications 26]

\I\' S.\.\lUEI. 263

I llistoricetl (I|'itit*2tl Problems 266
‘.3 Tltc ('.anonical Shape oI‘San1uel 271
'i Tltt-olo_qit‘;tl nntl l'Ic|'mcnctttit‘2tl Implications 278

\\' l\'l\(i.'\' 281

I IIislu|‘it';tl (It'itit*;tl l’toI)lctn5 285
'.’ Tlic (I;ttumit':1I Slittpc oI' lxittos 287
"I Tlic l'|oliIt-in nl'(Ilt|"o|tology itt the Books of
lxittgs 294
-I IIt‘llllt'llt'llIl('.lI ltttplttttltottsol(-;tno1t|t'nl
.‘~ill.||ii|tu 3 (Ill
 CONTENTS

PART FOU R
THE LATTER PROPHETS
XVI INTRODUCTION TO THE LATTER
PROPHETS

XVII ISAIAH
I The Historical Approach to the Book of Isaiah
2 The Canonical Shape of the Book of Isaiah
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications

XVIII JEREMIAH
l Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape ofjeremiah
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications

XIX EZEKIEL
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of Ezekiel
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications

THE BOOK OF THE TWELVE

XX HOSEA
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of Hosea
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications

XXI JOEL
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of_]oeI
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications

XXII AMOS
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of Amos
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications

XXIII OBADIAH
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of Obadiah
3 'l'heoIoigit';iI aiitl Heriiiciiciilical Implications
 CONTENTS

XXIV JONAH
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape ofjonah
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications

XXV MICAH
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of Micah
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications

XXVI NAHUM
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of Nahum
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications

XX\'II HABAKKUK
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of Habakkuk
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications

\X\'lll ZEPHANIAH
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of Zephaniah
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications

XXIX HAGGAI
I Historical Critical Problems
2 The Canonical Shape of Haggai
‘I 'l'lieological and Hermeneutical Implications

XXX /.I'l(IHARlAH
I Historical Ci'itiCal Problems
2 The (laiioiiical Shape of Zechariah
‘I 'l'Iit-ological and Hermeneutical Implications

XXXI Y\I.'\I..-\(Il-II
I llistorieal (Iritical Problems
1.’ The (laiioiiical Shape of Malachi
‘I 'l'lit-oloqical and Hci-meiieutical Implications
I2 CONTENTS

PART FIVE
THE WRITINGS
XXXII INTRODUCTION TO THE WRITINGS 50 I

XXXIII THE PSALMS 504

I The Impact of the Critical Approach on the
Psalter 508
2 The Canonical Shape of the Psalter 5I I
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 522

XXXIV JOB 526

I The Present Impasse in the Study ofjob 528
2 The Canonical Shape of the Book ofjob 533
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 543

XXXV PROVERBS 545

I Historical Critical Problems 547
2 The Canonical Shape of Proverbs 551
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 557

XXXVI RUTH 560

I Historical Critical Problems 561
2 The Canonical Shape of the Book of Ruth 564
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 567

XXXVII SONG OF SONGS 569

I Historical Critical Problems 57l
2 The Canonical Shape of the Song of Songs 573
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 578

XXXVIII ECCLESIASTES 580

I Historical Critical Problems 58 I
2 The Canonical Shape of Ecclesiastes 583
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 588

XXXIX LAMENTATIONS 590

I Historical Critical Problems 59]
2 The Canonical Shape of Lamentations 593
3 Theological ziiitl Hcrniciicutical Implications 596
 CONTENTS I3

XI. ESTHER 598

I Historical Critical Problems 599
2 The Canonical Shape of the Book of Esther 603
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 606

Xl.I DANIEL 608

I Historical Critical Problems 6l I
2 The Canonical Shape of the Book of Daniel 6l3
Ii Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 62 I

XI.ll EZRA AND NEHEMIAH 624

I Historical Critical Problems 626
2 The Canonical Shape of Ezra-Nehemiah 630
3 Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 637

\I.llI (IHRONICLES 639

I Historical Critical Problems 64 I
J The Canonical Shape of Chronicles 643
fl Theological and Hermeneutical Implications 654

PART six
CONCLUSION
\I.l\' 'I'IlI'l HEBREW SCRIPTURES AND THE
(IIlRlSTIAl\l BIBLE 659

/nrlr 1 t'_I/I /Ittl/2OT.F 672

 PREFACE

I'\-vcnty-five years ago, when I returned home from four years of

Ql'it(IUflIC study in Europe, the area within the field of Old Testa-
IIlt‘IlI which held the least attraction for me was Introduction. I
sit|)[_)0S€Cl that most of the major problems had already been re-
\til\'(‘Cl by the giants of the past. Even allowing for the inevitable
process of refinement and modification, could one really expect
.i|i§'lI1Iflg new in this area? I was content to leave the drudgery of
tt riiiiig an Introduction to someone else with more Sitqfleisch.
Two decades of teaching have brought many changes in my
|it‘l's'|)t‘CliVC. Having experienced the demise of the Biblical Theo-
Itii_'_\' movement in America, the dissolution of the broad European
|ttllSt‘lISl1S in which I was trained, and a widespread confusion
|t'i_'_;lI'(Ill1g theological reflection in general, I began to realize that
tln-re was something fundamentally wrong with the foundations of
IIlt' liihlical discipline. It was not a question of improving on a
‘~HIIl'('t‘ analysis, of discovering some unrecognized new genre, or of
III ingiiig a redactional layer into sharper focus. Rather, the crucial
l~.\lIt' itirned on one’s whole concept of the study ofthe Bible itself. I
.oo now convinced that the relation between the historical critical
~.itt<l3 ol‘ the Bible and its theological use as religious literature
\\llIlll| it community oi faith and practice needs to be completely
it-ihoiiglit. Minor adjustments are not only inadequate, but also
iti|lt't';tI the extent of the dry rot.
II is also clear to me that the issues at stake cannot be accurately
tlt-st l‘II)t'(l with the traditional categories of‘liberal’ and ‘conserva-
iiu-'. My tlissatisfaction has been just as strong with the approach
on the ‘Ielt’ ol' Wcllhauscn, Gunkel, and Eissfeldt, as it has been
\\lIII lllill on the ‘right’ oI'Hengstenberg, Vigouroux, and Cassuto.
Not IliI\'t‘ the cotiiitless iiierliitting positions of Delitzsch, Lagrange,
Ix .tnliii;iiiii, l‘Iltt_'[lIt‘Il. ziiirl Alliiiglit rcaclicd to the heart oi the prob-
I6 PREFACE
lem. The basic hcrmeneutical assuniptioiis are shared by both left
and right within the Tull spectrum oi‘ biblical scholarship. To
determine the degree of a narrativc‘s historicity, whether slightly
more or less, or to [ix the age oI'a composition as somewhat older or
younger, makes little difierencc in one’s total understanding ofthe
literature. Both lcI't and right work within the parameters estab-
lished For the discipline by the beginning olithe nineteenth century.
Is it possible to break out oI'this sterile impasse and to cntcr into a
post-critical cra?
This Introdtictioii attempts to oller a dillercnt model Iior the
discipline Irom that currently represented. It seeks to describe the
form and Function ofthc Hebrew Bible in its role as sacred scripture
for Israel. It argues the case that the biblical literature has not been
correctly understood or interpreted because its role as religious
literature has not been correctly assessed.
The approach which is being proposed is not to be confused with
liomiletics, btit is descriptive in iiattirc. It is not confessional in the
sense of consciously assuming tenets oli Christian theology, but
rather it seeks to describe as objectively as possible the canonical
literature oli ancient Israel which is the heritage oli both _]ew and
Christian. II at times the description becomes theological in its
terminology, it is because the literature itself requires it. The lire-
qticiit rcfereiice to the term ‘canonical’ is not to suggest that a new
cxegetical technique is being developed. Rather, the term denotes a
context Iroin which the literature is being understood. The subject
matter oli the Introduction is the received and authoritative writ-
ings olaiicieiit Israel which constitute a canon. This analysis is an
attempt to hear the biblical text in the terms compatible with the
collection and transmission of the literature as scripture.
I am acutely aware of the dangers inherent in any proposal
which tries to challenge the critical methodologies which have been
carefully developed over thc last two hundred years. The biblical
lield has grown weary oi‘hastily-constructed theories which advo-
cate change ofdirection, and which in most cases have done more
harm than good. Even the serious endeavour to reverse the direc-
tion ofbiblical scholarship which cincrged in the twenties and thir-
ties of this century in the aI'termatli olithe First \\'orld War, and is
usually associated \-vith the nainc of liarl Barth, must he jtitlgctl
unsuccessliul in terms of any lasting inipact on the study oI' the
Bible. For this rcztsoii I ll;t\'t‘ Ii-It the i'i-sptinsiliilitt ol'|ilat'iiit; IlI\.
 PREFACE l7
t lltl lestament analysis lirmly within the context ol' the present
.. |tnl.tI'l}' debate, lest it be too lightly dismissed as ignorant or pious
uli|i~.y|icrasy.
Ir would he arrogant and completely untrue to suggest that all
lltr work ofgenerations olicritical scholarship has produced little ol
t .|lm~_ The depth to which my own understanding of the ()|d Tes-
t.||i|t*t|I has been formed by those who preceded me is everywhere
cxulvnl. l am much indebted to my own teachers ol‘ Old Testa-
1:i|'t|l. ll. Gehman, \'\-'. \\'e\'ers, W. Eichrodt, W. Bautngart-
l|I'I_ and G. von Rad, as well as numerous colleagues in .-'\merica.
l‘il |t.|ln. Europe and Israel lirom whom I have learned. .\icverthe-
ll'\\. the deep-seated confusion within the discipline remains. and it
lt.|\ olitt-ii rendered meaningless important observations, gained
IlHIHlQh yearstifreseareh, because oltlurinahuhty to esudihsh a
|t1tr|lt‘I' t'tinlt‘xl from which to read the literature.
l- iuztlly. l would like to express my appreciation for a lellowship
Ii--in Il|t' National l:1nclowme-nt of the Humanities which enabled
nu" In t'n1't1])l(‘l(‘ my research at Cambridge University. Certain
. l1.tiIlI‘l'.\ til‘ the hook were first ollered at Union Theological Semi-
t|.|1\. Rit'lnnond as the 5prunt Lectures oli 1972. l am grateful for
Tlu \\.||n1 hospitality which l experienced on that occasion. l also
"H =- .1 tll‘l)l oligratitude to my lriend, Gerald T. Sheppard, lor much
-.l||1|lll.l|lt|ll.. insight, and encouragement. The hook is dedicated to
|||' \\ ilt-_ .\nn, \\-'l1OS(' enormous contrihution at every stage oli the
. |1|='t|1I ise t';mIlut be adequately measured.
 ABBREVIATIONS

.\l§ The Anchor Bible, New York

lt (ll Acta Orierztalia, Copenhagen
.t/0 Archivflir Orientforschung, Berlin
1,/xx. American journal of Semitic Languages, Chicago
.-t_/'1' American journal of Theology, Chicago
.\nllil) Analecta Biblica, Rome
.\\\'.-\(') Avhandlingar utgitt av Det Norske Vidensl<aps-
Akademi i Oslo
lit): Archiv Orientalni, Prague
.lll'll' Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft, Leipzig
.t.\'l'I Annual ofthe Swedish Theological Institute in jerusalem,
Leiden
\ l l) Das Alte Testament Deutsch, Gottingen
llhlt’ Anglican Theological Review, Evanston
H.l Biblical Archaeologist, New Haven, Missoula
H l\'()l\' Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, New
Haven
It \ I" Botschaft des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart
llllll Bonner biblische Beitrage, Bonn
llti Biblical Commentary, eds. C. F. Keil, F. Delitzsch,
Edinburgh
HI» I l. Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum
Lovaniensium, Paris, Gembloux
Ht ml-'. Beitriige zur Geschichte der biblischen Exegese,
Tiiliingen
HI/H Bihlisch-historisches Handwcirterbuch, eds. B. Reicke, L.
Rust, (iiiltitigeii |!lti2—ti6
llll I" lieitriige zur hislorischen Theologie, Tiibingen
llthl llihlica, Route
nllllkrt llihliml lt’r.\r(m'h_ (lhicatgo
20 ABBREVIATIONS

BiLe Bibel und Leben, Dusseldorf

B_]RL Bulletin of the john Rylands Libragi, Manchester
BK Biblischer Kommentar, Neukirchen-Vluyn
BO uT De Boeken van het Oude Testament, Roermond en
Masseik
BSt Biblische Studien, Neukirchen-Vluyn
BTB Biblical Theology Bulletin, Rome
BWA(N)T Beitriige zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen)
Testament, Leipzig, Stuttgart
BZ Biblische Zeitschrift, F reiburg, Paderborn
BZAW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche l-1-"issens-
chaft, Giessen, Berlin
BZ NW Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissens-
chaft, Giessen, Berlin
CAH Cambridge Ancient‘!-Iistory, 1923—39; 3l97OlT.
Car pzov J. G. Carpzov, Introductio ad libros canonicos bibliorum
Veteris Testamenti omnes, Leipzig 172]
CAT Commentaire de l’Ancien Testament, Neuchatel
CB Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Cam-
bridge
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Washington
CeB Century Bible, London
CNEB Cambridge Commentary on the New English Bible
COuT Commentar op het Oude Testament, Kampen
CSS Cursus Scripturae Sacrae, Paris
CTM Concordia Theological tldonthly, St Louis
DA CL Dictionnaire d’arche"ologie chrétienne et de liturgie, Paris,
1907-53
Darling James Darling, Cjiclopaedia Bibliographia, London
1854
DB A Dictionary of the Bible, ed. Hastings, Edinburgh
and New York I900-4
DBS Dictionnaire de la Bible, Supplément, Paris 1928 ff.
DS Dictionnaire de spiritualité, Paris l932fY.
Dtr. Deuteronomistic
DThC Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, Paris l899- I972
BB Engvclo/media Biblica (Hebrew),_]erusalem l950ff.
EB Etudes bibliques, Paris
EH Exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament,
Miinster
E1
ET
Encyclo/raedia _/udaica , _]erusale1n I97 l -‘Z
lflnglislt translation
 ABBREVIATIONS 21
l'.' Tl. Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, Louvain
liv Qu Evangelical Quarterly, London, Exeter
liv Th Evangelische Theologie, Munich
1- v v English versions
l". X B The Expositor’s Bible, London and New York
l'.'.t'p T Expository Times, Edinburgh
I" RLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten
und Neuen Testaments, Gottingen
is Festschrift
(.'.\'/l T Gesammelte Schriften des Alten Testaments
ll."\T Handbuch zum Alten Testament, Tiibingen
llerm Hermeneia, Philadelphia
IIKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament, Gbttingen
IIS Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments, ed. Fold-
mann, Bonn
I ISA T Die Heilige Schrift des Alten Testaments, ed. A. Bertholet,
2 vols., Tiibingen 41922-‘Z3
||S.\I Harvard Semitic Monographs, Cambridge, Mass,
Missoula
HTR Harvard Theological Review, Cambridge, Mass.
Ill '(.'A Hebrew Union College Annual, Cincinnati
Ht The Inter/;reter’s Bible, I2 vols., Nashville l95l—57
l(I(I The International Critical Commentary, Edinburgh
and New York
l/ill The Interpreter’s Dictionary Qfthe Bible, Nashville 1962
1/arson! The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, Supplementary
Volume, Nashville l976
Hi] Israel Exploration journal, Jerusalem
lntrr/1 Interpretation, Richmond, Va.
/. l .-l R journal of the American Academy of Religion, Boston
/. l .\'l*.' journal of Ancient Near Eastern Studies of Columbia Uni-
versity, New York
/ . I 0.8‘ journal of the American Oriental Society, New Haven
I Ii La Bible de Jerusalem, Paris
/ttl. journal of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia, Missoula
/r ;.s' journal of Cuneiform Studies, New Haven
/I-I jewish Encylopaedia, New York l90l—O6
//is /ournal o/'_]eteish Studies, London
/ \'t-IS /ournal o/i.Ver1r liastern Studies, Chicago
/l’t).\' /ournal o/il’rtlestine Oriental Society, Jerusalem
I f. 1 It’ /rt't"l,tlt Quarterly lt’t-t'im=, London, Philadelphia
/la’ /rmrnrtl of llrli_t_'irm, (Il1it‘;l_g"o
 22 ABBREVIATIONS

_/s07" journalfor the Study of the Old Testament, Sheflield

jSS journal of Semitic Studies, Manchester
jTS journal of Theological Studies, Oxford
jud judaica, Zurich
KAT Kommentar zum Alten Testament, Leipzig, Gt'iters-
loh
KeH Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten
Testament, Leipzig
KHC Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament,
Tiibingen
KS(AT) Kleine Schriften (des Alten Testaments)
KuD Kerygma und Dogma, Gbttingen
KV Korte Verklaring der Heilige Schrift, Kampen
LBC The Layman’s Bible Commentary, Richmond
LCHS A Commentary on the Holy Scripture, ed. P.
Lange, Edinburgh and New York
Lxx Septuagint
MGWj Monatschrift‘ fiir Geschichte und Wissenschaft des juden-
tums, Breslau
MPG J.-P. Migne, Patrologia, Series Graeca, Paris
MPL J.-P. Migne, Patrologia, Series Latina, Paris
MT Masoretic Text
NCeB New Century Bible, London
NEB New English Bible, Oxford and Cambridge 1970
NedThT Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift, Wageningen
NF Neue Folge
NICOT The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament, Grand Rapids
NKZ Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift, Erlangen, Leipzig
NS New series
NTS New Testament Studies, Cambridge
OLZ Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, Berlin
OTL Old Testament Library, London and Philadelphia
OTS Oudtestamentische Studien, Leiden
Ou TWP Die Ou Testamentiese Werkgemeenskap in Suid-Afrilta,
Pretoria
PAAjR Proceedings of the American Academy for jewish Research,
Philadelphia
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly, London
PjB Paliistinajahrbuch, Berlin
POuT De Prediking van het Oude Testament, Nijkerk
PTR Princeton Theological Review. Princeton
 ABBREVIATIONS 23
lt' .-l C Reallexikonfiir Anti/re und Christentum, Stuttgart l950fT.
RB Revue biblique, Paris
lt’ li Realencyklopiidie fur protestantische Theologie und Kirche,
Leipzig 3l896fI.
R 1-;/ Revue des études juives, Paris
It 1-Js Revue des Etudes sémitiques, Paris
It (.'(; Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Tiibingen
21927-31; 31957-65
lt'llE Revue d ’histoire ecclésiastique, Louvain
lt’llPhR Revue d’histoire et de philosophic religieuses, Strasbourg
RHR Revue de l ’histoire des religions, Paris
HQ Revue de Qumran, Paris
lt’.\'R Recherches de science religieuse, Paris
RSV Revised Standard Version of the Bible, London and
New York 1952
It '1'/iPh Revue de théologie et de philosophie, Lausanne
\'.-I '1‘ Die Schrwen des Alten Testaments, 3 vols., Gbttingen
l920—25
SH La Sainte Bible, eds. L. Pirot and A. Clamer, Paris
Slll. Society of Biblical Literature, Philadelphia
Sll'l' Studies in Biblical Theology, London and Nashville
S(I Sources chrétiennes, Paris
his lit‘ Sciences ecclésiastiques, Montreal
\'l'.'.'l Svensk Exegetisk Flrsbok, Lund
\/'l' Scottish journal of Theology, Edinburgh, Cambridge
\“ \' l '.'l O Sltrifter utgitt av Det Norshe Videnshaps-Ahademi i Oslo
fit Ilii Sources bibliques, Paris
§tIlIll The Soncino Books of the Bible, Bournemouth -
ht.\.\'l' Studien zum Alten und Neuen Testament,’ Munich
\'t'l'h Studia Theologica, Lund, Aarhus
\'l "1' Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Leiden
\Z Kurzgqfasster Kommentar, eds. H. L. Strack and O.
Zockler, 9 vols., Ncirdlingen, Munich 1888-94
llt Torch Bible Commentary, London
H1,\"I‘ Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ET, Grand
Rapids 1954-1976
lltll Theologische Biicherei, Munich
ll|l'| ll Theologische Existenz heute, Miinich
lhQ Theologische Quartalschrift, Tiibingen, Stuttgart
l'hR Theologzsche Rundschau, Tiibingen
lhlt’r':= '1 heolo_gzsche Revue, Miinster
l'h.\'t 'l'hrologi(al Studies. \’Vn0(lS10ck, Md.
24 ABBREVIATIONS

Ttsuo Theologische Studien und Kritiken, Hamburg, Leipzig,

Berlin
rzz Theologische Literaturzeitung, Leipzig
TOTC Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, London
TU Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
altchristlichen Literatur, Berlin
TI/I/NT Theologisches W'o'rterbuch zum Neuen Testament, ed. G.
Kittel, Stuttgart l932II.
TZ Theologische Zeitschrift, Basel
or Ugaritforschungen, Munster
USQR Union Seminary Quarterly Review, New York
t/1-" Verkiindigung und Forschungen, Munich
VT Vetus Testamentum, Leiden
wc Westminster Commentaries, London
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und
Neuen Testament, Neukirchen-Vluyn
WO Die Welt Des Orients, Gbttingen
Wu D Wort und Dienst, Jahrbuch der theologischen Schule,
Bethel
WZ Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift
ZA W Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Giessen,
Berlin
ZBK Ziircher Bibelkommentare, Ziirich
ZDA/[G Zeitschrift des Deutschen morgenléindischen Gesellschaft,
Leipzig, Wiesbaden
ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Pallistinavereins, Wiesbaden
ZN W Zeitschriftfiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, Giessen,
Berlin
Z TK Zeitschriftfiir Theologie und Kirche, Tiibingen
Z WTh Zeitschrift fur wissenschaflliche Theologie, Jena, Halle,
Leipzig

When authors are referred to by name (or name and

page) only, the reference will usually be to the work
or works in the bibliography at the head of the chap-
ter.
 PART ONE

TH E OLD TESTAMENT
INTRODUCTION
 I
THE DISCIPLINE OF OLD TESTAMENT
INTRODUCTION

ll: hliography
II W. Anderson, Understanding the Old Testament, Englewood Cliffs 3I975,
'1 he Living World of the Old Testament, London “I978; W. Baumgartner,
‘ \Ittt-stamentliehe Einleitung und Literaturgesehichte,‘ ThR NF 8, I936,
I r"I-222; ‘Eine alttestamentliche Forschungsgeschichte’, ThR NF 25, I959,
‘rt I III; A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament, 2 vols., Copenhagen
‘|'I:'i!I; ‘Skandinavische Literatur zum Alten Testament I939—I948’, ThR
\ I-' I7, l948—9, 273-328; Bower, The Literature if the Old Testament in its
Ilttmrieal Development, New York I922; F. Bleek, An Introduction to the Old
I}-tmment I, ET London I869, 5-28; John Bright, ‘Modern Study oi Old
I I-~.t;nnent Literature’, The Bible and the Ancient Near East, Essays in Honor of
It I". Albright, ed. G. E. Wright, Garden City, N.Y. and London 1961,
I I ‘II; _I- W. Brown, The Rise tjBiblical Criticism in America, 1300-1370,
\IItItllt‘I()Wl1, Conn. I964; M. Buber and F. Rosenzweig, Die Schnft und
tlm Terdeutschung, Berlin I939; K. Budde, Geschichte der althebriiischen
l llr'HtlIlt', Leipzig 21909; Buxtorf, Tiberias, sive commentarius masorethicus
triplet, Ii;1S('I I685.
I. (Iappellus, Arcanum punctationis revelatum; sive de punctorum vocalium et
tlnrttllllfllt npud Hebraeos vera et germana antiquitate Iibri II, Leiden 1624;
r nmo .\'rtt'rr1, sive de variis quae in sacris Veteris Testamenti libris occurrunt lec-
ttmtll-'u\ Iibri .st’.‘<, Paris I650; G. Carpzov, Introductio ad libros canonicos
ltlllllflttlttl Vrteris Testarnenti omnes, Leipzig I72]; Flavius Magnus Aurelius
(lassiodorus, De institutione divinarum, MPL 70; U. Cassuto, The Documen-
mn I l rpothei is and the Composition of the Pentateuch, Jerusalem 3I959; T. K.
(lheyne, I"out|ders rj Old Testament Criticism, London and New York I893;
II S Childs, ‘Sensus Literalis: An Ancient and Modern Problem’, Bei-
tm|_'r .;m olttestornentlichen Theologie, FS W. Zirnmerli, Gbttingen 1976; R. E.
(llrments, /I (Ienturr if Old Testament Study, London and Philadelphia
I'Ir'I=, R. Cornely t-t .-\. Merk, Introductionis in S. Scripturae libros compendium,
l'.u|~\ ‘~'I‘I-III; (I. II. Cornill, I'.'inleitung in dos Alte Testament, I891, ET
Istntlntt attttl New York ITIII7.
R Davidson and :\. R. (1. Leaney, Ilthlirol (.'riticism, The Pelican Guide to
28 mreooucrrow
11/lodern Theology, vol. 3, Harmondsworth 1970; Simon De Vries, Bible and
Theology in the Netherlands, Wageningen 1968; F. Delitzsch, ‘Uber Begrifl
und Methode der sogennanten biblischen und insbesondere alttestament-
lichen Einleitung’, Zeitschriftfiir Protestantismus und Kirche, NF 28, Erlangen
1854-, 133-90; L. Diestel, Geschichte des Alten Testamentes in der christlichen
Kirche, Jena 1869; E. Dobschiitz, ‘The Abandonment of the Canonical
Idea’, A__]T 19, 1915, 416fT.; H. Donner, ‘Das Problem des Alten Testa-
ments in der christlichen Kirche. Uberlegungen zu Begriliund Geschichte
der alttestamentlichen Einleitung’, Beitrlige zur Theorie des neugeitlichen Chris-
tentnrns, FS W. Trillhaas, Berlin 1968, 37fT.; S. R. Driver, Introduction to the
Literature ofthe Old Testament, Edinburgh 1891, 91913; Louis Ellies Dupin,
Dissertatio praelirninaris de auctoribus librorum scripturae in Nova Bibliotheca
auctorurn eeclesiasticorum, Paris 1688.
J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 3 vols., Leipzig 1780-3; 5
vols. 41820-24; Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament. An Introduction, ET
Oxford and New York 1965; Ivan Engnell, Gamla Testamentet: en tradition-
shistorish inledning, 1, Stockholm 1945; Matthias Flacius Illyricus, Claois
Scripturae Sacrae, Basel 1567; G. Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament, ET
Nashville 1968, London 1970; Hans Frei, The Eclipse ofBiblical Narrative. A
Study in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Hermeneutics, New Haven 1974;
Goettsberger, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, F reiburg 1928; N. Cottwald,
A Light to the Nations, New York 1959; E. M. Gray, Old Testament Criticism,
New York and London 1923; G. B. Gray, ‘Bible, Old Testament Critic-
ism’, The Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 3, "1910-1 1, 857-65; W. H. Green,
General Introduction to the Old Testament. The Canon, New York 1905; S. L.
Greenslade et al. eds., The Cambridge History qfthe Bible, 3 vols, Cam bridge
and New York 1963-70; H. Gunkel, ‘Die Grundprobleme der israelit-
ischen Literaturgeschichte’, Reden und Au_/slitze, Gottingen 1913, 29-38; ET
‘Fundamental Problems of Hebrew Literary History’, What Remains qfthe
Old Testament, New York and London 1928, 57-68; Die israelitische Literatur,
Leipzig 1925, Darmstadt 1963.
Hadrian, lsagoge ad Sacras Scripturas, MPG 98, 1273-1312; H. A. C.
Hiivernick, Handbuch der historisehe-ltritischen Einleitung in das Alte Testa-
ment, 3 Teile, Erlangen 1839-56; parts translated as A General Historica-
Critical Introduction to the Pentateuch and to the Old Testament, Edinburgh 1850;
H. F. Hahn, The Old Testament in Modern Research, Philadelphia 21966; R.
K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids 1969, London
1970, 3-82; H. Heidegger, Enchiridion biblicum, Zurich 1681, Jena
‘I723; E. W. Hengstenberg, Beitréige zur Einleitung ins Alte Testament,
3 Bande, Berlin 1831-39; G. von Herder, The Spirit of Hebrew Poetry, 2
vols., ET Burlington, Vt. 1833; H. Hfipfl, Introductiorzis in sacros utriusque
testamenti libros compendium, 3 vols., Rome 1921, 61958-63; T. H. Horne, An
Introduction to the Critical Stud_y and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, 3 vols.
London 1818; 141877; G. Hornig, Die Anfiinge der historisch-kritischen
Theologie, Giittingcn 1961; H. Hupfeld, lilber Hegrijf und fltethode der
 THE DISCIPLINE OF OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

\I’l,[:|"IInnnt€n biblischen Einleitung, Marburg 1844; Johann Jahn, Einleitung in

the gtittlichen Biicher des Alten Bundes, 4 vols., Vienna 21802; Junilius
\|'ricanus, De partibus divinae legis, MPL 68, 15-42.
(1110 Kaiser, Introduction to the Old Testament, ET Oxford and Min-
m-.||m1is 1975; Karlstadt (Andreas Rudolf Bodenstein), De canonicis scrip-
mm tibellus, 1520, reprinted in K. A. Credner, Zur Geschichte des Kanons,
l1.||1e 1847, 29111’.; Y. Katlfmann, The Religion qfIsrael, Chicago 1960,
1.=m<1on 1961; C. F. Keil, Manual of Historico-Critical Introduction to the
Hmortical Scriptures ty‘ the Old Testament, 2 vols., ET Edinburgh 1892; W.
Klalt, Hermann Ounkel, Zu seiner Theologie der Religionsgeschichte und zur Ent-
\lf’,I“"‘|Q derforrngeschichtlichen .1/Iethode, F RLANT 100, 1969; D. A. Knight,
ltnlimn-'ering the Traditions of Israel, SBL Diss. Series 9, Missoula 1975; K.
Koch. The Growth ofthe Biblical Tradition. The Form-Critical .-*1/Iethod, ET New
Yttrk and London 1969; H. Koester, ‘New Testament Introduction. A
tiritique ofa Discipline’, Christianity,judaism, and other Creco-Roman Cults,
stmlirs-_for .1/Iorton Smith, Part I, Leiden 1975, 11-20; E. G. Kraeling, The
HM ‘testament since the Reformation, London 1955, New York 1956; H.-_].
Kraus, Geschichte der historisch-ltritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments von
tlrr It;-/orrnation bis zur Cegenwart, Neukirchen-Vluyn 21969; W. G. Kiim-
um-I. The New Testament: The History of the Investigation of its Problems, ET
'\.\\1:\-ille 1972, London 1973; A. Kuenen, Historisch-ltritisch Onderzoek naar
Im u!tl\I(ttlt’i en de vergameling van de boelren des Ouden Verbonds, 3 vols. Leiden
mm l>.">. 21885-93; German trans. 1886-94; partial ET London 1865; C.
Kuhl. ‘liibelwissenschaft des AT’, RCC3 I, 1227fl’.; M. G. Kyle, The
lht nluttj lioice of the Monuments in Biblical Criticism, Oberlin, Ohio and Lon-
-I-m 1912, rev. ed. Oberlin 1924.
1:-.|n Le Clerc(Clericl.ls), Ars Critica, Amsterdam 1696; A. Lods, His-
It-In Jr to litterature hébraique etjuioe depuis les origines jusqua’a la ruine de l ’état
mi t I 3'33 uflri’.s_), Paris 1950; Henri de Lubac, Exégése .-1/Iidieoale, 4 vols.,
1'.|||- l‘1.">!1-($4; Martin Luther, ‘Prefaces to the Books of the Bible’,
luthrr K 11'.rrl.s. vol. 35, Philadelphia 1960, 227fI.; Max L. Margolis, The
"l'f'It|'(' Scriptures in the Making, Philadelphia 1922; D. Michaelis, Ein-
lr|t|m.'_' Ht die glittlichen Schriften des Alten Bundes, Hamburg 1787; Santes
l'agninus 1.u<~ensis, Isagogoe ad sacras litteras liber unicus, Lyons 1536; L.
l'rrlill. 1'ntl.e und Wellhousen, BZAW 94. 1965; R. H. Pfeiffer, Introduction
1'11 the HM '1}-stmnent, New York 1941; Rolf Rendtortf, ‘Literarkritik und
I I.u1ll|ulI%gl‘St'1li(‘1ll(", EvTh 27, 1967, 138-53; A. Richardson, ‘The Rise
Ii‘ \1IH1I‘1ll llihlit-nl Scholarship and the Recent Discussion ofthe Author-
m -11 |1|r 1ii1>1¢"_ The (.'umbrid_ge History ofthe Bible 3, Cambridge and New
\ --1 1. |'H»'1. ‘J11-1-Ililtl; .-\. Rivetus, Isagoge, seu introductio generalis, ad scrip-
tumm smmm rrteris et rmri testrunenti. 1.ci(l(*n 1627; A. Robert and A. Feuil-
bfl. lntrmlm'tiun to the Old 'l’e.stmnent, l‘i'l' 01’2n(1 ('(l.. New York 1968; Francis
Roberts, (.'lm'i\ liihlinmm. The Kev of the Bible, Lonclon 1648; L. Rost,
l‘mlr|tt.m_I_' HI llrls .-llte 'l'e.\mment mm I). Ur. Eras‘! Sellin, Heidelberg 31950.
H .§k\|\(|llll'l, ’{”|t' IIrlm'tr' .$'r'riptun'.s. .-In Introduction tn their Literature and
30 mrnonucrton
Religious Ideas, New York 1963; A. H. Sayce, The ‘Higher Criticism’ and the
Verdict of the Monuments, London and New York 21894; F. Schleiennacher,
Brief Outline on the Study if Theology, ET Richmond, Va. 1966; K. Scholder,
Ursprtlinge und Probleme der Bibelhritilt im I7. Jahrhundert, Munich 1966; E.
Sellin, Introduction to the Old Testament, ET London and New York 1923;].
Semler, Abhandlung vonfreier Untersuchung des Canons, 4 vols., H alle 1771-
76; R. Simon, Histoire critique du vieux testament, Rotterdam 1685, reprinted
Frankfurt 1967; Sixtus Senensis, Bibliotheca sancta, Venice 1566; R.
Smend, Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart 1978; W. Robertson
Smith, The Old Testament in the Jewish Church, Edinburgh and New York
21892; A. Soggin, Introduction to the Old Testament, ET, OTL, 1976;
Baruch de Spinoza, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus, Hamburg 1670, ET Lon-
don 1887; C. Steuernagel, Lehrbuch der Einleitung in das Alte Testament,
Tiibingen 1912;F. Stummer, Die Bedeutung Richard Simonsfiir die Pentateuch-
ltritih, Miinster 1912; M. Walther, Oficina biblica, 1636, Wittenberg 31703;
_]. Weingreen, G. Vermes et a1., ‘Interpretation, History oi”, IDB Suppl.
436fI.; Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen
Biicher des Alten Testament, Berlin 31899; Einleitung in das Alte Testament von
Friedrich Bleek, Berlin 41878; W. M. L. de Wette, Lehrbuch der historisch-
hritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Biicher des Alten Tes-
tamentes, Berlin 1817, 71852; ET Boston, Mass. 1843; R. D. Wilson, A
Scientific Investigation (J the Old Testament, Philadelphia 1926; E. Young,
An Introduction to the Old Testament, Grand Rapids 1949.

1. The History ofthe Discipline

The main lines of the development leading up to the modern Old

Testament Introduction are well known. The history has been fre-
quently reviewed in various Introductions (Bleek, Fohrer, Harri-
son), in several excellent monographs (Hupfeld, Hahn), and in
many encyclopaedia articles. Of the surveys of Old Testament
scholarship which cover the development of’ the Introduction, the
treatments of L. Diestel and H.-_]. Kraus are especially thorough.
(Admittedly, the role of British and American scholarship has been
consistently underestimated.) In addition, there have appeared
within recent years several detailed monographs on many ofthe key
figures in the history (Simon, de Wette, Vatke, Delitzsch, Well-
hausen, Kuenen, Gunkel) which have greatly deepened an under-
standing of the growth of the discipline. However, the major critical
issue is how to interpret this histogy. Before addressing this central prob-
lem it seems advisable to review, at least briefly, the liistory of Old
Testament Introtlttctiotl.
 THE DISCIPLINE OF OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

‘l'lte ancient period had no special genre of literature known as

Introduction; obviously, however, many of the problems which
1.ttt-r were relegated to this discipline within biblical studies were
tt<-;tted, such as textual problems, questions of authorship, and
t.ttttm. Jerome emerges clearly as the most learned of the church
Lttlu-rs in respect to the Bible - Origen’s influence was greatly
tt-tlured by the church’s censure of him - and because of his know-
lt-tlgv of Hebrew and the Jewish traditions Jerome remained with-
ttttl ;t close rival for this period. In the introduction to his transla-
tttttl of the Old Testament, in his commentaries, and in his letters
l1tt't't' is a wealth of material on introductory problems. In contrast,
\tt_qtt.~:tine’s contribution to biblical studies, especially in his De
tltttttittn christiana, lay more in the field of hermeneutics than in
lttIt'tt(ltlC[lOI'l. Also Hadrian’s Isagoge, usually dated in the fifth cen-
utt \- .~\1>, focused on various grammatical and rhetorical features of
the Hltl Testament rather than issues which would later be termed
tttttntluctory. The biblical questions treated by Junilius (sixth cen-
um) and Cassiodorus (eighth century) were even more theologi-
t .t1l\ ttrlCnl.CCl, but are significant for the attention given to the issue
t-1 t .ttttm, and also for occasional literary and textual observations.
l'ltt- period of the Middle Ages saw enormous exegetical activity
t-tt lltt' part of Jewish scholars, especially in the Talmudic cod-
mt .tlitttt of tradition, and in the establishment of the Hebrew text
Jtttttltq‘ the various Masoretic schools. Questions of authorship,
t.ttttttt_ and text were vigorously pursued, but within a tightly pre-
at ttltt-tl traditional framework. Occasionally early examples of a
Ills-|ttl'it'il1 critical approach to questions of authorship can be found
m 1 ttIlll1Il'llIB.IOI'S such as Ibn Ezra and Gersonides, but again not in
ustrttttttlt‘ enough fashion to do more than merely adumbrate the
l.ttt-t ltttroduction. Among Christian medieval scholars Hugh and
'\ttt1t t-w ttl’St Victor and Nicholas of Lyra mediated Jewish exegesis
|t.t\t'tl tut tt study ofthe Hebrew text, but did not break new ground
I-t-~.t»ttt1_]<-mttte when it came to questions of Introduction.
l|tt- .~.txt<-t-nth century saw new life infused into the study of the
H1-1 It-sttttttt-ttt, both from the side of the Renaissance and the
Rt-I-=ttn.ttitttt. Pagninus’ lsagogae (1536) collected and passed on
tttttt lt ttl't1u- tmtlitional ecclesiastical material respecting the Bible
sslttt 1| tttteltttlt-tl ltt-t'ttt(-ttetttics and theology, but it added a new
|nt-t Islttll In the sttttly ttfgrztmtnar and text which had arisen from
lllr tt-lttrtlt ttl’ lttttttztttislir sltttlies. An even more useful book in
32 INTRODUCTION
terms ofdiseussing questions ofauthorship, content, and canonical
status was Sixtus Senensis’ Bibliot/reca rancta (I566). The author
generally followed the traditional perspective ofjewish and Christ-
ian interpretation, but he also registered quite objectively differing
opinions on controversial matters, such as the authorship of Deut.
34. Among Roman Catholic interpreters new attention was devoted
to the Hebrew text by such scholars as Cajetan and Vatablus.
However, the major contribution to the discipline of Introduction
was the publication oi‘ the Complutensian Polyglot Bible (l5l4—l7)
which dramatized the new philological interest and set the stage for
critical biblical scholarship in the field oi“ Old Testament.
.\lartin Luther’s enormous impact on the study of the Bible can-
not be conlined to his own publications, but includes the religious
movement which he initiated and which was characterized by its
great seriousness toward the Bible. Luther's attempt to Free the
study of the Bible from the restrictions imposed by ecclesiastical
tradition bore immediate fruit. .\/loreover, his translation of the
Bible into German, his commentaries, sermons, and countless
theological treatises on scripture are without a rival in sheer energy,
insight, and learning. In terms of introductory questions as later
clelined, Luther“s contribution was slight. In his preface to various
()l(l Testament books he Focused almost entirely on the biblical
content in its relation to broad theological issues, and only in pas-
sing commented on the language. text, and order of the laws and
prophecies (cl. Isaiah). .\Ievertheless, one can sense a new lreedom
over against accepted tradition, as. For example. in his remarks on
the book oi‘ Esther.
.-Xmong Luther‘s many students and associates there was ollen
more concern with introductory questions. I\larlstadt’s early treat-
ise on the canon (I520) not only distinguished various categories of‘
authority within the (_)h'l Testament, but raised critical questions
respecting the authorship ol' the Pentateuch. However, the poten-
tial impact of liarlstaclfs research was lost because of controversy
on other theological issues. .\lelanchthon°s several Old Testament
commentaries showed his humanistic training with close attention
to language and idiom. Literary questions olistyle and language in
particular were studied by .\latthias Flacius as an integral part_oI
his hcrmenentical study. However, one can hardly speak olia break
with the tradition in terms olquestions ol‘ Introduction. The new
influence came in the cliangc ol' tln-ological method which only
 THE DISCIPLINE or 01.1) TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 33
t-_t.ttlttally affected the issues of Old Testament Introduction. The
ttt.tjor Lutheran biblical scholars ofthe sixteenth century continued
.tlottg the traditional lines when critical issues were involved (e.g.
llttgenhagen, Brenz, Strigel).
_|ttl1n Calvin’s concern to interpret the biblical text according to
it». literal sense employed an exegetical method which was very
sllllllill‘ to his earlier study of Seneca. It resulted in a more consis-
tt-ttt attention to questions of text, authorship, and composition
tlt.ttt shown by Luther. Calvin cautiously questioned the author-
-.lti|t of the books ofjoshua and Samuel, demonstrating a willing-
ttt-~.~. to leave issues undecided which he considered to be
|tt-tipltcral. He also ditfered from a later generation of orthodox
l'|tttt'stttnt scholars in holding the Hebrew vowel points to be of
l.ttt-t origin than the consonants. At least for Calvin, such introduc-
tt-t\ questions in no way compromised his complete insistence on
Ht/fl ttri/itura. As in the case of Luther, Calvin’s impact on a whole
1-{t'||t'| tttion of biblical scholars — one thinks of W. Musculus, Bucer,
l‘t-llit';tn, .\‘Iercier, Vermigli —- was immediate and remained a major
Int: t- itt shaping the new direction throughout the seventeenth cen-
llll \.

l ltt- sixteenth century had seen the rise ofa new understanding
III tltt- Bible which had emerged from the impetus of the Renais-
-..tttt t- and Reformation, but it was left to the seventeenth century,
to tltt- .~.t-t-ond and third generation of post-Reformation scholars, to
l.t\ tltt- lttttnclation ofthe modern Old Testament Introduction. The
It -t ttt tlt-\ t-lopt-cl was the critica sacra (it was sometimes called introduc-
rt-I ot t'ttt_g~gt») and it handled questions of text, canon, and her-
IIH'llt‘lllIt'S in a systematic fashion. However, it developed these
ltt|t|t s. at least at lirst, within the structure of orthodox Protestant
tl--t-_ttt.ttit-s. .-\ classic example was André Rivetus’ Isagoge (I627)
nlttt It ltt>t-t- the subtitle, Intmductio generalis ad scripturam sacram.
\tttottt_-_ tltt' l.ttthcrans NI. \\"'alther's learned volume, Officina biblica
lttittt. Itttl only discussed the traditional issues, but offered a
tlt t.ttlt-tl attttlysis of t-aclt book in a manner which adumbrated the
'-t|-t t t.tI itttt-otlttction‘ of the nineteenth century. Among the
lit-lot tttt-tl wittg of Protestatttism H. Heitlegger’s Enchiridion pro-
\ ttlvtl .ttt ttttttsttatlly lttcitl attitlysis of the structure and inner move-
ntt ttt Ill t-.tt‘lt ltiblical hook. ltt littglantl a similar task was skilfully
t u-t tttt-tl lt\ l"|‘;tttt'is Roln'|'ls in his xvcll-kttowtt volume, ('.'lavz'.t‘ Bib-
[lt-Hun I ll» lii).
34 tnrnonucrton
The critica sacra continued well into the eighteenth century and
included such famous authors as _]. Le Clerc and L. Cappellus. By
the time it was replaced as a form of Introduction the orthodox
confessional framework which it had once supported had been
badly damaged, and a very different understanding of the Old
Testament had emerged. Increasingly, this type of biblical-
theological manual had felt the need to engage in a defensive
apologetic to meet the newer questions regarding the Bible which
had begun to emerge from all sides. The last great work of this
genre which summarized the position of orthodox Lutheranism was
J. G. Carpzov’s Introductio ad libr0.t canonicos bibliorum Veteris Tes-
tamenti omnes (I721). In spite of its great erudition and impressive
thoroughness, its constant polemic revealed how much the tradi-
tional position regarding the Old Testament had been pushed into
a defensive, holding action.
The rise of the modern historical study of the Old Testament
must be seen in connection with the entire intellectual revolution
which occurred during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth
centuries, and which issued in a radically different understanding
ofGod, man, and the world (cf. K. Scholder). However, in terms of
the development of the discipline of Old Testament Introduction
certain key figures played a decisive role in opening up a series of
new questions. First, the integrity of the Hebrew text was seriously
undermined by Cappellus who was able to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of an increasing number of scholars that the Masoretic
text had suffered considerable corruption and that its vowel points
had originated in medieval times rather than being coterminus with
the consonantal text. Secondly, Spinoza°s famous book, Tractatus
Theotogico-Politicus (I670) dealt a hard blow to the traditional jew-
ish theories of biblical composition on which especially orthodox
Protestantism had built its theology by rejecting all claims of an
authoritative scripture and demanding that all theories be ration-
ally tested. He then proposed historical and psychological explana-
tions of material which had previously been relegated to the super-
natural, such as prophecy and miracles. Thirdly, Richard Simon’s
brilliant book, Hz'.ttoz're Critique du Vzeux Testament (1685) sought to
develop a genuine literature history of the Old Testament which
went far beyond the sporadic observations of his predecessors.
Above all, he sought to trace the process of growth and change
within the literature which no longer treated the Old Testament as a
 THE DISCIPLINE OF OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

ttttilit'(l and closed body ofsacred writings. By extending the history

at the literature into the process of collection he also proposed a
lt|sttit'l(I3.l understanding of the development of the Jewish canon.
l tntrthly, the crucial issue ofthe canon, first raised in a new way by
\ttttttlt, was brought to a head in the epoch-making volume of
|nlt.tttn Semler, Ab/tandlung vonfreier Untersuc/mag des Canons (I771-
fht. lle succeeded in seriously damaging the central pillar on which
|'ttttcstt1nt orthodoxy — to a lesser degree Catholicism - had sought
tn t"tttlSlI‘l.lCI its house. Semler argued that the theological interpre-
t.ttttttt of the Hebrew canon as a unified, accepted body of
.tntlnn"itative Jewish writings rested upon historical misconcep-
tttttts. and that it should be replaced by a strictly historical
tlt-ltttilitm whose content would be established according to its true
ltlslnl‘I(‘£lI development.
lly the middle of the eighteenth century a variety of new forces
I|.|tl entered the field which not only repudiated the older tradi-
tn ttt.tl categories ofChristian dogma, but also sought to break out of
the t|ltl(‘l' sterile rationalism, still strongly represented in Europe
.tIttl lhitain. In terms ofOld Testament Introduction, the influence
nt _| (I. Herder was somewhat indirect, affecting more immediately
Iltt‘ .tt't*;ts of hermeneutics and exegesis. Nevertheless, the implica-
tn tny nl’ Herder’s recovery ofthe aesthetic and historical dimensions
--t t tltl Testament literature were soon to be felt.
I sttally. and with good reason, the credit for structuring the first
tt ttl\ Ilttt(l(‘I’l1, historical critical Introduction to the Old Testament
t'_-»t-~~ tn _|t>hann Gottfried Eichhorn, whose massive three-volume
I t-t/titling - later expanded to five — began to appear in 1780. In the
|-tt-t t-thng gt.-iteration _]. D. Michaelis had vainly sought to stretch
lltt‘ tt.ttlitit>t1ttl ecclesiastical understanding ofthe Old Testament in
iut lt .t nay as to make room for the newer learning. Eichhorn chose
.t tltllett-nt path. He exploited aggressively the full insights of the
tn net It-.trtting in the construction ofa fresh synthesis which broke
tlttt-.t\t-It with the traditional approach, while at the same time
wtntnttittg the exltaustive handling ofdetailed questions which had
In en tlt.trat'lt'rislit‘ of the older critica SONG.
l.tt ltlttn tt t-tnnhinetl the insights ofseveral ofhis predecessors. He
tlt ton-tl .ttt entire section to an exltaustive investigation of the his-
ttnx t-l the Ilt-ln't'w text and versions, in which he fully supported
1 .l|n|it'lltIs. ttgttittst Bttxtot-l'. .-\gaitt. lte followed Herder’s lead in
l|.l'~sIl\llt_L'_ his ntatt-rial ;tccortlitt_g In literary genres and, abandon-
36 INTRODUCTION
ittg the older dogmatic categories, he treated prophecy as a special
disposition ofthe human spirit. He approached the Old Testament
as an independent record of antiquity, a source from the distant
past from which one could reconstruct the early stages in the educa-
tion of the human race (C. G. Heyne). Moreover, he pursued vig-
orously the direction initiated by Simon in attempting to trace the
development of Israel’s literature, and in setting out the source
theory of the Pentateuch as it had been analysed by Astruc and
others. Finally, the itnportant influence of Semler’s study of the
canon is everywhere evident. Eichhorn abandoned completely the
theological concern with the canon, stating at one point: ‘it would
have been desirable ifone had never even used the term canon’ (4th
ed., vol. I, p. I06). He replaced the term with a purely historical
definition. He was concerned only with the historical process by
which the ancient literature was collected. Only occasionally does
one see vestiges of the older position. His defence of the ‘genuine-
ness ofthe sources’, by which he meant that the literature was not a
forgery, was soon to be re-defined in tertns of historicity and
authorship.
The divisions within l*lichhorn’s Introduction established a basic
structure which has continued ever since in its main lines. It
includes a discussion of canon. text, and the development of the
literature. Eichhorn also divided his material into general and spe-
cial introduction. To the former he assigned cation and text; to the
latter the treatment of the individual books. The new shape of the
critical Introduction can best be appreciated by contrasting it with
(Iarpzov's two volumes, the Introductio and the ('.'rz'tz'ca meta. Eich-
horn placed the discussion of canon at the beginning, which con-
tinued the traditional order, but very shortly among his successors
this section was tnoved to the final chapter of the Introduction
where it has generally retnained.
The historical critical Introduction continued to develop
throughout the nineteenth century and reflected the changes within
the discipline of ()ld Testament studies associated with such
\

significant names as de Wette, Ewald, and Duhm. In the latter hall

of the nineteenth century interest focused especially on literary
critical questions within the section of ‘special introduction‘. \\"ith
the hegemony of the critical position associated with _]ulins Well-
hausen, a series of classic literary critical ltttrodttctions appeared
which were long to tlontinate the lieltl. lttcltnlctl \\t't't' \\'elllt;tnsett's
 THE DISCIPLINE OF OLD TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION

it-vision of Bleek, Gornill, Sellin and Steucrnagel in Germany,

l\tn-nen in Holland, Lods in France, \/V. Robertson Smith and
llt iver in Britain, attd Bewer and Pfeiffer in America.
Hf cottrse, it shottld not be overlooked that there was a strong
t --nst~rvative reaction which arose innncdiately in an effort to tneet
tl|t' challenge of the newer critical approach. Shortly after Eichhorn
tltete appeared the lengthy four-volume Introduction of the
I I.ttholic scholar, Johann Jahn, who generally followed Eichhorn’s
tltt isltill into canon, text, and composition ofthe individual books,
lttll _|;thn continued the older, traditional approach in seeking to tie
. .nnnt to inspiration and church tradition. Certainly the tnost
.n-_t-_t-essive and learned opposition to the newer approach was
te|nt-sented by E. IN. Hengstcnberg of Berlin. Although he never
tt |tttt' an Introduction himself, his influence was direct on a host of
--tln-ts who did, including H. A. C. Havernick, C. F. Kcil, .\’foses
\tn.tt"t. \\'. H. Green, and Young. .\/Iorcover, in his nutnerous
tt t tttngs Hengstenberg established the main lines of the conserva-
Int‘ .t|rttlt)_t_>,‘t‘liC in most of the crucial areas, namely, Pentateuch,
I‘-..tlttts_ Propltets, Wisdom, and I)aniel. In the period following
ll. tn-,stt-ttlaerg conservatives occasionally attempted to reverse the
tnh of ltistorical criticism by an appeal to archaeology for a vindi-
t.ttttnt ofthe traditional position (cf. A. H. Sayce,James Orr. M. G.
l\ t lt-. R. l\'. Harrison). Although \\'. F. Albright could, in no sense,
In tl.t~.sllit'(l as a conservative in the Hengstenberg tradition, his
ttotlt n.t~.- often cited in support ofa less radical position which was
t ntpn tt ally grounded. However, no truly fresh formulation of the
'ttttltlt‘lt|'~. ol'()ltl Testament Introcluction etnerged frotn the conser-
\ .ttt\t-_ evttttgt-lieal wing of Protestantism since Hengstenberg.
l(.n|n-t. tt itlt the notable exception ofthe old Princeton school (W'.
ll téteen. Ii. Ii. Warlield. R. D. Wilson, G. Vos) the level ofOld
It-.t.tnn-ttt scholarship has been in seriotts decline for the last
Ittttttllrtl \t-a|'s. ()nly very recently has this wing of the church
'tIt=t\\|| sigtts of new life. Among the Roman Catholics the older
u.t-lttt-nt.tl position represcnterl by Yigouroux, (Iornely, and Hopfl
.n lltt‘ tttt n oftlte twentieth t'etttur_v has been virtually abandoned in
|n- tt tetne ttt t|tt' e.ttttions_ lntt t'ritit'all_v oriented formulation of
R-tl---tt .ttttl I-'t-ttillt-t. the .S'ttf:/1/tir::t't:t.t to the l)z'rtitmrtaire rte la Bible,
an-I the /trmnr /i’t/.t/trrt/ (.'tmmnwtm't'.
Iltt tt'.tt'Iitttl (II-_lt‘\\'I.\Il .\t‘llt:l;tI's ltt lltt‘ llt‘_<_{t‘l1ltiIt§.' Of [l](‘ \\'Cll—
lt.tn~.t-n |nt~.itiott n.ts eotnplt-x atnl tietl to the larger issues of anti-
38 INTRODUCTION
Semitism and jewish-Christian relations. It became increasingly
clear that the rise of the historical critical study ofthe Old Testa-
ment, had, once and for all, broken the dependence of Christian
scholars upon traditionaljewish learning. The hallmark of the new
historical method was its approach to the language, history, and
literature of the Bible independently of the tradition found in the
great medieval interpreters such as Rashi and Kimhi. With the
beginning ofthejewish Enlightenment some major Jewish scholars
shared the concern to break with tradition. In the early nineteenth
century Zunz and Geiger among others made impressive contribu-
tions in the area of critical Old Testament Introduction, but there
was also strenuous opposition voiced by others who flatly rejected
Wellhausen’s theory of the Pentateuch (e.g. D. HoiTmann, I-I. M.
Wiener, U. Cassuto). A good barometer of the confusion evoked by
the new challenge of historical criticism could be seen in the articles
on Bible in the famous Jewish Encyclopedia of 1901 which was pub-
lished in New York. Articles were written on each biblical book
which presented both the traditional and the critical positions. The
two perspectives were simplyjuxtaposed without a serious attempt
at a resolution of the conflict. In the period following the Second
World War, particularly following the establishment ofthe State of
Israel, an effort was made by some to establish a new jewish posi-
tion which combined critical and traditional values around the
work of Y. Kaufmann. However, it remains a real question as to
what extent the establishment of such a school has been successful.
The diversity of approach among modern Jewish scholars seems to
be almost as wide as among Christians. Perhaps it is fair to con-
clude that a certain tension, indeed different from that in Christian-
ity, still remains within modern judaism between the critical and
traditional study of the Bible, even in the more liberal circles.
The only major new force on the formulation of the Old Testa-
ment Introduction which has not yet been considered was that
unleashed by Hermann Gunkel in the beginning of the twentieth
century. Gunkel was highly successful in convincing the majority of
critical scholars that the history ofthe oral stage in the development
of the biblical literature had not been adequately handled. As a
result, it has become an integral part ofthe critical Introduction to
include a form-critical and traditio-critical section. At times this
section simply preceded the literary critical discussion. as in Eliss-
felclt, but at other limes the oltlcr lilcr;tt'\-' t'1'ilit';tl mclltotl was
 "rns DISCIPLINE or oer) TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 39
=-ntirely reworked from the newer perspective (e.g. Bentzen). By
.tt|tl large, Gunkel’s influence on questions oflntroduction has been
It'L1;ll'(ICCI by subsequent scholarship as complementary to the liter-
.t| \- critical rather than as antithetical. The most notable exception
to this generalization was represented by I. Engnell.
Within the last decade there has been increased emphasis on a
It'tl.l('II()II-CFIIICHI approach which has often been set forth as a new
ttitiratl method (cf. Kaiser). In my judgment, redaction criticism
tlttt"-. not involve a new methodology, rather it seeks to reassert
.l\|lt'(‘lS of an earlier literary criticism which were overshadowed by
the enthusiasm for Gunkel’s programme. When its results appear
to tlillcr from those of the older literary criticism, some ofthe differ-
rm 1' lies in the advantage which the modern critic has in making
n-.t- of insights from both literary and traditio-critical research.
I-inztlly, it should be noted that there has been a growing dissatis-
l.|t tion often expressed in recent years with the form which the Old
lt'\I;Hl1t*D[ Introduction has now assumed. For some scholars the
st-|i.o';|tion between the form and the content of the Bible called
tot th an attempt to try a new synthesis by combining Old Testa-
Illrlll history, theology, and literary criticism (e.g. B. W. Anderson,
\ (inIl\\.'2llCI) but the contribution from this effort lay more in its
-lr\t~|' packaging than in the substance of the proposal. Most
lltl'lIll_\', new proposals have been voiced under various rubrics
on h .t.~s structuralism, rhetorical criticism, and socio-traditional cri-
ll: I\Ill, hut these suggestions have so far not left any major impact
tilt |ht- structure ofthe Introduction.

3, A C'rz'tique of the Historical Critical Introduction

\lthon~_;h I do not doubt that there are some areas of serious dis-
.ufIt'|'I||t'|ll in my briefsurvey ofthe development ofthe Old Testa-
||u'I|l lntrotluetion. particularly in matters of detail or emphasis,
-toll I ll'I'l that there is a broad consensus among scholars in regard
In tin‘ gt-in-rail lines of this history. The real point of controversy is
ll--\\ our t'\';t|tt;1tt~s this history.
lhr most common opinion is to view this history in terms of
In h..|.ol\ |n-ogt't'ss und sulistantiztl gain. In a burst of enthusiasm
\lIllIl' |tint-tt-t-ntli-t't-ntnt"y scliolars portrayed the history as ajour-
m \ In-in iu_|n>|';tn<'t' nntl error in \-vlticlt rct‘|csi:tstit‘:t| dogma stifled
40 INTRODUCTION
free research into a era of freedom measured only by critical stan-
dards of objective truth. Conversely, some conservative Christians
have described this history as a growth in unbelief in which the
truth of the Bible has been sacrificed on the altar of human wisdom
and pride.
In myjudgment, both ofthese evaluations have missed the mark.
On the one hand, it seems to me impossible to deny the enormous
gains which have been achieved in many areas of the study of the
Old Testament. To compare the church fathers, or the Reformers
for that matter, with modern scholarship in terms of philology,
textual and literary criticism, or of historical knowledge and exeget-
ical precision should convince any reasonable person of the undeni-
able achievements of historical critical scholarship in respect to the
Old Testament.
On the other hand, there have been serious losses reflected in the
victory of the critical Introduction. By this evaluation I do not
include the psychological impact of the new knowledge on tradi-
tionaljewish and Christian beliefs, which is a subject lying outside
the scope of this discussion. Rather in terms of the subject matter,
serious reservations can be held regarding the form of the critical
Introduction as an adequate approach to the literature it seeks to
illuminate.
In the first place, the historical critical Introduction as it has
developed since Eichhorn does not have for its goal the analysis of
the canonical literature of the synagogue and church, but rather it
seeks to describe the history of the development of the Hebrew
literature and to trace the earlier and later stages ofthis history. As
a result, there always remains an enormous hiatus between the
description of the critically reconstructed literature and the actual
canonical text which has been received and used as authoritative
scripture by the community.
Secondly, because of the predominantly historical interest, the
critical Introduction usually fails to understand the peculiar
dynamics of lsrael’s religious literature, which has been greatly
influenced by the process of establishing the scope ofthe literature,
forming its particular shape, and structuring its inner relationships.
The whole dimension of resonance within the Bible which issues
from a collection with fixed parameters and which affects both the
language and its iimtgery is lost by disregarding the peculiar func-
tion of canonical literature.
 THE DISCIPLINE or OLD TESTAMENT mrnonuerton 41
'l‘hirdIy. the usual historical critical Introduction has failed to
tt-late the nature ofthe literature correctly to the community which
ltlt‘2lSl.1I'CCI it as scripture. It is constitutive oflsraelis history that the
literature formed the identity of the religious community which in
turn shaped the literature. This fundamental dialectic which lies at
the heart ofthe canonical process is lost when the critical Introduc-
Itlnll assumes that a historically referential reading ofthe Old Tes-
t.ttt1ettl is the key to its interpretation. It assumes the determining
‘ttt'i't' on every biblical text to be political, social, or economic fac-
tt -rs which it seeks to establish in disregard ofthe religious dynamic
ot tlte canon. In sum, the issue is not whether or not an Old Testa-
tttt-nt Introduction should be historical, but the nature ofthe ltistor-
it .tl categories being applied.
llow does this criticism relate to the history ofscholarship lead-
ll F: up to the development of the critical Introduction which we
|t.t\c outlined? It suggests that the friction which characterized the
l|I\lt)I'_\' of the discipline and is still present today between a liberal
t t'l‘\ll.*é conservative, scientific versus ecclesiastical, objective versus
tttttlt'ssit)l12ll approach to the Old Testament poses a false dicho-
|ttttt_\ of the problem. Because this issue has been confused
thtttngltout its history. the development of critical biblical scholar-
-.ht|> has brought both great gains and also serious losses in under-
.t,ttttlittg the Old Testament. In my judgment, the crucial issue
tt hit It produced the confusion is the problem ofthe canon, that is to
..t\. how one understands the nature of the Old Testament in
t- l.ttitttt to its authority for the community of laith and practice
tthteh ~4l1tl|)(‘(l and preserved it.

.3’. UM Ttutantent Introduction and the (Ianon

l pit-|>ose to return to the history of the discipline and review its

-It t t-loptnettt from the perspective ofthe canon in order to support
tttx .ttt_;t||ttt-til.
l he t';tt'l_\ (Ihristian church inherited the_]ewish scriptures along
\\ llll Il\ tttttlt't':~;t;ltltlit1_t{ ol'<'anon. It was simply assutned that these
\\t|llIl'_1\ litttctionetl atttltoritati\'cly itt the life of the church, even
tltt-otglt the extettt of the cation and the ttatttre of its authority
tttttitnttt-tl ttt he tleltatetl. In the early church the question was not
ttltt-tltt-t tltt-_|t-it islt set iptttres vt"ct'e still t';tnottit'al. IHII wliether the
42 INTRODUCTION
claims ofJesus Christ could be sustained on the basis of scripture.
The first major challenge to the unbroken continuity between the
Old Testament and the church was raised when Marcion opposed
the traditional view of the canon and sought to introduce a criti-
cal principle by which the church could determine its authentic
scripture. He argued that the original Christian tradition had been
corrupted and needed not only to be cut loose from the Jewish
scriptures, but also to be critically recovered by sifting the allegedly
authentic sources of the faith. The early church of the second and
third centuries through its spokesmen Irenaeus and Tertullian
responded to ;\farcion’s challenge by appealing to the ‘rule of faith’
(regula firlei), which set the larger context from which individual
portions of scripture were to be understood in relation to the sum of
Christian oral tradition. In the’ writings of Augustine the leads of
his predecessors were developed into an impressive canonical her-
meneutic within the framework of an analogy of faith in which the
goal of all biblical interpretation was to engender the love of God
and love of neighbour (De doct. chr. I, 36, 40).
There are several impressive strengths to this early Christian
understanding ofcanon. First, it allowed the church to receive these
writings as a divine word which claimed an immediate authority for
its life rather than regarding them dispassionately as past traditions
ofJudaism. Secondly, by placing the full Jewish canon within the
framework of an analogy of faith, an inclusive principle was fol-
lowed which allowed, at least in principle, the full diversity of the
biblical writings to be maintained. Thirdly, a dynamic relationship,
testified to in the church’s liturgy, was established between scrip-
ture, its author (God), and its addressee (the church).
Conversely, there were some weaknesses in the early church’s
understanding of canon which ultimately led to its serious erosion.
Above all, the early church was not able to hear the Old Testament
on its own terms, but increasingly the canonical text was subjected
to the dominance of ecclesiastical tradition. The ‘plain sense’ ofthe
Old Testament text was drowned out by traditional interpretation
which assumed that the New Testament had superseded the Old.
Jerome's appeal to the Hebrew text rather than to the Greek trans-
lation was only a momentary victory for the integrity ofthe Hebrew
Bible. Moreover, the religious and political development of the
previous three centuries had effected a bitter alienation between the
synagogue and the church and had struck at the heart ofa canoni-
 THE DISCIPLINE or OLD TESTAMENT tnrnoouerton 43
-"al understanding of the scriptures which related the sacred writ-
ings of the Jews to a living community of faith.
The breakdown in the concept of the Old Testament as canon
heeame further evident during the medieval period. This complex
l\'.\'ll(i‘ is closely connected to the growth in the concept of the
t-httrch’s teaching mogisterium and lies beyond the scope of this brief
\lll'\'CY. However, in terms of biblical Introduction the recovery of
the ‘plain sense’ of the Old Testament in the eleventh and twelfth
t-ettturies, first by Jewish scholars in Northern France, then fol-
lowed by the Victorines, threatened to shatter the unity of the
tlhristian canon. Some Christians who accepted the Jewish
interpretation of the Old Testament as being the plain sense ofthe
text, were forced to argue for a concept ofdouble truth (Lyra) or to
-..tt"t-ilice completely the literal sense in order to defend the church’s
.nt1hority in interpreting the Bible (Jean Gerson).
The impact ofthe Renaissance and Reformation on the concept
nl the canon was profound and far-reaching. In the first place, the
l‘t-ntestant Reformers sought to free the Bible from the dominance
ot t't't‘lt'Sit1StiC3.l tradition by etnphasizing the pre-eminence of word
nt t-t" tradition. The primacy ofthe literal sense ofa biblical passage
t-~.t.tl>lished once again the canonical distinction between text and
tnnnnentary. Secondly, the Reformers, in varying degrees of suc-
t t'\\_ sttttgllt to recover the unity ofscripture by holding together the
ltt~.ltt1'lt';ll and theological dimensions of the text, its literal and
~.|tit itttal meanings. Especially in Calvin, an easy bridge was estab-
It-tltt-tl hetween the historical community of Israel and the subse-
t|ttt't|t generations ofbelievers. This basic Reformation understand-
tttt'_ t-ontrasted markedly with that of Faber, on the one hand, and
I t.ts|ttt|s_ on the other. Thirdly, the impetus from the side of the
|tt'\\ lnttnanistic learning provided the philological, historical, and
htt-t.n t tools by which to study the Old Testament in its own right
.ttnl ttt its origitlal selling.
lhtt .t_t_t_ai1t. there were some serious negative features in the six-
lt't'ttlll eetttttry's understanding of canon which would prove its
tllwxttllllitill in hoth (Iatholic and Protestant camps. First, the prob-
It ttt of tht- l)ll)llt'ill canon became embroiled in heated interconfes-
--ttttt.tl |tttlt'tnit's atltottt the issue of the authority Of the Bible and
tlttnt It tt.ttlition. .\l;t1ty llrotestants, especiallyin Calvinistic cir-
tlt'\_ \tt||Qltl to retlnee the role ofthe church in the formation ofthe
lltl-le to .ttt .tli.\ttltllt' ntittitttttttt. 'l'lte effect ofthe controversy was a
44 INTRODUCTION
narrowing ofthe early church’s understanding ofthe canott. Rather
than a faithful expression of the sum oforal tradition in the regultz
fidei, canon catne to be regarded as only one aspect of the written
tradition which was now locked ittto a larger dogmatic framework.
Secondly, Calvin's concept of autopistzlt (Institutes I. viii.5) - God
'5

alottc is sullicient witness — moved in the direction of a doctrine of

verbal inspiration which among his successors threatened to sepa-
rate Bihle frotn church. Thirdly, an arbitrary attd individualistic
tendency within l.uther’s exegesis led in the direction of setting up
a ‘cation within the canon’. A subsequent gettcration of German
scholars would find a warrant itt Luther for cotnpletcly abandoning
the church’s traditional canon. Finally, the pulling apart of a
historical-philological interpretation (.t‘en.tus grantntaticus) frotn a
theological-homilctical began to threaten the unity ofthe canon in
the exegesis of Erastntts and his followers.
The rise of the historical critical school of biblical interpretation
itt the post-Refortnation period witnessed the collapse of the tradi-
tional concept of canon which had already been severely weakened.
As outfitted above, the crttcial areas in Old Testament scholarship
in which the ncwcr methods were developed were in text, canon,
and composition. In the area of text, orthodox Protestant scholars
had derived from their concept ofcanonical scriptttrc the theory ol
a /zebraica z/'ert'ta.t which sought to maintain the absolute veracity of
the .\'lasoretic text by even appealing to the divine authorship ofthe
Hebrew vowel poittts. Cappellus was able to undercut this position
and open up the true history ofthe textual dcveloptncnt. In terms of
canon. orthodox Protestants and Catholics had defended an
unbroken link between the original cotnposition ofa biblical book
and its ollicial canonical status. The canonical process ended when
God ceased to inspire prophets to write, which was sometime after
the period of Ezra. However, Semler was able to detnonstratc that
this theory of the canon rested upon a dogmatic construct rather
than a historical basis, and that the actual history of canonization
was ofa different order. Finally, in terms of composition, orthodox
Christians had followed Jewish tradition in assuming that the con-
nection was a simple one between traditional authorship and littal
composition. The appeal to the canon was used to support this
beliefin the genuineness and historicity ofthe ()ld Tcsttttttcttt writ-
ings, which were increasingly described as ‘sottrct-s‘. Starting with
Ricltard Simon this description of the history oft-otn|tt>sitiott was
 THE nrscteune or 01.0 TESTAMENT INTRODUCTION 45
h.ullv shaken and soon abandoned by the developing school ol
\

hit__~"l1er criticism.
lly the nineteenth century the traditional forms of the Old Tes-
|.nnent discipline had been radically reshaped by the newer
tnethodology. Text criticism had become a discipline devoted to the
tt'slnl‘2lIi0t1 of a frequently corrupt .\4asoretic text by the scientific
xii-lillg of the versions in search of an earlier and better text tradi-
tun). 'l'he canon had been defined in strictly historical terms as an
1-uernal ecclesiastical validation without any real significance For
Illt' shaping or interpretation of the biblical literature. Research
lllltl the history ol‘ composition, which had moved to the centre of
lilt' -.tage, sought to recover the history of each hook, distinguishing
lu'l\\'t‘(‘11 its allegedly genuine and non-genuine portions (cl. F.
\t hleiermacher, Brief Outline §§ lltlfi.) Conservative scholars ~
|t'\\l~4l1, Protestant. and Catholic — sought to reverse the tide by
.tp|n-ztliiig in dillerent ways to the traditional views. Occasionally a
-.ki|'|niSl1 was won, but, by and large, this endeavour was deemed
nnsnt-eessliul by the academic world.
l'he ellect of this history on the concept of the cation was clear.
I lltl\(‘ scholars who pursued historical criticism of the Old Testa-
nn-nt nu longer found a significant place tor the canon. Conversely,
Ilium‘ .~;t-holars who sought to retain a concept of the canon were
|lll.llllt' to find a significant role for historical criticism. This is the
|---l.nn\ which lies at the centre of the problem of evaluating the
tt.\Il|lt' ol'()ld 'l'estament Introduction.
In my jtitlgment, the crucial task is to rethink the problem of
li.nt-tlnction in such a way as to overcome this long established
n n--ton hetwecn the canon and criticism. ls it possible to under-
-.I,tIttl l|tt' ()ld 'l'estamcnt as canonical scripture and yet to make
lull .t||tl t-onsistent use ofthe historical critical tools?
 II
THE PROBLEM or THE CANON

Bibliography
G. C. Aalders, Oud-Testamentische Kanoniek, Kampen 1952; P. R. Ack-
royd, ‘The Open Canon’, Colloquium, The Australian and New Zealand
Theological Review 3, Auckland 1970, 279-91; G. W. Anderson, ‘Canonical
and Non-Canonical’, The Cambridge History ofthe Bible 1, ed. P. R. Ackroyd
and C. F. Evans, Cambridge and New York 1970, 113-59; W. R. Arnold,
‘Observations on the Origin of Holy Scripture’,_]BL 42, 1923, l—2l;_]. P.
Audet, ‘A Hebrew-Aramaic List of Books of the Old Testament in Greek
Transcription’,jTS, NS 1, 1950, 135-54; W. Bacher, ‘Synagogue, the
Great’,jE ll, 640-43; W. J. Beecher, ‘The Alleged Triple Canon of the
Old Testament’,jBL 15, 1896, 118-28; P. Billerbcck, Der Kanon des
Alten Testaments und seine Inspiration’, Kommcntar zum Neuen Testament
aus Talmud und Midrasch [V 1, Munich 1928, 415-51; L. Blau, ‘Bible
Canon’, jE 3, 140-50; Blenkinsopp, Prophecy and Canon, Notre Dame,
Ind. 1977; Bloch, ‘Outside Books’, Mordecai ll/I. Kaplan jubilee Volume,
English Section, New York 1953, 87-108; reprinted Leiman, Canon and
Masorah (see below), 202-23;]. S. Bloch, Studien zur Geschichte der Sammlung
der althebriiischen Literatur, Breslau 1876;]. Bonfrére, ‘In totam scripturam
sacram praeloquia’, Commentarii in Pentateuchum, Antwerp 1625, 1-92; K.
Budde, Der Kanon des Alten Testaments, Giessen 1900; F. Buhl, Canon and
Text ofthe Old Testament, ET Edinburgh and New York 1892.
H. von Campenhausen, The Formation of the Christian Bible, ET
Philadelphia and London 1972; Carmignac, ‘Les citations de 1’Ancien
Testament dans “1a Guerre des Fils de Lumiere contre les Fils de
Ténebres” ’, RB, 63 1956, 234-60, 375-90; R. E. Clements, Prophecy and
Tradition, Oxford and Philadelphia 1975, 54-7; ‘Covenant and Canon in
the Old Testament’, Creation, Christ, and Culture. Studies in Honour of T. F.
Torrance, ed. R. W. A. McKinney, Edinburgh 1976, 1-12; Jean Le Clerc,
Sentiments dc quelques théologiens d’Hollande sur l’Histoire Critique de Vieux Tes-
tament, Amsterdam 1686; R. Coggins, Samaritans andjeu.-s. The Origins of
Samaritanism Reconsidered, Oxford and Philadelphia 1975; H. Corrodi, Ver-
such einer Beleuchtung der Geschichte rle.s_jt1dischen und christlichen Bibelhanons, 2
 THE PROBLEM or THE CANON 47
vols. Halle I792; Cosin, A Scholastic History of the Canon ty‘ the Holy
Scripture, London I657, reprinted Oxford I849; S. Davidson, The Canon of
the Bible, London I880; L.‘ Dennefeld, Der alttestamentliche Kanon der anti-
uchenischen Schule, Biblische Studien I4.4, Freiburg I909; L. Diestel, ‘Die
Kritik des Kanons’, Geschichte des Alten Testamentes in der christlichen Kirche,
_|ena 1869, 601-20.
A. Eberharter, Der Kanon des Alten Testaments zur Zeit des Ben Sira, Muns-
ter I9l I; O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction, Oxford and New
York I965, 560-71; I. H. Eybers, ‘Some Light on the Canon of the Qum-
ram Sect’, Ou TWP I962, I-14, reprinted Leiman, Canon and lldasorah, 23-
'Iti; ‘Some Remarks about the Canon of the Old Testament’, Theologia
lfeangelica 8, Pretoria I975, 88-I I7; L. Finkelstein, ‘The Maxim of the
.-\nshe Keneset Ha-GedoIah’,jBL 59, 1940, 455-69; E. Flessernan-van
Leer, ‘Prinzipien der Sammlung und Ausscheidung bei der Bildung des
Ixdmons’, ZTK 6I, I964, 404-20; D. N. Freedman, ‘The Law and the
|’mphCtS’, SVT 9, I962, 250-65, reprinted Leiman, Canon and Masorah,
>--20; ‘Canon of the Old Testament’ IDB Suppl, I30—6; _]. Fuerst, Der
Arman des Alten Testaments nach den I’/berliderungen in Talmud und flllidrasch,
I.t'ipZIg 1868; A. Geiger, ‘Warum gehort das Buch Sirach zu den Apok-
|\'|1hen?’, ZDMG 12, I858, 536-43; L. Ginzberg, ‘Some Observations on
the Attitude of the Synagogue toward Apocalyptic Writings’, _[BL 41,
l‘I'_’2, I15-36, reprinted LCIITIBII, Canon and Masorah, 142-63; H. Graetz,
‘Her Abschluss des Kanons des Alten Testaments’, MOW] 35, I886,
.’H| --98; W. H. Green, General Introduction to the Old Testament: the Canon,
'\'¢-w York I905; D. E. Groh, ‘Hans von Campenhausen on Canon’, Interp
.'H. IFJ74, 331-43; H. A. C. Hiivernick, A General I-Iistorico-Critical Introduc-
trim to the Old Testament, ET Edinburgh I852, l7IT.; W. W. Hallo, ‘New
\'|t-wpoints on Cuneiform Literature’, IE] I2, I962, I3-26; M. Haran,
'I'm|>|ems of the Canonization of Scripture’ (Hebrew), Tarbiz 25,
Ir-rn.~;;tIern 1955-6, 245-71; G. Hiilseher, Kartottisch und Apokrflrh, Leipzig
IIIII’-I,

I-1 Jacob, ‘Principe canonique et formation de I’Ancien Testament’,

\l'l' '38, I975, 101-22; A. Jepsen, ‘Kanon und Text des Alten Testa-
tr|l‘llI‘~i’. TI.Z 74, I949. 65-74; ‘Zur Kanongeschichte des Alten Testa-
mt-|||s’. Zzllf 7 I, I959, I I4-36; ‘$ammlung und Kanonisierung des Alten
It-\r.|m<-nls’. RGG3 I, I123-5; A. Jolles, Einfache Forrnen, Darmstadt
-'l'I'rH. ‘ll;-8; P. Katz, ‘The Old Testament Canon in Palestine and Alex-
.m=l1i;|‘. ZNI1/' 47, I956, I9I—2I7, reprinted Leiman, Canon and Masorah,
' NH; .\I. (I. Kline, The Structure ofBiblical Authority, Grand Rapids, rev.
Ill l‘l7'_’; Ii. Koenig, Kanon und Apolrryphen, Giitersloh I917; L. Koole,
H--t I’m/Jlrwrt mn do (Iunorriratie van het Oude Testament, Kampen I955; S.
Krauss_ ‘ I'Iu~ Great! SynotI’,_/QR I, I898, 347-77; A. Kuenen, ’Llber die
\l.mm'| tlt-r l_[l'(lNsl‘Il S} tlugngt-’_ I876, Cermttn tr. Cesarnrnelte Abhandlungen
.-m hr/»tm'/mt ll'i.w'rm‘hrt/1‘ rm: [Jr .-I/rrohrmt I\'uen('n, Freiburg I894, I25-69; W’.
Ii |.tllIlI')eI'1, ‘.-\t|t‘t-slum, .-\utlmrx ztntl (lztt|t1t1i(‘ily",\/CS II. I957, I—I‘I-;J.
48 INTRODUCTION
C. H. Lebrarn, ‘Aspekte der alttestamentlichen Kanonbildung’, VT I8,
1968, 173-89; Sid Z. Leiman, ed., The Canon and ll/Iasorah ofthe Hebrew
Bible, New York I974; The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, Hamden, Conn.
1976; Leipoldt, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 2 vols. Leipzig
I907; R. C. Leonard, The Origin tyf Canonicity in the Old Testament, Diss.
Boston University 1972; Elias Levita, The .-I/Iassoreth ha-Massoreth, trans. C.
D. Ginsberg, 1867, reprinted New York 1968; P. Lewis, ‘What do we
mean by _[abneh?’,_]ournal ofBible and Religion 32, Boston, Mass. I964,
125-32, reprinted Leiman, Canon and Masorah, 254-61; A. Loisy, I-Iistoire
du canon de l’Ancien Testament, Paris 1890.
H. Mantel, ‘The Nature of the Great Synagogue’, HTR 60, 1967, 75-83;
M. Margolis, The Hebrew Scriptures in the 1Ma/ting, Philadelphia I922; R.
Meyer, ‘Kanonisch und Apokryph irn judentum’, TWNT 3, 979-87
= TDNT 3, 978-87; F. Michaéli, ‘A propos du Canon de I’Ancien
Testament’, Etudes Theologiques et Religieuses 36, Montpellier 1961, 61-81;
G. F. Moore, ‘The Definition ofthe_]ewish Canon and the Repudiation of
Christian Scriptures’, C. A. Briggs Testimonial (Essays in ll/Iodern Theology),
New York 191 1, 99-125, reprinted Leiman, Canon and Masorah, 115-41; R.
E. Murphy, A. C. Sundberg and S. Sandmel, ‘A Symposium on the
Canon of Scripture’, CBQ 28, 1966, 189-207; H. Oppel, Kavtbv, Zur
Bedeutungsgeschichte des Wortes und seiner lateinischen Entsprechurzgen, regula-
norma, Philologus, Supplementband 30.IV, Leipzig 1937; H. M. Orlinsky,
‘The Canonization of the Bible and the Exclusion of the Apocrypha’,
Essays in Biblical Culture and Bible Translation, New York 1974, 25 7-86; G.
Ostborn, Cult and Canon.‘ A Study in the Canonization ofthe ore Testament,
UppsaIa' 1950; R. H. Pfeiffer, ‘The Canon ofthe Old Testament’, IDB I,
498-520; _]. D. Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin ty‘ the Samari-
tan Sect, HSM 2, I968; E. W. E. Reuss, History of the Canon ofthe Holy
Scriptures in the Christian Church, ET London and New York 21891; B. _[.
Roberts, ‘The Old Testament Canon: A Suggestion’, BJRL 46, 1963-_64,
164-78; Ruwet, Les Apocryphes dans I’oeuvre d’Origene’, Bibl 23,
1942, 18-43; 24, 1943, 18-58; 25, 1944, 143-66; ‘C1émentd’A1exandrie
Canon des Ecritures et apocryphes’, Bibl 29, 1948, 240-71; H. E. Ryle,
The Canon of the Old Testament, London 1892.
_I. A. Sanders, ‘Cave I I Surprises and the Question of Canon’, .‘I-IcCor-
mick Quarterly 21, Chicago I968, 284-98; Torah and Canon, Philadelphia
1972; ‘Adaptable for Life: The Nature and Function of Canon’, Mag-
nalia Dei. Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory if G. Ernest Wright,
Garden City, N-Y. 1976, 531-60; ‘Hermeneutics’, IDB Suppl, 402-7; N.
M. Sarna, ‘The Order of the Books’, Studies In jewish Bibliography, History,
and Literature in Honor of]. Edward Kiev, ed. C. Berlin, New York 1971,
407-I3; ‘Bible: Canon’, E] 4, 816-32; C. F. Sehmid, Historia arztiqua et
oindicatio canonis sacri oeteris nooique testarnenti, libris II comprehensa. Leipzig
I775; I. L. Seeligmann, ‘Voraussetzungen (les Mirl1';1s(‘l1t‘xvqrst-'_ .'\'l/T 1,
I953, 150-1; S. Semler, /Ibhandlrmg z-orr_/rcier I'rrter.vrrt'lrun_,r_g des (farmn. -I
 THE PROBLEM or "rm-3. CANON 49
\'olS., Halle 1771-75; L. H. Silberman, ‘The Making of the Old Testa-
1nent Canon’, in C. M. Laymon, ed., The Interpreter’s One—Volume Commen-
tary on the Bible, Nashville I971, I209-15; Richard Simon, Histoire critique
1lu Vieux Testament, Rotterdam 1685, reprinted, Frankfurt I967; Morton
Smith, Palestinian Parties and Politics that Shaped the Old Testament, New York
.1nd London 1971; W. Robertson Smith, The Old Testament in the _/ewish
(Jhurch, I881, London and New York 21892; H. L. Strack, ‘Kanon des
.\1tt-n Testaments’, RE?’ 9, 741-68; M. Stuart, Critical History and Defence of
t/11' Old Testament Canon, Andover, Mass. 1845, London I849; A. C. Sund
berg, The Old Testament ofthe Early Church, Cambridge, Mass. and London
1'11i4; ‘The “Old Testament”: A Christian Canon’, CBQ 30, I968, 143-55;
1'. N. Swanson, The Closing of the Collection of Holy Scriptures: A Study in the
Hittury of the Canonization ofthe Old Testament, Diss. Vanderbilt University
1‘l7(1; H. B. Swete, ‘Order of the Books in Jewish Lists’, Introduction to the
HM Testament in Creek, Cambridge 21914, reprinted New York 1968, 200.
(1. M. Tucker, ‘Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth ofa Canon’,
111 (Ianon and Authority, ed. G. W. Coats and B. O. Long, Philadelphia 1977,
111-70; C. Turro and R. E. Brown, ‘Canonicity’, The jerome Biblical
t'11111mentary, Englewood Cliffs, N. I969, II, 515-34; B. F. Westcott, On
thr (Ianon ofthe New Testament, London 71896; W. M. L. de Wette, A Critical
11111! I Iistorical Introduction to the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, 2 vols.,
I. 1' Boston, Mass. I843; G. Wildeboer, The Origin of the Canon ofthe Old
l11t1m1ent, ET London 1895; R. D. Wilson, ‘The Book of Daniel and the
( 31111111’, PTB I3, I915, 352-408, reprinted Studies in the Book ofDaniel, 2nd
-.1-111-11, New York 1938, 9-64; L. B. Wolfenson, ‘Implications ofthe Place
111 1111' Book of Ruth’, HUCA I, I924, I77f.; T. Zahn, ‘Zr?-ihlutigen der
l11|1liscl1e11 Biicher’, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons ll.I, Erlangen/
1.1-1|1-/.ig I890, 3l8lT.; S. Zeitlin, ‘An Historical Study ofthe Canonization
1-1 1111- Helnew Scriptures’, PAAjR 3, 1931-2; reprinted Leiman, Canon and
Il1t1ntttlt, l6"l—99.

I . Terminology

1 111- initial rli1l'11‘t1lt§." in discussing the issue ofthe ca11o11ariscslrom

1111- .1n1|1i1_;11it'_» ol’tl1t* tt*r1ni11ology. What is meant by ‘the rano11’?
1 111- |1I1i|11l11gi1";1| t'\'icIt*11t‘t' 1111' the Creek cognates has often 110011
11111-.11~11-1| (<'I'. B. Ir’. \\'t*stt‘ott_."1l31l'.; H. W. Beyer. ‘Kct1'a'11", TIVNT
I +111 ‘J11 = 'l'l).\/T 3, 596-602). The original 1r1eani11g ofthe noun
111 1|.1\.~1i1';1l (irrt-k is tl1at ol"straigl1t rotl’ or ‘ruler’, which also
1111-1\1-11 :1 1111-t;1|1I1o1'it‘al s<~11st*11l'1'11I1~ or norm. 'l’I1t? word appears i11
1111 l.\\ 111111 in l\\'t1|);lsr-;;1_t1't'r~;1|1 tht‘ .\'t*w'l’t*st;1111e11t (Gal. 6.16; ll
I 111 l11_ 1'1 I11) \\ill1 :1 si111il;11' r;1n1_;1-1111111-;111i11g \\'l1i(‘h exte11tlsl'ro1n
.1 l1t1'|.1| 111.1 111111"1-1111'1.1|1l11:11'it'.1l_.1I1s11';1t'l t't1|111t1t;11i11|1. .-\111t)ngtl1(“
50 INTRODUCTION
church fathers the term canon was used in a variety of combina-
tions — ‘rule of truth’, ‘rule of faith’ — as a norm of church doctrine
and practice. Although Origen used the term in an adjectival sense
of scripturae canonicae (De princ. IV 33), the first application of the
noun to the collection of holy scriptures appears in the last part of
the fourth century and continued in common use from the time of
Jerome.
The use of the term canon to describe the scriptures was of
Christian origin and not applied in classic Jewish literature.
Rather, the rabbis spoke of ‘sacred writings’ (kitbi haqqbdei) which
were said to ‘defile the hands’ (me_tamme’im ’et-hayyadayim).
Nevertheless, the rabbinic concept has enough in common with the
Christian usage for Jews usually not to hesitate to apply the term
canon to their scriptures (cf. Leiman; however, cf. the restrictions of
L. B. Wolfenson, I77f., and my final chapter).
The real problem ofdefining the term canon is far from settled by
the philological evidence. One needs only a cursory look at the
history ofinterpretation to see immediately how different have been
the concepts of canon which have been held over the centuries.
Josephus’ view ofcanon (Contra Apionem I, 42f.) implies a concept of
divinely inspired writings, fixed in number, originating within a
limited period oftime. with an established text. A somewhat similar
definition is reflected in the midrashim (cf. Bemidbar Rabbah 14.4),
but it also seems clear that the Talmud allowed for different
categories of canonical books, and that inspiration and canonicity
were carefully distinguished (cf. Leiman, Canorzization, l27ff.).
Semler argued that such traditional definitions ofthe canon were
later theological constructions and that originally the canon simply
designated a list of books which were to be read in open assembly.
The term did not imply any particular quality ofdivine inspiration,
nor was there a fixed number of books agreed upon by a consensus.
Several recent writers (Sundberg, Swanson) have sought to distin-
guish sharply betwecn scripture and the canon. They argue that the
term scripture designates a body of authoritative writings whereas
the canon involves the essential element ofrestriction and implies a
closed collection to which nothing more can be added. Finally,
there are those who would project the term canon into the early
stage of the literaturc’s lormation and define c11no11ir.ation as any
act of ollicial publication of a tlot‘t1n1c11t which 1I('I]I('\'(‘(l 11 11o1'1na-
tive status (F1't"c(l111a11, l.t-11111111).
 THE PROBLEM or THE CANON 51
In sum, much of the present confusion over the problem ofthe
canon turns on the failure to reach an agreement regarding the
terminology. As a result, the points of both consensus and conflict
have been frequently obscured within the debate.

2. T/ze Traditional View Qft/ze Canon and its Demise

The Old Testament does not address directly the issue of when and
how the history of canonization took place, yet various_]ewish trad-
itinns developed during the Hellenistic period which were accepted
by both _]ews and Christians at least until the seventeenth century.
ll Esdras 14.4-4 (c. AD 100) recounts that Ezra restored in forty days
the sacred books which had been destroyed by the Babylonians by
his being supernaturally empowered to recall the entire scriptures.
The account in II Mace. 2.13 attributes the collection ofthe sacred
writings to Nehemiah. Although the Babylonian Talmud in a fam-
mils passage (Baba Bathra l4b—l5a) had sought to ascribe author-
~.|iip to the various books of the Bible, it was Elias Levita who
Iit'\'(‘lO[J€d the theory ofthe men ofthe Great Synagogue under Ezra
.|\ having established the canon of the Hebrew Bible and divided it
mm three parts. This theory was widely accepted by _]ews and
( fhristians until the end ofthe nineteenth century.
In spite ofthe variations within these traditional viewpoints, they
.Iii shared an underlying assumption of an unbroken continuity,
i'\ t-n ii‘ threatened at times, between the writing and collecting olian
.1t|lilt)I'l|.E1lIl\/C body of scripture. The canon was formed and
--n|;irgett as each new book was added. When the last book
.|p|ii~;ired, the canon was closed. The canon assured an unbroken
.|'t it's ol‘ sacred annals which had been preserved from the time of
\ltI\t'S. The establishment of authorship maintained its authentic-
n\. the divine inspiration its truth, the uninterrupted succession its
|ii|| ll).
I he t-ollapse of the traditional understanding of the canon was
|||=- it-snlt til‘ attacks from several directions. First ofall, the discov-
- |\ olli t'mI1pl(‘X historical development of the literature, especially
the l’t-nt.itetu'l1, seriously damaged the idea ofa direct, unbroken
ittli\ In-twt-t-1| the original writing and its linal Stage in which the
litwkk zutthnrity li;i(l lH‘('ll il(‘(‘(‘|)l(‘(l from its inception. Again, the
tr--»i11iitin1iti|';| lmig'p1't*lii.~:ltit'yrziisetlserioust|ut'stin|1s respecting
52 INTRODUCTION
the traditional authorship, and thus threatened the canon’s authen-
ticity. Then again, the discovery that certain of the biblical books,
especially Daniel, probably derived from a period alter the alleged
closing oi‘ the canon under l:lzra"s leadership did much to question
the accuracy ol‘ the traditional concept of the canon’s history.
l\'uenen’s devastatingly negative judgment regarding the history of
the Great Synagogue removed the last foundation block olithe older
view and wiped the slate clear for a new interpretation.

3. The ."\'ineleenl/z-century Historical (.'onsensu.t and its Erosion

The development of a new critical theory ol‘ the canon from a

strictly historical perspective had been attempted by Eichhorn,
Corrodi, de Wette, and others. The varying models suggest that
they did not succeed in achieving a wide consensus, chielly because
of the disagreement over the history of‘ the literature. However,
\

with the growing hegemony ol' Wellhausen’s reconstruction oi

Israel's history and literature, a new consensus began to emerge
also regarding the history oi‘ the canon. lt is reflected in several
Introductions (e.g. W. R. Smith, Cornill), in important encyc.-
lopaetlia articles (Strack), and in the popular handbooks of Wil-
deboer. Buhl, and Ryle. In spite ot‘ some modification the classic
literary critical construction of the Formation oi‘ the canon has con-
tinued to be represented in the Introductions of PFeilTer, Bentzen,
and Eisslclclt. The theory agreed on certain main lines oi‘ the
development.
The yjosianic retorm ol‘t52l Be, reported in Il Kings ‘Z2, marked
the first step in the process by the canonization of Deuteronomy or
\

some portion oi‘ it. At the end ol“ the fifth century in the period of
Ezra the Torah had assumed its lixed canonical status with the
addition ol‘ the Priestly source to the earlier Pentatenchal strands.
The dating ot‘ the lorniatioii of the Pentateuch was established to
some extent by the Samaritan schism which marked a terminus by
which time these books had been set. The prophetic books were
next canonized in the third century, and the collection had been
firmly closed l)el'ore the book oli Daniel was composed, about I65.
The tinal stage of canonization was assigne(l to decisions at the
Council o[“_]amnia (c. Al) E10) at which time lmoks in use among the
.-'\lexan(lri;1tt _]e\\"s vvere also exeltttletl.
 THE. PROBLEM or THE. canon 53
Within the last two decades this classic tiitictcctitli-century
rccotistructioti oi‘ the history olithe canon has been seriously eroded
in several ways. lti the first place, most ofthe lixed historical points
npoii which the theory had been built seem no lotigcr able to bear
the weight placed upon them. For example, recent research ittto the
Hantaritati question (Puryis. (Ioggiits) has raised serious doubts
whether one can any longer speak ol'a single event in the filth or
tonrth century - the exact date was never settled —- which resulted in
|lit' Samaritan schism. .\lor'can the restriction oli the Samaritan
\t‘l'l|)[Lli‘L‘S to the Pentateuch be used as a tcrmirzus ad t[Zl€I7l tor the
t losing of the [irst part of the Hebrew cation. Similarly, the argu-
tnent For the dating ofthe closing olithe linal section ofthe Hebrew
lithlc by the (louticil ol'_]antnia rests on the llinisiest possible evi-
dence. .\lot only is next to nothing known about this ‘council’, but
\\ hat transpired did not relate directly to the clositig olithe cation.
l'ht-n again, the research of A. C. Stnidberg has successfully des-
troyed the widespread theory olian Alcxandrian canon and seri-
tiltxly datiiaged the assumption oiparallcl cations, one narrow and
tttte broad, which were held by tlillerctit geographical cotiimtttiities
\\lllll]1_ILI(lftlSTl'1.
lit the secotid place, the assutnptioti that the Masoretic division
~-I .t tripartite cation was the original order rellecting three histori-
-.tl stages in the canoti’s development, and that the Septuagint’s
tn-ler was a later. secondary adjustmetit, has been questioned from
.t t ei';tl sides. Holsclter, Katz and Lebrani have dcirionstrated the
.tntn|uity oi other non—I\lasoretic orders. Margolis (7tllT.) has
.tt~-Itlctl tor the co-existence ol‘ Torah, prophecy, atid wisdom
tht -tttgltotit lsrat-l’s literary and religious history. This approach to
. .nton has tended to sustain the older conservative argutiietit (e.g.
It ll. \\'ilsoii) that Daniel's exclusion lirom the prophets in the
\l.|\tt|‘t‘llt‘ order ctitailcd a theological as tnttch as a historical
]t|tl"_|Ill‘Ill. ()nc catttiot assittne that one canonical section was
n-- In It closed |iclot'c another was lot‘tiietl becaitse oi‘ the lack olisolid
- -. ttlt'lIt't‘ lront which to draw such a conclttsiott.
l nt.tl|\". the reco\'er\" oli a sense olioral tradition which criticized
ll|t' ttltlt'l' liter.tr_\ critical school lor itlt-tttiliyitig the age ol‘ the tita-
tt tt.tl \\lllllll ;i hook with its literary lixatioii ltas also had a damag-
nn-_ ellcct on the classic critical l'(‘('t>il!~i[l'tl('ll()llt)l\ll1(‘ canon. Even if
tt||t' tttlllll illl‘lIlll‘§ the lmttk \y|iit'li was tlisco\'ci'e(l in liill (ll Kings
"t \\illt lletttertilitttitx. as litust st'liol;it's tltt, it tlties not liillow that
54 INTRODUCTION
one can infer that this event constituted the first stage of canoniza-
tion of Deuteronomy nor that the laws of .\/loses were without
authority up to that point in history. Many of the same assump-
tions cati be questioned regarding the final stage of the Pen-
tateuch’s alleged canonization uttder Ezra resulting from the addi-
tion of the Priestly source according to the classic Wellhausen
theory. To extrapolate a history of canonization from a highly com-
plex and obscure literary process remains a very fragile and tenta-
tive enterprise.

4. The Search for a New Consensus

In the light of this erosion in the classic critical reconstruction, a

variety of newer attempts have emerged in recent years in an eIIort
to form a new synthesis. Certain characteristic moves can be
sketched without attempting to present an exhaustive review of all
the literature.
(i) G. Holscher argued in Kanonisch and Apokryph (1905) for a
sharp distinction to be made between the growth ofthe collection of
Hebrew writings and the development ofthe concept ofcanon. The
former was a literary process, the latter a dogmatic theory. Taking
Josephus’ understanding ofcanon as representative ofthe dogmatic
canonical formulation, Holscher argued against seeing a three-
stage historical development of the cation. Neither the collection of
the Law nor the Prophets was canonical iti the strict sense oi‘ the
term even by the time ol‘Sirach’s grandson (c. 130 Be). Rather, the
concept of the canon as a dogmatic theory was a product of rab-
binic Pharisaism from the time of Hillel and Shammai, which
sought to preserve rabbinic tradition by limiting the canonical
scripture to a particular period of the ancient past and thus
eliminating the new threat arising from apocalyptic writings. The
Alexandrian Form, of the canon with twetily-two books, which
counted Ruth with Judges and Lamentations with Jeremiah, pre-
served the older order ol‘ the cation, and only later did Palestinian
Judaism change the liorm to adopt the present Hebrew catioti,
which contains twenty-four books.
In my judgment, Holscher itiade an itnportattt contt'ibt.1tion in
challenging the assuinptioti of the nineteenth-century literary criti-
cal school that the threc—stage division was the key to the liistorical
 THE PROBLEM 01-" THE canon 55
understanding of the canon. Also his defence of the priority of the
tradition of twenty-two books was impressive. However, the appli-
ration ofa very limited interpretation of the term canon prejudiced
the discussion from the outset. By adopting a late rabbinic
tlelinition of the canon he failed to explain the forces which led to
the collection of these writings and their authoritative function
which lay behind the final rabbinical form.
(ii) Almost the exact opposite thesis was proposed by David Noel
Freedman (IDB Suppl) who argued that the Law and the Former
Prophets comprised a literary unit and were compiled and pub-
lishcd with some form of canonical status by 550 BC. A ‘second
edition’ which included the Latter Prophets appeared some fifty
tears later. Freedman claimed that these were public documents
pt-omulgated by an ‘official ecclesiastical group in the Jewish com-
ntnnity’ (SVT I962, 251). He assumed that any given writing arose
.ts at response to a specific historical circumstance in the life of the
|tt'tt|)lC, and could be dated very close to the last event mentioned in
tlte document. Furthermore, he worked on the assumption that to
establish the date in which a writing was given a finished form also
established the date of canonization, which he understood as an
tttltrial promulgation ofa public document. In my opinion, none of
tltes-e assumptions can be sustained by historical evidence; in fact I
teg-.trcl them as highly unlikely. By simply identifying the history of
t|tt- |iterature’s growth with the history of canonization Freedman
lt.ts elosed off any chance ofunderstanding the special history ofthe
Itt-ols's growth and collection as canonical scripture which is the
t. et t issue at stake.
tiii) Sid Z. Leiman begins his history of the formation of the
t.ttttitt with a clear definition of his understanding of the term: ‘A
-.tnottical book is a book accepted by Jews as authoritative for
telttiious practice and/or doctrine, and whose authority is binding
tt|ttIlt tltt-Jewish people for all generations’ (Canonization, 14). Lei-
i|t.|t| then distinguishes between uncanonical writings referred to in
the llt-brew Bible and canonical writings. Using such verses as Ex.
‘I I; l l\'int_{s 2.3; ll Kings 14.6, Leiman concludes that the biblical
test is unequivocal: ‘The canottization of the Covenant Code, the
ltet .llti_gl|t', Dcttterotiotity, attd perhaps the eittire Torah is assumed
to lt.ttt- oct'itrt'etl (luring tltc lifetitite Of .\I0ses’ (20).
ln Ill\ itttlgtnettt. l.einiatt has iitade a valuable contribution in
slttttsittg the early age at which doctnttctits, particularly laws,
56 INTRODUCTION
F1

exerted an authoritative role. lhe history ofthe canon did not start
in 621 BC as ifthe book ofDeuteronomy, which had previously been
regarded as among the profane writings, was suddenly deemed
authoritative. Also I.eiman’s discussion of the rabbinic evidence for
the closing of the canon is of great value. .\ievertheless, there are
some problems with Leiman’s lull proposal, in my opinion. Because
he makes no real distinction between a book’s authority and its
canonicity, the entire Pentateuch is assumed to have been canon-
ized during the period of Moses. But then this portrayal of the
canonization process fails to reckon with the very history of the
literature's development, the recognition of which caused the col-
lapse of the traditional position. Leiman makes a passing reference
to Albright’s demonstration that ancient tradition has been pre-
served in the various sources as evidence against the classic literary
critical reconstruction. But he still does not make room for the
complex history of the litcrature’s growth. Nor docs he adequately
deal with a history ofaccommodating, collecting, and ordering of
saga and legends stemming from non-Israelite sources which
entered the Pentateuch. In the end, Leiman’s reconstruction ofthe
history still seeks to defend an unbroken succession ofattthoritative,
canonical writings from Moses to the close of the canon.
(iv) A similar hypothesis, but considerably more apologetic, has
been proposed by .\/I. G. Kline, who attempts to establish an
unbroken canonical continuity from the Mosaic period by finding
an analogy in the ancient Near Eastern Suzcrainty treaties. How-
ever, Kline’s basically dogmatic formulation of the history of the
canon in terms of a divine inspiration which assured an inerrant
transmission of the Word of God (23) reflects completely the pre-
Semlcr_ seventeenth-century understanding which has not even
seen the historical problem. These issues are far too complex simply
to circumscribe by a strictly theological definition. Therefore, in
spite of some excellent insights, the total impact of the book misses
its intended goal.
(v) .-'\t the other end ofthe spectrum is the bold attempt oli_]ames
A. Sanders to reinterpret the history of the canon as an ongoing
hermeneutical process extending throughout lst'ael's entire history.
Sanders greatly broadens the definition ofthe canon to describe the
community’s attempt to discover its sell‘-identity in the liglit ofits
authoritative traditions which it enntinttallv reinter|>rets to meet
the changing ltistorieal eomlitions ofits e.\ist<-111-e. .\rt-o|"<li||_|_»_" to his
 THE PROBLEM or THE canon 57
model, ‘it is the nature of canon to be both stable and adaptable’
t‘Hermeneutics’, 404). It is stable in the sense of having an estab-
lished structure and content; it is adaptable in addressing the
cotnmunity in each new generation. Although Sanders has not yet
vvorked out the effect ofhis hermeneutical approach in detail on the
entire history of the canonical process, he has drawn some of the
Iiroad lines in his book Tara/2 and Canon.
In my judgment, Sanders has moved in the right direction in
liroadening the definition of canon to cover a process extending
throughout Israel's history which effected the shaping ofthe litera-
tnre itself. However, I am critical of Sanders’ existential categories
which understand the growth of canon as a search for identity in
tintes of crisis, oscillating between the two poles of stability and
.ttlaptability. In my opinion, the historical and theological forces
which evoked the formation of the canon were ofa very different
ortler from an identity crisis. Nor is the effect of canon on the
literature adequately described by Sanders’ category of‘monotheis-
tic pluralism’, as I shall attempt to demonstrate in the detailed
.tnalysis of each biblical book. Finally, I am critical of Sanders’
.ntempt to reconstruct the hermeneutical process within ancient
l\l';ll“‘l, which appears to be a highly speculative enterprise, es-
pecially in the light ofthe almost total lack ofinformation regarding
lltt' history ofcanonization. He assumes a knowledge ofthe canoni-
t.tl process from which he extrapolates a hermeneutic without
tlt't||t>t1S[I‘Et[il'lg, in my opinion, solid evidence for his reconstruction.
l'o summarize: the task of assessing the role of the canon in
understanding the Old Testament has proven to be an enormously
=l||lit-nlt problem. Its terminology, history, and function remain
lt|t_'_l|l_\ controversial. In spite of the serious erosion in the classic
lnt-r;n"§ critical reconstruction of the history of canon which
t t|tt't'L,_"t‘(l at the end of the nineteenth century, no fully satisfactory
ltt'\\ interpretation has been able'to achieve a consensus.

.3. .-'1 Nate Attem/2! at I 'n(/ersfandirzg Canon.

lt is 1tcccs.s;1tԤ at the outset to settle on a definition of the term

..nn»n. 'l'he tlillicnlty ofthe snhjeet and its complex historical usage
-.ln-nltl caution against too quickly claiming the exclusive right for
.tnt one tlelinition. lt is itnportant that the use of the term does
58 INTRODUCTION
justice to all the dimensions ofthe issue without prematurely resolv-
ing problems merely by definition. One should also expect a degree
of consistency in the application of the term.
The term canon has both a historical and a theological dimen-
sion. The formation ofthe canon ofHebrew scriptures developed in
a historical process, some lines of which can be accurately
described by the historian. Semler was certainly right in contesting
an exclusively theological definition of canon in which the element
of development was subsumed under the category of divine Provi-
dence or Hez'l5gesc/z2'c/zte of some sort. Conversely, the formation of
the canon involved a process of theological reflection within Israel
arising from the impact which certain writings continued to exert
upon the community" through their religious use. To seek to explain
the historical process leading toward the formation of the canon
solely through sociological, political, or economic forces prejudices
the investigation from the start.
In recent years there has been a strong insistence from such
scholars as Sundberg and Swanson that a clear distinction be made
between scripture and canon. Accordingly, scripture is defined as
authoritative writings, whereas the canon is restricted to a dogma-
tic decision through which the limits of scripture are defined and
fixed. There are certain obvious merits in making a sharp distinc-
tion between the authority ofa writing and its canonization. I have
earlier criticized Leiman’s reconstruction for too easily identifying
scriptural authority and canonization, with the result that the com-
plex history ofcollecting and ordering ofa corpus ofsacred writings
is inadequately treated.
However, there are also serious problems involved in too sharply
separating the two concepts after the model ofSundberg and Swan-
son. First ofall, to conceive ofcanon mainly as a dogmatic decision
regarding its scope is to overestimate one feature within the process
which is by no means constitutive of canon. It is still semantically
meaningful to speak ofan ‘open canon’. Secondly, the sharp dis-
tinction obscures some of the most important features in the
development of the canon by limiting the term only to the final
stages ofa long and complex process which had already started in
the pre-exilic period. Essential to understanding the growth of the
1

canon is to see this interaction between a developing corpus of

authoritative literature and the community which treitsnred it. The
authoritative \'\-"ord gave the ctmunttnity its form and content in
 THE PROBLEM or THE canon 59
obedience to the divine imperative, yet conversely the reception of
the authoritative tradition by its hearers gave shape to the same
writings through a historical and theological process of selecting,
collecting, and ordering. The formation of the canon was not a late
extrinsic validation ofa corpus of writings, but involved a series of
decisions deeply affecting the shape of the books. Although it is
possible to distinguish different phases within the canonical process
— the term canonization would then be reserved for the final fixing
of the limits of scripture - the earlier decisions were not qualita-
tively different from the later. When scripture and C£iI1OI1 are too
sharply distinguished, the essential element in the process is easily
lust.
Part of the difficulty ofdefining the canonical process turns on
the model one uses by which to interpret this history. Although
.\'.tnders also understands canon in terms ofa dynamic process, we
tlilfer markedly in our descriptions of this history. For Sanders the
In-art of the canonical process lay in lsrael’s search for identity. In
my judgment, this approach turns the canonical process on its head
|t\ couehing a basically" theological move in anthropological terms.
It thus replaces a theocentric understanding of divine revelation
\\itll an existential history. Indeed, canon involved a response on
lst";tel’s part in receiving the authoritative tradition, but the
lt's|)ttI1SC to a continuing experience with God was testified to by a
ttcw understanding of scripture. Israel did not testify to its own
~e|l‘-understanding, but by means of a canon bore witness to the
t|t\it1c source of its life. The clearest evidence for this position is
lotttttl in the consistent manner in which the identity ofthe canoni-
-.tl --tlitors has been consciously obscured. and the only signs of an
--n-,_-,oittg history are found in the multi-layered text of scripture
ttselli. The shape of the canon directs the reader’s attention to the
..tt't't'tl writings rather than to their editors. Israel’s own self-
nntlerstanding was never accorded a place of autonotny, but was
.tl\\ .tys interpreted in the light ofthe authority ofscripture. Because
the process of forming the scriptures catne to an end, canon marked
oll .t ltxetl hotly of writings as normative for the community rather
tlt,tt1 .tttrihuting authority to the process itself. When Israel later
lt'lIllt‘I'|)l'('|l‘(l its scriptures to address changing needs. it did so in
tltt' lortn of tltc targnm, that is to say, cotnrttentary, which was set
.t|t.ttt sltarply front the reccivctl sacred text of scripture.
Iltete is one linal point to make respecting the nature of the
60 tnrnooucrton
canonical process. Seeligmann has described a process of interpre-
tation within scripture which he correctly derived frotn a con-
sciousness of canon (Km:onbm=u.s.st.teirz). This process involved the
skilful use ofliterary techniques, word—plays, and proto-midrashic
exegesis which emerged during the linal stages of the formation of
the canon and continued to be developed and to flower during the
post-biblical period. Although such exegetical activity grew out of a
concept of the canon as an established body ofsacred writings, it is
a derivative phenomenon which does not represent the constitutive
force lying behind the actttal canonical process. Rather, the decisive
force at work in the formation of the canott emerged in the trans-
mission ofa divine word in such a form as to lay authoritative claim
upon the successive generations.
The growth of Israel's cation consciousness can be clearly
dctectcd when the words of a prophet which were directed to a
specific group in a particular historical situation were recognized as
having an attthority apart from their original use, and were pre-
served for their own integrity (cf. Isa. 8.l6l'.). The heart of the
canonical process lay in transmitting and ordering the authoritative
tradition in a form which was compatible to function as scripture
fora generation which had not participated in the original events of
revelation. The ordering of the tradition for this new function
involved a profoundly hermeneutical activity, the effects of which
are now built into the structure of the canonical text. For this
reason an adequate interpretation ofthe biblical text, both in terms
ofhistory antl theology. depends on taking the canonical shape with
great seriousness. When seen in this light, the usual practice ofthe
historical-critical Introduction of rclegating a treatment of the
canon to the final chapter is entirely misleading and deficient.

6. The Refatzion betzceen the Literary and (.'rumrzical Hz'.s'torz'e.r

The recognition of the complex history of the growth of the ()ld

Testament literature did tnore than anything else to bring about
the collapse ofthe older dogmatic. understanding of the canon. The
formation of the Hebrew Bible could not be atlequatcly ltandled
without paying close attention to a history ofliterary development
which shared mam‘ of the featttres ofancicnt .\'e.u" l'iastcrn litera-
' .
1 r q u I I I I I I I I

ture I11 general. lhc nnpltcattons ol ll1t'tlI.\'t'tr\t'1'_\ ol this lnstortcal

 Tl-IE PROBLEM OF Tl-IE CANON 61

tlitnension in the literature’s formation were soon drawn in respect

to the canon as well. (_)b\-iously, the present lortn of the Hebrew
ratltm was also a product ofa historical development. Bttt what is
the relation between these two histories, namely, the history olithe
literature and the history of the canon?
The classic \\'ellhausen position ol‘ Old Testament criticism
rlcztrly recognized two distinct historical processes, but sought to
it-late thetn closely. Thus, the ‘book ofthe law’ discovered in 621 BC
tlttring the reign ol'_]osiah was iclentilied as the hook 0|‘ Deutero-
nomy. which was judged to be a seventh-century platlortn for the
|-t-forming party in Jerusalem. Its acceptance as an authority also
mat-l<ed the lirst stage ol‘ canonization of the Hexateuch according
‘Q

to the theory. As we have seen, the attack on W'ellhausen’s theory ol

lltt" literary history oiithe Old Testament also lell on the reconstruc-
llllll ol' the canonical history. In the recent search For a new recon-
~.|tt|ction oi the literary history oi Israel there have been several
.t|tctn[)lS to identify the two processes, whether by means ofa new
Int-rat"y-critical hypothesis (Freedman) or by a return to an older
tntt~;t'l'\'21[lV(“ position (Kline). In my judgment, this iclentilication
-it the literary and the canonical history, whether stemming lrom
tltt' It-|'t or right olithe theological spectrum, is a step backward and
~.mtttrt be sustained.
lllt‘ two processes are not to be iclentilietl, but clearly they
In l-it|2,' together. Exactly how the two histories relate remains oliten
lllll lt‘.Il' and ntueh more intensive research will be needed to clarify
Iltt' problern. Still a Few general observations regarding their rela-
tt. tllwlllll are in orcler. First, the (le\'elo|>ment of Hebrew literature
t||\t-l\t'tl a tnueh broader history than the history oi‘ the canon‘s
-ll \ t'lti|)lII("Ill. The Fortner process resttlted from innumerable forces
.ttt It .l\ laws olisaga, the use oliinheritcd literary patterns oli prose
to-l |tnt'Il'_\', the social setting ol‘(li\'erst7 institutions, the changing
.. tt|».tl lt't'lIlIl(|lI('S ctc., whereas the latter process was tnuch mot'e
. l..-.--l\ tlcllttctl hy those forces which allected the literature’s evalu-
.|l||t|t_ ttatistnission, and usage. ."\lthough non-religious lactors
|---lint-.tl. social. aittl ccotiotitic) certainly entered into the canoni-
..tl |t|ttt t-ss. llIt‘.\t‘ were stthorclinatcrl to the religious usage oi‘ the
hit t.1ttttt- l)\ its litttctioit witltilt the t‘ommut1it\'.
_ I

\t-t t-ntlly, tln-re \\t'|'t‘ periods in the history oli lsracl itt which the
|.ttuit|i< _ll liistor} was larttcly sttlistnnetl ttntlcr the history of the
lit--|.i||m-'~. tlt'\t'lt)]1lI1('lll. 'l'lti.~; litsiott ol' the two |)roccsscs was es-
62 mrnooucrton
pecially evident during the early, pre-exilic history, but in the later
exilic and post-exilic periods these Forces associated with the
development ofcanon increased in importance. There seems to be a
direct relationship between the quantity ofliterature and the inter-
est in its collection and ordering within set parameters.
Thirdly, because ofthe lack ofhistorical evidence, it is extremely
difficult to determine the motivations involved in the canonical
process. The Old Testament neither reports directly on this history,
nor does it even reflect a tradition of the canonical process. With
the one exception of the Deuteronomic tradition of .\/Ioses’ writing
and preservation ofthe Book ofthe Law, the Old Testament has no
tradition lirom which one could begin to recover its history. At most
we find an occasional isolated event or situation from which some
historical inlbrmation can be inferred. For example, it remains
exceedingly diificult to determine to what extent a canonical Force
was at work in the uniting of the] and E sources of the Pentateuch
or how a consciousness of the canon exerted itselfin the process.
Caution must be exercised not to hypothesize the history oi‘ the
literature’s growth in such a way as to eliminateapriori the religious
dimensions associated with the Function ofthe canon. One does not
have to read far in the standard historical critical Introductions to
find hypotheses regarding the literary and canonical histories
which rest on untested historiographical assumptions.

7. A Sketch of the Development of the Hebrew Canon

The book of Deuteronomy (3l.24lT.) records an act which clearly-

refiects an early stage in the growth of the canon. Moses wrote the
words oiithe divine law in a book which was deposited by the side of
the ark oi‘ the covenant For periodical reading before the entire
assembly of Israel. Of course, the age of this chapter cannot be
unequivocally fixed — many scholars would Feel that it is pre-exilic~
nor can the scope of the law attributed to I\/loses be determined
with certainty. But from what we know oiithe history oi'the litera-
ture, it is not to be identified with the whole Pentateuch.
However, there is evidence to show that the Deuteronomic
description ol‘ Moses’ act stands in close continuity with earlier
tradition. First, Moses role as mediator olitlte divine law is deeply
rooted in the Sinai tradition. \i\/ltett Israel was imalile to receive the
 THE PROBLEM or THE canon 63
tlivine law directly, Moses interceded for the people. Moreover, Ex.
2l.l—l l, which belongs to the earliest strands of the Pentateuch,
records Moses’ writing the words of the law. reading them in an
assembly of the people within a cultic context, and evoking a
response of loyalty to their stipulations. But there is a difference
hctween the two passages Deut. 3| and Ex. 24, which already
indicates a growth in the history of canon. Both passages speak of
an authoritative law written by Moses which was read in the hear-
ittg of the people. But in Deut. 3] the written form ofthe law has
received a Function Far more autonomous than Ex. ‘Z4 in relation to
tts original historical setting. Deuteronomy 31.26 emphasizes the
t';lI'(‘liLll preservation ofthe book commensurate to its sacred quality.
l'he words themselves, apart from Moses, Function as an authorita-
tive witness against rebellion. A set period in the Future is pre-
scribed For continual reading of the law whose authority is unim-
paired by Moses’ death.
The discovery ofthe book ofthe law in II Kings 22(c1°. II Chron.
'-ll did not mark the beginning of the canonical process, but pro-
\ itles a Further historical confirmation of the already existing
.otthority of the Mosaic law. OI‘ course, many problems remain in
t"sl.ll]lISl"lIl']g the history ofthe growth ofthe literature in the seventh
tt-ntury, which relate to the age, circle, and scope of the book of
llettteronomy, but in spite oi‘ these uncertainties, the passage does
|Itti\'ltl(' historical evidence for the canonical process.
I'here is Further evidence in the canonical development of the
l..tw ol' Moses to be Found in the redactional Framework which
attrottncls the Former Prophets. This sign of editorial activity is
ttsnally associated with a Deuteronomistic school in the sixth to
ttttlt t-entttries. Thus, for example, in the book ofjoshua the leader-
-.lo|> ol' the nation is not conceived of as an extension of Moses’
otltt e, hut is pictured as dependent upon the divine law revealed to
\l-tscs and preserved in book lorm (cf. L8; 4.10, etc.). Although the
lttet.tt'y history of the late filth century associated with the role of
I /t.t is ttot Fully clear, most scholars would agree that the present
t--t to ol' the Pentatettch took its shape at this time. The legal pre-
-.- t||ititi|t!s' recorded in Neh. 8.l3—l8 reflect the Priestly code.
\t~\et tlteless. in terms ol‘ the history of the canon, the authority of
Iltt' \|osaie law is htrthcr attested. hut the exact extent ofthe canon-
It .tl hooks eotn|>risittg this law cannot be established from these
tt sts \or tloes it seem possihle lrom the evidence to understand in
64 INTRODUCTION
any detail the process by which the narrative material in the Pen-
tateuch was accorded a similar canonical status to that ofthe laws.
Another type oi‘ evidence in tracing the history of the canon has
been deduced from the development of the Hebrew text. Textual
history of the Pentateuch can be reconstructed in some measure
from the third century BC. One can easily project a history of tex-
tual development which had begun considerably earlier. This evi-
dence would seem to confirm that the extent ofa canonical corpus
had already been settled by then and that the history ofestablishing
the text of the sacred writings had begun. The translation of the
Pentateuch into Greek from the tniddle of‘ the third century is an
indication of its authoritative status. The terminus ad quem of the
canonization of the Pentateuch is provided at the beginning of the
second century by Ben Sira whose knowledge and use of all the
legal portions can only presuppose the canonical status ofthe entire
Pentateuch (cf. Swanson, 88fI., contra Holscher). Furthermore,
there is nothing at Qumran to challenge this conclusion and much
indirect evidence to support it.
.\'ot surprisingly in the light ofthe paucity of evidence, scholarly
opinions difIer widely regarding the canonical history of the
Prophets. The two extremes are marked, on the one hand, by
Freedman and Leiman, who argue for a closing of the prophetic
canon about 500-450 BC and Swanson, on the other hand, propos-
ing an open collection of prophets well into the Christian era. The
major evidence used in support ofthe first position is that the books
themselves refer to no event after c.500, that the Chronicler was too
late to be included in this section, and that there was a tradition of
the cessation of prophecy after Malachi. In myjudgment, none of
these arguments carry much historical weight, and they rest on
assumptions which have already been criticized. The second posi-
tion represented by Swanson argues that the designation ‘Law and
Prophets’ included all scripture and that the tripartite division was
a late, rabbinic development. In my opinion, Swanson’s interpreta-
tion cannot be sustained without considerable tnodification. In
spite of his argument, the repeated reference in the prologue of Ben
Sira to ‘the Law and the Prophets, and the remaining books’ cannot
be discounted. Moreover, that Ben Sira knows all the prophetic
books in a canonical order (46.l—49.l3) and even the title of‘ the
Book olithe Twelve, appears to be strong evidence for a fixed canon-
ical unit of prophets by the beginning of the second eetttttry.
 THE PROBLEM or "rue canon 65
However, in spite of fixing a terminus to the history, the more
important issues within the canonical process of the prophetic cor-
pus remains still unresolved. There are a few early signs even from
the pre-exilic period ofa canon consciousness related to the prophe-
tie preaching. In both Isa. 8.16 and _]er. 36.llT. one sees the transi-
tion from the spoken prophetic word to a written form with author-
ity. Later, there is reference in Zech. l.4fT. to the ‘former prophets’
whose writings appear to have a form and authoritative status. The
exegesis within the Bible itselfin the post-exilic period begins to cite
enrlier oracles verbatim as an authoritative text which it seeks to
interpret (cf. Isa. 65, 25, which echoes Isa. l.6lT.). Finally, Dan. 9.2
ollcrs evidence of some sort of fixed collection of prophetic writ-
i|t_t_{$.
The basic question of understanding the relation between the
l.;tw and the Prophets within the canonical history remains difficult
to resolve. Although I do not regard Lebram’s theory as correct
\\ hieh sees a series ofauthoritative prophetic writings preceding the
t.monical position of the Law, nevertheless, there are signs of
mntual influence between the two developing collections. Since
\Ioscs was regarded as a prophet, his authority may well have
t-\tended to other books written by prophets. The close link be-
l\\'(‘(‘I'l Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic editing ofthe Former
l'|u|)l1(?tS would tend to confirm such an understanding. Certainly
1 Ilements (Prophecy and Tradition, 55) is right in emphasizing that the
. .monical process should not be conceived of as a closed section of
l..|w to which the Prophets were joined only secondarily. At an
t'.t|'l_\ date the two collections, Law and Prophets, werejoined and
I». -th experienced expansion. By the first century BC both sections of
lite eanon were regarded as normative scripture (cf. Swanson,
I ,'.‘i|l'.. on the Qumran evidence).
.\g;tin, evidence for tracing the canonical history of the final
~.t-t tion olithe Hebrew Bible, the \Nritings or Hagiographa, is sparse
.t|ttl liigltly contested. Sundberg has argued that the Jewish canon
In the first century AD consisted ol' the Law and the Prophets as
“ell as other religious writings which had not been established in a
l|\t‘tl eolleetion. At the Council ofjamnia (c. AD 90) rabbinic Juda-
|~.tt| |t;1I'|'owt't'l its canon and excluded many ofthe religious writings
~.\ l||t'll hntl been freely circulating up to that time. The Forces
I-t-hintl this move have been variously explained as derived from an
.nn i -;t|>oen|_vpt ie or nnti-(Ihristinn concern. Prom this looselyjoined
66 INTRODUCTION
collection of excluded religious writings, the Christian church
formed its larger canon.
Against this thesis, Leiman has protested that the extent ofthe
Jewish canon had been settled long before AD 90. He has certainly
made a strong case against making Jamnia a key stage in the his-
tory of the Jewish canon. The basic text (M. Yadayim 3.5) refers
only to a discussion concerning the status of Ecclesiastes and Song
of Songs, and not the other books of the Hagiographa. There is
good reason to believe that the dispute was a scholastic enterprise
(Talmon), turning on the inspired status ofthe books under consid-
eration, and not canonicity. Moreover, there was no official ruling
and debates continued on these same books long after Jamnia (cf.
Leiman, Canonization, l20ff.).
Several other theories regarding the formation of the Hagio-
grapha have been proposed. Swanson has even argued for the
possibility that the bipartite collection ofthe Hebrew scriptures had
been closed and the number of books restricted before the category
known as the Writings was formed. In my judgment, Swanson's
interpretation of Ben Sira, Josephus, and the New Testament, in
which evidence for a tripartite division is usually found, has not
been convincing. Still it is quite certain that other canonical
arrangements were in competition during the second and first cen-
turies and that the lines between the Prophets and the Writings
remained in considerable flux (cf. Katz). Clearly in the case ofthe
book of Daniel, its canonical status was established independently
of its location in one of the two canonical collections. Although
conclusive evidence for dating the closing ofthe third section of the
Jewish canon is not available, the stabilization of the Hebrew text
by the end ofthe first century AD would further point to a relatively
closed Hebrew canon by the beginning of the Christian era.
The problem ofthe so-called ‘apocryphal books’ in relation to the
Jewish canon has been much discussed in recent years (Sundberg,
Leiman, Swanson). There is a consensus that during the Hellenistic
period a much wider selection of religious writings were in use than
those finally recognized as authoritative within the Jewish canon.
Opinions vary on the authority accorded these books. The presence
of many non-canonical writings at Qumran brought an additional
confirmation to the wide scope ofliterature in use among Jews of
this period. The canonization process within_]udaisn1 thus involved
a selection of a limited number of hooks from at much lnri_{er
 THE PROBLEM or THE canon 67
resource of available literature. Moreover, this canonical limitation
was not confined solely to Palestine, as Sundberg has shown.
The motivation lying behind this narrowing process has also
heen much debated. Usually, it has been attributed either to a
growing conservatism within rabbinic Judaism, or to a fear of
apocalyptic literature or to an anti-Christian move. Since the
sources are virtually silent, these alleged motivation factors remain
itt the realm of hypothesis. From indirect evidence oflater Jewish
writings, the anti-Christian move seems the least likely of the
tlteories. Nevertheless, the effect of the exclusion of the apocryphal
and pseudepigraphical books can be clearly recognized in the sub-
sequent history ofJudaism. Pharisaic Judaism was increasingly set
.tpart by the scope of its canon from other Jewish and Christian
groups which continued to use non-canonical books with varying
degrees of authority.

3. Summary and Implications

\ hrief summary of our conclusions from this history is in order.

lit-st of all, it should be incontrovertible that there was a genuine
lttstorical development involved in the formation ofthe canon and
tlt.tt any concept of canon which fails to reckon with this historical
-lttttension is faulty. Secondly, the available historical evidence
.tlluWS for only a bare skeleton of this development. One searches
Lttgely in vain for solid biblical or extra-biblical evidence by which
to tr;tt‘t" the real causes and motivations behind many ofthe crucial
tlt-t tsions. How did a writing exert an authority and on whom?
\\ |t.tt lay behind a particular collection of books at a given histori-
t .tI period? How were the variety of claims of authority related to
--ttt- ;ttloll1cI' and adjudicated? What groups were involved in the
lllllt ess and how were they alfected by their historical milieu?
t;t-rtain methodological implications derive from these conclu-
.tott~.. We are laced with an obvious dilemma. Clearly the role of
tltt- t anon is of fundamental importance in understanding the Heb-
tt tt st‘l'l])(llI‘(‘S. Yet the Jewish canon was formed through a com-
pl-~\ ltistorical process which is largely inaccessible to critical
If t ttll\Il'lll'llt|I1. The history of the canonical process does not seem
ttt he .ttt ;t\'cnttc through which one can greatly illuminate the
|Ilt‘\.t‘l|l t';tnonit';ll text. .\'ot only is the t‘viCl(’nCC far t0O skeletal, but
68 INTRODUCTION
the sources seem to conceal the very kind of information which
would allow a historian easy access into the material by means of
uncovering the process. Is there any way out of this impasse?
 III
canon AND CRITICISM

Bibliography
\l. Appel, Kanon und Kirche, Paderborn I964; James Barr, ‘Trends and
Prospects in Biblical TheoIogy’,jTS NS 25, I974, 265-82; ‘Biblical Theo-
logy’, IDB Suppl, l04—I I; Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics, I/I, ET New York
I936, Edinburgh I938; 2nd ed. Edinburgh and Grand Rapids, Mich.
I975; Die Schrift in der Kirehe, Ziirich I947; G. Bornkamm, ‘Die
okumenische Bedeutung der historisch-kritischen Bibelwissenschaft’, Ge-
tthirhte und Glaube II, Munich I971, II—-20; H. Cazelles, ‘Biblical Critic-
is-tn, OT’, IDB Suppl, 93-102; B. S. Childs, ‘The Old Testament as Scrip-
tttre ofthe Church’, CTM 43, I972, 709-22; G. W. Coats and B. O. Long,
t-tls., (l'anon'arzd Authority, Philadelphia I977; O. Cullmann, ‘The Tradi-
tion’, The Earl)» Church, ET London and Philadelphia I956; H. Diem, Das
Pm/>/em des Schriftkanons, Ziirich I952; E. Dobschiitz, ‘The Abandonment
ot the Canonical Idea’, AJT I9, I9I5, 4I6fT.; P.-G. Duncker, ‘The Canon
ot the Old Testament at the Council of Trent’, CBQ I5, I953, 277-99; G.
F.be-ling, ‘The Significance of the Critical Historical Method for Church
.ttttI Theology in Protestantism’, Word and Faith, ET Philadelphia and
I.otttlon I963, l7—6I; ‘ “So|a scriptura” und das Problem der Tradition’,
ttt /)u.t' Neue Testament als Kanon, ed. E. Kasemann (see below), 282-335; O.
ti Edwards, Jr., ‘Historical Critical Method’s Failure of Nerve and a
l'tt-seription for a Tonic’, AThR 59, I977, lI5—34; C. F. Evans, Is Holy
mt/irtzre (.'hri.t'tian?, London I97I.
I-'. V. Filson, Which Books Belong in the Bible? A Study tj’ the Canon,
|'|til;ttlt-Ipltia I957; I. Frank, Der Sinn Der Kanonbildung, Freiburg I971; J.
Gerhard, Loci Theologici, Tiibingen I762, Tom. I, Locus I, chs. I—II, I-I3;
I I (Zese, ‘l"irw£igung zur Einheit der biblischen Theologie’, ZTK 67, I970,
ll/' Ilti, reprinted in Vom Sinai zum Zion, Munich I974, ll—30; B. Hag-
glund, ‘l)ie Bedeutung der “regula fidei” als Grundlage theologischer
\ttss.tgen’, .877’/2 ll, I957, I-44; F. Hahn, ‘Das Problem “Schrift und
I t.ttlition” int Urchristentutn’, Ez:Th 39, I970, 449—68; H. H. Howorth,
' I he ()t-igin and Authority ofthe Bihlieal Canon according to the Conti-
to-ttt.tl Refortners‘,_/718' ll, l§l(lti—7_ 3‘.Zl—65; ‘The Origin and Authority of
70 INTRODUCTION
the Canon among the Later Reformers’,]TS 10, 1908-9, 183-232; ‘The
Influence of StJerome on the Canon ofthe Western Church, ll’,_]TS 1 I,
1909-10, 321-47; M. Jugie, Histoire du canon de l ’Ancien Testment dans l ’égli.te
grecque et l’iglise russe, Paris 1909, reprinted Leipzig 1974; E. Kasemann,
‘Vom theologischen Recht historisch-kritischer Exegese’, ZTK 64, I967,
259-81; ed., Das Neue Testament als Kanon, Giittingen 1970; D. H. Kelsey,
The Uses ofScripture in Recent Theology, Philadelphia and London 1975; H.-J.
Kraus, ‘Zur Geschichte des Uberlieferungsbegriifs in der alttestament-
lichen Wissenschaft’, EvTh 16, 1956, 371-87, reprinted in Biblisch-
theologische Aujsatze, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1972, 278-95; E. Krentz, The His-
torical Critical Method, Philadelphia I975; H. Kiing, ‘Der Friihkatholizis-
mus im Neuen Testament also kontroverstheologisches Problem’, in Das
Neue Testament als Kanon, ed. E. Kasemann, I75-204.
M.—J. Lagrange, La méthode historique, Paris 1966; A. N. E. Lane, ‘Scrip-
ture, Tradition and Church: An Historical Survey’, Vox Evangelica 9, Lon-
don 1975, 37-55; P. Lengsfeld, l7berlie_-femng. Tradition und Schrift in der
evangelischen und lcatholischen Theologie der Gegenwart, Paderborn I960; I.
Lfmning, ‘Kanon im Kanon ’, Oslo 1972; A. Maichle, Der Kanon der biblischen
Biicher und das Konzil von Trent, Freiburg 1929; G. Maier, Das Ende des
historisch-kritischen Methode, Wuppertal 1974; F. Mildenberger, Gottes Tat
irn Wort, Giitersloh I964; Die halbe Wahrheit oder die ganze Bibel, Munich
I967; J. H. Newman, ‘On the Interpretation of Scripture’, The Nineteenth
Century I5, London 1884, 185-99; D. E. Nineham, The Use and Abuse if
the Bible, London I976; S. M. Ogden, ‘The Authority of Scripture for
Theology’, Interp 30, 1976, 242-70; K.-H. Ohlig, Woher nimmt die Bibel ihre
Authoritéit? Zum Verhéiltnis von Schrifthanon, Kirche undjesus, Dusseldorf 1970;
Die theologische Begriindung des neutestamentlichen Kanons in der alten Kirche,
Diisseldorf I972; Eva Osswald, ‘Zum Problem der hermeneutischen
Relevanz des Kanons fiir die Interpretation alttestamentlicher Texte’,
Theologische Versuche 18, East Berlin 1978; F. Overbeck, Zar Geschichte des
Kanons, 1880, reprinted Darmstadt 1965; P. Ricoeur, La métaphore vive,
Paris I975; Conflict oflnterpretation, ET Evanston I976; F. A. Sawyer,
‘The “Original Meaning of the Text”, and other legitimate subjects for
semantic description’, BETL 33, 1974, 63-70; E. Schlink, ‘Zum Problem
der Tradition’, Der kommende Christus and die kirchlichen Tradition, Gottingen
I96], 196-201; W. Schrage, ‘Die Frage nach der Mitte und dem Kanon
im Kanon des Neuen Testaments in der neueren Diskussion’, Recht_tfizr-
tigung, FS E. Kasemann, Ttlibingen 1976, 415-42; S. J. Schultz, ‘Augustine
and the Old Testament Canon’, Bibliotheca Sacra I 13, Dallas 1955, 225-34;
E. Schweizer, ‘Kanon?’, EoTh 31, 1971, 339-57.
G. T. Sheppard, ‘Canon Criticism: The Proposal . . . and an Assess-
ment for Evangelical Hermeneutics’, Stadia Biblica et Theologica 4,
Pasadena, Calif. 1974, 3-17; R. Smend, ‘Nachkritisehe Schriftauslegung’,
Parresia, FS Karl Barth, Zurich 1966, 215-37; W. Staerk, ‘Der Sehril't- und
Kanonbegriff der jiidischen Bibel’, Zeitschrzftfiir .t"v.t'tentatz'.tche Tlzt-alrt_gie 6,
 canon AND CRITICISM 71
Berlin I929, 101-I9; P. Stuhlmacher, ‘Historische Kritik und theo-
logische Schriftauslegung’, Schrzftauslegung auf dem Wege zur biblischen Theo-
logie, Giittingen 1975, 59-1'27; G. H. Tavard,_Hot_y Writ or Holy Church,
London I959, New York I960; E. Troeltsch, ‘Uber historische und dog-
matische Methode in der Theologie’, reprinted Theologie als Wissenschaft,
ed. G. Sauter, ThB 43, 1971, 105-27; B. B. Warfield, ‘Inspiration and
Criticism’, The Inspiration and Authority ofthe Bible, Philadelphia I948, Lon-
don I951, 419-42; W. Wink, The Bible in Human Transjormation, Philadel-
phia, I973; H. W. Wolff, ‘Zur Hermeneutik des Alten Testaments’, I956,
reprinted GSA T, Munich I964, 251-88; G. E. Wfight, The Old Testament
and Theology, New York I969.

The purpose of this chapter is to describe an approach within the

discipline of Old Testament Introduction which will attempt to
overcome the methodological impasse ofthe canon which has been
described in the previous chapter. Its goal is to take seriously the
significance of the canon as a crucial element in understanding the
Hebrew scriptures, and yet to understand the canon in its true
historical and theological dimensions. It will seek to relate the
canonical form of the Old Testament to the complex history of the
literature’s formation, the discovery of which is the hallmark ofthe
modern historical critical study of the Bible.
Throughout this Introduction I shall be criticizing the failure of
the historical critical method, as usually practised, to deal ade-
quately with the canonical literature of the Old Testament.
Nevertheless, it is a basic misunderstanding of the canonical
approach to describe it as a non-historical reading of the Bible.
Nothing could be further from the truth! Rather, the issue at stake
is the nature ofthe BibIe’s historicality and the search for a histori-
cal approach which is commensurate with it. The whole point of
emphasizing the canon is to stress the historical nature of the bibli-
cal witness. There is no ‘revelation’ apart from the experience of
historical Israel. However, a general hermeneutic is inadequate to
deal with the particular medium through which this experience has
been registered. The study ofthe canonical shape ofthe literature is
an attempt to dojustice to the nature of Israel’s unique history. To
take the canon seriously is to stress the special quality of the Old
'l’estament’s humanity which is reflected in the form of lsrael’s
sacred scripture.
72 tnrnooucrton

1. Exegesis in a Canonical Context

At the outset I should like to set certain parameters to the scope of

this study. The larger problems for Christian theology of establish-
ing the relation between the two Testaments, as well as of examin-
ing the claims of the apocryphal books on the Christian church, lie
beyond the scope of this Introduction to the Hebrew scriptures. In
myjudgment, these important subjects belong to the fields of bibli-
cal theology, New Testament, and early church history. However, I
will at least express my own conviction regarding the importance of
the study of the Hebrew scriptures for Christian theology. It is
insufficient that the Christian church seeks to relate itself in some
way with the historical events of the Old Testament. Rather, it is
essential for a theological relationship to be maintained between
the people of the Old Covenant and of the New. Regardless of
whatever other writings or traditions were deemed authoritative by
each community within a larger canon — for Jews it is the tradition
ofthe sages, for Christians the gospel ofJesus Christ - the common
canon of the Hebrew scriptures provides the fundamental basis for
any serious relationship. I am well aware that this is a prescriptive
statement, and that only seldom has either of the two communities
of faith functioned in a way which reflected the common canon of
sacred scripture. To seek to trace the development ofthe Christian
canon within the church and to dojustice to both the historical and
theological problems involved far exceeds the scope of this present
enterprise. For this reason the discussion which follows will limit
itself, by and large, to the Hebrew scriptures. Only in the final
chapter will I return to a reflection on these broader issues of
Biblical Theology.
The major task of a canonical analysis of the Hebrew Bible is a
descriptive one. It seeks to understand the peculiar shape and spe-
cial function ofthese texts which comprise the Hebrew canon. Such
an analysis does not assume a particular stance or faith commit-
ment on the part of the reader because the subject ofthe investiga-
tion is the literature of Israel’s faith, not that of the reader. How-
ever, apart from unintentional bias which is always present to some
extent, the religious stance of the modern reader can play a legiti-
mate role after the descriptive task has been accomplished, when
the reader chooses whether or not to identify with the perspectives
 canon AND cturtctsn 73

of the canonical texts of Israel which he has studied. Because this

literature has had a special history as the religious literature of
ancient Israel, its peculiar features must be handled in a way com-
patible to the material itself. A corpus of religious writings which
has been transmitted within a community for over a thousand years
cannot properly be compared to inert shreds which have Iain in the
ground for centuries. This observation is especially in order when
one recognizes that Israel’s developing religious understanding —
the Bible speaks of God’s encounter with Israel - left its mark on
the literature in a continuing process of reshaping and growth.
Canonical analysis focuses its attention on the final form of the
text itself. It seeks neither to use the text merely as a source for
other information obtained by means of an oblique reading, nor to
reconstruct a history of religious development. Rather, it treats the
literature in its own integrity. Its concern is not to establish a
history of Hebrew literature in general, but to study the features of
this peculiar set of religious texts in relation to their usage within
the historical community of ancient Israel. To take the canonical
shape of these texts seriously is to seek to dojustice to a literature
which Israel transmitted as a record of C-od’s revelation to his
people along with lsrael’s response. The canonical approach to the
Hebrew Bible does not make any dogmatic claims for the literature
apart from the literature itself, as if these texts contained only
timeless truths or communicated in a unique idiom, but rather it
studies them as historically and theologically conditioned writings
which were accorded a normative function in the life of this com-
munity. It also acknowledges that the texts served a religious func-
tion in closest relationship to the worship and service of God whom
Israel confessed to be the source of the sacred word. The witness of
the text cannot be separated from the divine reality which Israel
testified to have evoked the response.
It is a misunderstanding of the canonical method to characterize
it as an attempt to bring extrinsic, dogmatic categories to bear on
the biblical text by which to stifle the genuine exegetical endeavour.
Rather, the approach seeks to work within that interpretative struc-
tnre which the biblical text has received from those who formed and
ttsed it as sacred scripture. To understand that canonical shape
retptires the highest degree ofexegetical skill in an intensive wrest-
ling with the text. It is to be expected that interpreters will some-
times tlisugree on the nature of thc canonical shaping, but the
74 INTRODUCTION
disagreement will enhance the enterprise if the various interpreters
share a common understanding ofthe nature ofthe exegetical task.

2. The Canonical Approach Contrasted with Others

Several crucial methodological issues are raised when the canonical

approach is described as focusing on the final form of the text.
Perhaps these issues can be most sharply profiled by contrasting
the approach which I am suggesting with other familiar methods of
critical biblical scholarship.
The canonical study of the Old Testament shares an interest in
common with several of the newer literary critical methods in its
concern to do justice to the integrity of the text itself apart from
diachronistic reconstruction. One thinks of the so-called ‘newer
criticism’ of English studies, of various forms of structural analysis,
and of rhetorical criticism. Yet the canonical approach differs from
a strictly literary approach by interpreting the biblical text in rela-
tion to a community of faith and practice for whom it served a
particular theological role as possessing divine authority. For
theological reasons the biblical texts were often shaped in such a
way that the original poetic forms were lost, or a unified narrative
badly shattered. The canonical approach is concerned to under-
stand the nature of the theological shape of the text rather than to
recover an original literary or aesthetic unity. Moreover, it does not
agree with a form of structuralism which seeks to reach a depth
structure of meaning lying below the surface of the canonical text.
Then again, the canonical method which is being outlined differs
sharply from the so-called ‘kerygmatic exegesis’ which was
popularized by von Rad and his students in the 50s and 60s. Classic
examples of this method can be found in the writings of H. W.
Wolff, C. Westermann, W. Brueggemann, among others. For sev-
eral years beginning in I966 Interpretation ran a series of articles
under the rubric ‘Kerygma of the Bible’. This method attempted to
discover the central intention ofa writer, usually by means of for-
mulae or themes, which intention was then linked to a reconstruc-
tion of a historical situation which allegedly evoked that given
response. Its major concern was to combine historical critical
analysis with a type oftheological interpretation. A major criticism
of the method is the extremely subjective, reductionist metltod in
 canon ant) cnrrtctstvt 75
which the form-critical method has been extended beyond its origi-
nal function to derive a theological message. Often the assumption
that the theological point must be related to an original intention
within a reconstructed historical context runs directly in the face of
the literature’s explicit statement of its function within the final
form of the biblical text. The fragile nature ofthis kind ofexegesis is
also illustrated by its heavy dependence upon critical theories
which bear less and less weight (von Rad’s Credo, Noth’s
amphicytony, etc.).
Again, the canonical study ofthe Old Testament is to be disting-
uished from the traditio-critical approach in the way in which it
evaluates the history of the text’s formation. By assuming the nor-
mative status of the final form of the text the canonical approach
evokes the strongest opposition from the side of traditio-historical
criticism for which the heart ofthe exegetical task is the recovery of
the depth dimension. Form critics raise familiar questions: Why
should one stage in the process be accorded a special status? Were
not the earlier levels of the text once regarded as canonical as well,
and why should they not continue to be so regarded within the
exegetical enterprise? Is not the history which one recovers in the
growth _of a text an important index for studying Israel’s develop-
tnent ofa self-understanding, and thus the very object of Old Tes-
tament theology? Having been trained in the form-critical method,
I feel the force of these questions and am aware of the value of the
.tpp1‘OaCl"t. Still I feel strongly that these questions miss the mark
and have not fully grasped the methodological issues at stake in the
canonical proposal.

3. The Final Form tjthe Text and its Prehistory

l'he reason for insisting on the final form of scripture lies in the
peculiar relationship between text and people ofGod which is con-
stitutive of the canon. The shape of the biblical text reflects a
history of encounter between God and Israel. The canon serves to
tleseribe this peculiar relationship and to define the scope of this
history by establishing a beginning and end to the process. It
assigtts a special quality to this particular segment of human his-
toty which beeatne normative for all successive generations of this
tommunity offaith. The significance ofthe final form ofthe biblical
76 tnrnooucrton
text is that it alone bears witness to the full history of revelation.
Within the Old Testament neither the process of the formation of
the literature nor the history of its canonization is assigned an
independent integrity. This dimension has often been lost or pur-
posely blurred and is therefore dependent on scholarly reconstruc-
tion. The fixing ofa canon ofscripture implies that the witness to
Israel’s experience with God lies not in recovering such historical
processes, but is testified to in the effect on the biblical text itself.
Scripture bears witness to C-od’s activity in history on Israel’s
behalf, but history per se is not a medium of revelation which is
commensurate with a canon. It is only in the final form of the
biblical text in which the normative history has reached an end that
the full effect of this revelatory history can be perceived.
It is certainly true that earlier stages in the development of the
biblical literature were often regarded as canonical prior to the
establishment of the final form. In fact, the final form frequently
consists of simply transmitting an earlier, received form ofthe trad-
ition often unchanged from its original setting. Yet to take the
canon seriously is also to take seriously the critical function which it
exercises in respect to the earlier stages of the literature’s formation.
A critical judgment is evidenced in the way in which these earlier
stages are handled. At times the material is passed on unchanged;
at other times tradents select, rearrange, or expand the received
tradition. The purpose of insisting on the authority of the final
canonical form is to defend its role of providing this critical norm.
To work with the final stage of the text is not to lose the historical
dimension, but it is rather to make a critical, theological judgment
regarding the process. The depth dimension aids in understanding
the interpreted text, and does not function independently ofit. To
distinguish the Yahwist source from the Priestly in the Pentateuch
often allows the interpreter to hear the combined texts with new
precision. But it is the full, combined text which has rendered a
judgment on the shape of the tradition and which continues to
exercise an authority on the community of faith. Of course, it is
legitimate and fully necessary for the historian of the ancient Near
East to use his written evidence in a different manner, often reading
his texts obliquely, but this enterprise is of a dillcrent order from
the interpretation of sacred scripture which we are seeking to
describe.
Then again, the linal litrtn of the text perlitrnts a erttciztl ber-
 canon ann cnrrtctsn 77
meneutical function in establishing the peculiar profile ofa passage.
Its shaping provides an order in highlighting certain elements and
subordinating others, in drawing features to the foreground and
pushing others into the background. To work from the final form is
to resist any method which seeks critically to shift the canonical
ordering. Such an exegetical move occurs whenever an overarching
category such as Heilsgeschichte subordinates the peculiar canonical
profile, or a historical critical reconstruction attempts to refocus the
picture according to its own standards of aesthetics or historical
accuracy.
Although much of my polemical attention up to now has been
directed against various forms of historicism which have made the
use of the Bible dependent upon a reconstructed form of historical
events rather than on the final form of the canonical text, I am also
aware that another, very different front has been opened up which
is equally incompatible with the canonical approach. In the
philosophical hermeneutics of Paul Ricoeur and his followers the
Bible is seen as a deposit of metaphors which contain inherent
powers by which to interpret and order the present world ofexperi-
ence, regardless of the source of the imagery. The concern is to
illuminate what lies ‘ahead’ (deoant) of the text, not behind. This
approach shows little or no interest in the historical development of
the biblical text or even in the historical context of the canonical
text. The crucial interpretative context in which the metaphors
function is provided by the faith community itself (cf. D. Kelsey).
Such an approach fails to take seriously the essential function ofthe
cation in grounding the biblical metaphors within the context of
ltistoric Israel. By shaping Israel’s traditions into the form of a
ttormative scripture the biblical idiom no longer functions for the
t-ommunity of faith as free-floating metaphor, but as the divine
imperative and promise to a historically conditioned people ofGod
whose legacy the Christian church confesses to share.

4. The Canonical Process and the Shaping of Scripture

llte formation of the canon took place over an extended period of

time itt close relation to the development of the Hebrew literature.
lint the canonical process was not simply an external validation of
~.oeet-ssive stages of literary development, but was an integral part
78 INTRODUCTION
of the literary process. Beginning in the pre-exilic period, but
increasing in significance in the post-exilic era, a force was
unleashed by Israel’s religious use of her traditions which exerted
an influence on the shaping of the literature as it was selected,
collected and ordered. It is clear from the sketch of the process that
particular editors, religious groups, and even political parties were
involved. At times one can describe these groups historically or
sociologically, such as the reforming Deuteronomic party of
Jerusalem, or the editors associated with Hezekiah’s court (Prov.
25.1). But basic to the canonical process is that those responsible
for the actual editing of the text did their best to obscure their own
identity. Thus the actual process by which the text was reworked
lies in almost total obscurity. Its presence is detected by the effect
on the text. Moreover, increasingly the original sociological and
historical differences within the nation of Israel - Northern and
Southern Kingdom, pro- and anti-monarchial parties, apocalyptic
versus theocratic circles — were lost, and a religious community
emerged which found its identity in terms of sacred scripture. Israel
defined itselfin terms ofa book! The canon formed the decisive Site
im Leben for theJewish community’s life, thus blurring the sociolog-
ical evidence most sought after by the modern historian. When
critical exegesis is made to rest on the recovery of these very
sociological distinctions which have been obscured, it runs directly
in the face of the canon’s intention.
The motivations behind the canonical process were diverse and
seldom discussed in the biblical text itself. However, the one con-
cern which is expressly mentioned is that a tradition from the past
be transmitted in such a way that its authoritative claims be laid
upon all successive generations of Israel. Such expressions ofintent
are found in the promulgation of the law (Deut. 3l.9lT.), in the
fixing of rituals (Ex. 12.14), and in the provisions for transmitting
the sacred story (Ex. l2.26ff.). A study of the biblical text reveals
that this concern to pass on the authoritative tradition did not
consist in merely passively channelling material from one genera-
tion to another, but reflects an involvement which actively shaped
both the oral and written traditions. A major hermeneutical move
was effected in the process of forming an original law. prophetic
oracles. or ancient narrative into a collection of scripture through
which every subsequent generation was to be ntldressctl-
It is not clear to what extent the ordering ofthe oral atttl written
 canon ano CRITICISM 79
material into a canonical form always involved an intentional deci-
sion. At times there is clear evidence for an intentional blurring of
the original historical setting (cf. the discussion of‘Second Isaiah’).
At other times the canonical shaping depends largely on what
appear to be unintentional factors which subsequently were incor-
porated within a canonical context (e.g. the sequence of the pro-
verbs in Prov. l0ff.). But irrespective ofintentionality the effect of
the canonical process was to render the tradition accessible to the
future generation by means ofa ‘canonical intentionality’, which is
coextensive with the meaning of the biblical text.
The implication of this understanding of canon is crucial for
one’s approach to the problem of the ‘actualization’ ofthe biblical
text. In the recent hermeneutical debate the term actualization
(Vergegenwiirtigung) denoted that process by which an ancient histor-
ical text was rendered accessible to a modern religious usage. An
axiom of much redactional criticism is that the layering ofa biblical
text derives chiefly from a need to ‘update’ an original tradition.
Although this description occasionally applies (Isa. I6.l3f.), the
chief point to be made by the canonical approach is that actualiza-
tion is by no means limited to this one model. Rather, it is constitu-
tive oft_he canon to seek to transmit the tradition in such a way as to
prevent its being moored in the past. Actualization derives from a
hermeneutical concern which was present during the different
stages ofthe book’s canonization. It is built into the structure of the
text itself, and reveals an enormous richness of theological interpre-
tation by which to render the text religiously accessible. The mod-
ern hermeneutical impasse which has found itself unable success-
fully to bridge the gap between the past and the present, has arisen
in large measure from its disregard of the canonical shaping. The
usual critical method of biblical exegesis is, first, to seek to restore
.nt original historical setting by stripping away those very elements
tvltich constitute the canonical shape. Little wonder that once the
biblical text has been securely anchored in the historical past by
"tlt-canonizing’ it, the interpreter has difficulty applying it to the
tttodern religious context. (I am indebted to Gerald T. Sheppard
Ior this formulation of the issue.)
BO tnrttouucrton

5. Scripture and Tradition

One of the most difficult theological problems of the canonical

approach to the Old Testament involves understanding the rela-
tionship between the divine initiative in creating Israel’s scripture
and the human response in receiving and transmitting the
authoritative Word. Christian theology has, by and large, con-
tinued to describe the Bible in traditional terminology as the ‘Word
of God’ which implies divine authorship in some sense. Neverthe-
less, few theologians in this post-critical era would wish to deny
that the active human participation in the hearing, writing, and
transmission of the Bible is an absolutely necessary feature for
correctly understanding the text. What then is the relationship
between these two dimensions of the Bible?
It is impossible to discuss the problem without being aware ofthe
long and heated controversy within Christian theology which has
strongly affected the history of exegesis, and has usually been
treated under the rubric of ‘Scripture and Tradition’. In the six-
teenth century a sharp polarity developed between Protestant insis-
tence on the primacy of the Bible and the Roman Catholic claim
ofecclesiastical authority. The Reformers argued that the Bible was
authoritative, not because the church made it so, but because ofthe
Word ofGod which it contained. The Roman Catholic theologians
countered that the church had been the human medium through
which the Spirit of God had given the scriptures a concrete form
and thus tradition could not be set in subordination to Vt/ord.
This poletnical impasse continued to play an important role
throughout the seventeenth century and provided the framework in
which much of the historical critical research first emerged (cf.
Simon, Le Clerc, Carpzov, etc.). By the middle of the nineteenth
century the widespread recognition of the historical dimension in
the formation of the Bible had badly damaged the traditional dog-
matic positions of both Protestants and Catholics. The older
theological issue was lost in the new historical and literary concerns
to understand the growth of the literature. Within the dominant
critical circles of Liberal Protestantism the role of God in the
Bible’s formation was relegated to a loosely defined divine purpose
lying somewhere behind the evolution of Israel's religion.
The rebirth ofconfcssional theology within Protestatttism follow-
 canon ant) cntrtctsu 81
ing World War I brought a renewed emphasis on the primacy of
the Word of God, roughly analogous to the position of the
sixteenth-century Reformers. However, there was a major differ-
ence in the attempt to accommodate orthodox Christian theology
to the nineteenth-century historical critical study of the Bible.
Several different models were suggested which sought to maintain
the full divine initiative, but also to accord theological integrity to
the historical process in the formation of the scriptures. Within
Roman Catholic theology several imporant theological develop-
ments also occurred in this same period, reflected in the papal
encyclical of 1943, Dioino afflante spiritu, and culminating in the
theological formulations of Vatican II. First, there was an attempt
to offer a more positive view of the results of the historical critical
method, which up to that time had been largely negative as a
reaction to the earlier Modernist threat. Secondly, in terms of the
scripture and tradition problem the new Catholic formulation
re-emphasized the active role of the church in the Bible’s formation
but in a way which did not jeopardize the primacy of the divine
Word. Only occasionally was the older Roman position defended.
In sum, there has been a remarkable theological rapprochement
between Protestants and Catholics regarding the traditional con-
troversy over scripture and tradition. Both camps have returned to
a position more akin to that of the early church in which the two
elements were closely related, but not fused, in a rule of faith. It is
also significant to observe that both the threat and promise arising
from the challenge of the historical critical method exerted an
itnportant factor in this theological reconciliation.
The major purpose ofthis briefhistorical review is to suggest that
the canonical method is not tied to one narrowly conceived dogma-
tic stance respecting the problem of scripture and tradition. The
.tpproach seeks to work descriptively within a broad theological
framework and is open to a variety of different theological formula-
tions which remains the responsibility of the systematic theologian
to develop. I would admit, however, that the canonical method
wltich is here described does run counter to two extreme theological
positions. It is incompatible with a position on the far right which
would stress the divine initiative in such a way as to rule out any
theological significance to the response to the divine I/Vord by the
people of God. It is equally incompatible with a position on the far
tlteological left, which would ttndcrstand the formation ofthe Bible
82 tnrttooocrton
in purely humanistic terms, such as Israel’s search for self-identity,
or a process within nature under which God is subsumed.
It is also my sincere hope that Jewish scholars will not feel
excluded from the theological enterprise associated with the canon.
Even though the language used in the debate tends to stem from
Christian circles, the theological issue of Israel’s role in the canoni-
cal process lies at the heart ofJewish tradition. In myjudgment,
much of the failure of the usual Jewish-Christian dialogue to
achieve a serious theological dimension arises from the loss of a
sense ofa common Bible which is precisely the issue addressed by
the canon.
At the conclusion of each chapter of the descriptive analysis of
the Old Testament books, I have added a brief bibliography of the
history of exegesis including both Jewish and Christian contribu-
tions. Attention to the subsequent history ofinterpretation of the
Bible is absolutely essential for its understanding, but the topic is so
immense as to exceed the boundaries suitable for an Introduction.
Obviously the purpose of pursuing this history is not to suggest that
biblical scholarship needs only to return to the past, but that the
future task is sorely impoverished if the great insights of our pre-
decessors are overlooked. Particularly in the search for the canoni-
cal shape of a biblical book, pre-critical interpreters often saw
dimensions of the text more clearly than those whose perspective
was brought into focus by purely historical questions. Conversely,
the history of exegesis illustrates some perennial, even ontological,
errors in mishearing the text which continue to find new support.

6. Canon and Interpretation

A final word is in order regarding the effect of the canon on the

larger exegetical enterprise ofinterpreting the Old Testament. The
approach which I am undertaking has been described by others as
‘canonical criticism’. I am unhappy with this term because it
implies that the canonical approach is considered another historical
critical technique which can take its place alongside of source
criticism, form criticism, rhetorical criticism, and similar methods.
I do not envision the approach to canon in this light. Rather, the
issue at stake in relation to the canon turns on establishing a stance
from which the Bible can be read as sacred scripture.
 CANON AND CRITICISM 83
The concern with canon plays both a negative and a positive role
in delineating the scope of exegesis. On the one hand, its negative
role consists in relativizing the claims to priority of the histor-
ical critical method. It strongly resists the assumption that every
biblical text has first to be filtered through a set historical critical
mesh before one can even start the task of interpretation. On the
other hand, its positive role seeks to challenge the interpreter to
look closely at the biblical text in its received form and then criti-
cally to discern its function for a community of faith. Attention to
the canon establishes certain parameters within which the tradition
was placed. The canonical shaping serves not so much to establish
a given meaning to a particular passage as to chart the boundaries
within which the exegetical task is to be carried out.
Attention to these canonical guidelines within this Introduction
may seem overly formalistic and too frequently concerned with
determining a book’s structure or interpretative patterns. However,
one should not confuse this one aspect of the canonical approach
with the full range of responsibilities comprising the exegetical task.
.-\ canonical Introduction is not the end, but only the beginning of
exegesis. It prepares the stage for the real performance by clearing
away .unnecessary distractions and directing one’s attention to the
main activity which is about to be initiated.
In one sense the canonical method sets limits on the exegetical
task by taking seriously the traditional parameters. In another
wnse the method liberates from the stifling effect of academic
~.<-holasticisrn. By insisting on viewing the exegetical task as con-
.~.|ructive as well as descriptive, the interpreter is forced to confront
the authoritative text of scripture in a continuing theological
rt-llcction. By placing the canonical text within the context of the
community of faith and practice a variety of different exegetical
:nn(lelS are freed to engage the text, such as the liturgical or the
tlmmatic. In sum, the canon establishes a platform from which
l‘T\'t'Q;(’SIS is launched rather than a barrier by which creative activity
ls rt-strained.
 IV
TEXT AND CANON

Bibliography
P. R. Ackroyd, ‘Original Text and Canonical Text’, USQR 32, I977,
I66—73; B. Albrektson, ‘Reflections on the Emergence ofa Standard Text
of the Hebrew Bible’, SVT 29, I978, 49-65; W. F. Albright, ‘New Light
on Early Recensions of the Hebrew Bible’, BASOR I4-O, I955, 27-33;
reprinted F. M. Cross, Qumran and History (see below), I40—46; D. R.
Ap-Thomas, A Primer of Old Testament Text Criticism, London I947; V.
Aptowitzer, Das Schriftwort in der rabbinischen Literatur, I906, reprinted
New York, I970; W. Bacher, ‘Targum’, v/E I2, 57-63; Barr, ‘St
]erome’s Appreciation of Hebrew’, BJRL 4-9, I966—7, 281-302; Comparative
Philology and the Text of the Old Testament, Oxford I968; ‘Reading a Script
without Vowels’, Writing without Letters, ed. W. Haas, Manchester I976,
7l—lOO; D. Barthélemy, Les devanciers d’/Iquila, SVT IO, I963; ‘Les Tiq-
quné Sopherim et la critique textuelle dc I’Ancien Testament’, SVT 9,
I963, 285-304-; D. Barthélemy et aI., Preliminary and Interim Report on the Heb-
rew OT Text Project, London I973, v-xvii; ‘Text, Hebrew, History oi”, IDB
Suppl, 878-84-; P. Benoit, ‘L’inspiration des Septante d’aprés les Peres’ in
Mélanges H. de Lubac, Théologie 56, I963, I69—87; E. Bickerman[n], ‘The
Septuagint as a Translation’, PAAJR ‘28, I959, I-39; J. Bowman, ‘A
Forgotten Controversy’, EvQu 20, I94-8, 46-68; S. P. Brock, ‘Origen’s
Aims as a Textual Critic of the Old Testament’, Studia Patristica IO, TU
I07, I970, 215-18; S. P. Brock, C. T. Fritsch and S. Jellicoe, A Classified
Bibliography of the Septuagint, Leiden I973; F. F. Bruce, ‘Tradition and the
Text of Scripture’, Tradition Old and New, London I970, I5I—62; J. Bux-
torf (pater), Tiberias, rive commentarius massorethicus triplex historicus, didac-
ticus, criticus, Basel I620, 21665; Buxtorf (fiI.), Tractatus de punctorum
vocalium, et accentuum in Libris Veteris Testamenti hebraicis, origine. antiquitate et
authoritate; oppositus arcano punctationis revelato Ludovici Cappelli, Basel I64-8;
Anticritica seu vindiciae veritatis hebraicae adversus L. Cappelli criticam quam vacant
sacram eiusque defensionem, Basel I653.
L. Cappellus, Arcanum punctationis revelatum; sive de punctorum vocalium et
accentuum apud Hebraeos vera et germarza antiquitate libri H, I.t'itIt't1 I624; (.'ritim
 "rcxr AND cANoN 85
Sacra: sive de variis, quae in sacris Veteris Testamenti libris occurrunt, lectionibus
libri sex, Paris I650, Halle 1775-86; _]. G. Carpzov, A Defiance ofthe Hebrew
Bible in Answer to the Charge of Corruption, ET London I729; F. M. Cross,
‘The Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran’,“/BL 74-, I955, I4-7-72; reprinted
in Qumran and History, I47—76; The Ancient Library ofQumran, New York and
London I958, Garden City, N.Y., 2l96l; ‘The History ofthe Biblical Text
in the Light of Discoveries in thejudaean Desert’, HTR 57, I964-, 28l—99,
reprinted in Qumran and Histoijy, l77—95; ‘The Contribution ofthe Qumran
Discoveries to the Study of the Biblical Text’, IE] I6, I966, Bl-95;
reprinted in Qumran and History, 278-92; ‘The Evolution of a Theory of
Local Texts’, Qumran and History, 306-20; F. M. Cross and S. Talmon,
Qumran and the History ofthe Biblical Text, Cambridge, Mass. and London
I975; M. Dahood, ‘The Value of Ugaritic for Textual Criticism’, Bibl
40, I959, 160-70; A. Dotan, ‘Was the Aleppo Codex Actually Vocalized
by Aharon ben Asher?’ (Hebrew), Tarbiz 34-, Jerusalem I964-5, I36-55;
‘Masorah’, E] I6, ]40I—82; G. R. Driver, ‘Introduction to the Old Tes-
tament’, The New English Bible, Oxford and Cambridge I970, xv-xviii; S.
R. Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel,
Oxford and New York 2l9l3; D. N. Freedman, ‘The Massoretic Text and
the Qumran Scrolls: A Study in “Orthography”’, Textus 2, Jerusalem
I962, 87-I02; reprinted in Qumran and History, l96—2l I.
H. S. Gehman, ‘The Hebraic Character of Septuagint Greek’, VT l,
I95 l, 81-90; A. Geiger, Urschrift und Llbersetzungen der Bibel in ihrer Abhiing-
igkeit von der innern Entwichlung des V/udentums, Frankfurt 2l928; G. GerIe-
man, Synoptic Studies in the Old Testament, Lund I94-8; W. Gesenius, De
pentateuchi samaritani origine, indole et auctoritate commentatio philologico-critica,
llalle l8I5; C. L. Gibson, ‘The Massoretes as Linguists’, Studies in
Hebrew Language and Biblical Exegesis, OTS I9, I974-, 86-96; C. D. Gins-
burg, Introduction to the ll/fassoretico-Critical Edition Q/’ the Hebrew Bible, Lon-
tlon’ I897, reprinted New York I966; D. W. Goodwin, Text-Restoration
Methods in Contemporary USA Scholarship, Naples I969; M. Gosl'|en-
Gottstein, ‘The History of the Bible-Text and Comparative Semitics. A
Methodological Problem’, VT 7, I957, l95—20I; ‘Prologomena to a Criti-
<';tl Edition of the Peshitta’, Scripta Hierosolymitana 8,_]erusalem 1960, 26-
I2; ‘Theory and Practice of Textual Criticism’, Textus 3, Jerusalem I963,
I30-58; ‘The Rise ofthe Tiberian Bible Text’, Biblical and Other Studies, ed.
.\. Altmann, Cambridge, Mass. and London I963, 79-I22; reprinted S.
l.<-iman, Canon and Masorah, 666-709; The Book of Isaiah, Sample Edition
i-with lntroduction, Jerusalem 1965; ‘The Psalms Scroll (I lQPsa). A Prob-
lrm ty‘ Canon and Text’, Textus 5, I966, 22-33; ‘Hebrew Biblical Manus-
rriptsi Their History and Their Place in the [Hebrew University Bible
I’rn_it‘t‘lI Erlitioit’, Bibl 4-8, I967, 243-90; reprinted Cross, Qumran and His-
ti-or. -12-89; M. Greenberg, ‘The Stabilization of the Text of the Hebrew
Ilililc, R(‘\'I(‘\Vt‘(I in the Light of the Biblical Materials from the Judean
|)t'.'~s<'t't’,_/.-l().$' 7ti, l‘.l5ti, I57-67; reprinted Leiman, Canon and Masorah,
86 INTRODUCTION
298-319; ‘The Use of the Ancient Versions for Interpreting the Hebrew
Text’, SVT 29, 1978, 131-48; P. Grelot, ‘Sur l’inspiration et la canonicité
de Ia Septante’, ScEc 16, 1964, 387-418.
W. Hamm, Der Septuagint-Text des Buches Daniel, Kap. I-2, Bonn 1969; R.
Hanhart, ‘Die Septuaginta als Problem der Textgeschichte, der Fors-
chungsgeschichte und der Theologie’, SVT 22, 1972, 185-200; G. Jan-
zen, Studies in the Text qfjeremiah, HSM 6, I973; S. Jellicoe, ‘The
Hesychian Recension Reconsidered’,_]BL 82, 1963, 409-18; The Septuagint
and Modern Study, Oxford and New York 1968; Studies in the Septuagint.
Origins, Recensions and Interpretations. Selected Essays with a Prolegomenon, New
York 1974; A. Jepsen, ‘Von den Aufgaben der alttestamentliehen Text-
kritik’, VT 9, 1963, 337-4-1; P. E. Kahle, Masoreten des Westens, 2 vols.,
Stuttgart 1927-30; ‘Problems ofthe Septuagint’, Studio Patristica 1, TU 63,
1957, 328-38; The Cairo Geniza, Oxford 21959, New York 11960; ‘The
Greek Bible Manuscripts Used by Origen’,jBL 79, 1960, ll I-I8; P. Katz,
‘Septuagintal Studies in the Mid-Century’, The Background ofthe New Tes-
tament and its Eschatology, FS C.H. Dodd, ed. W. D. Davies and D. Daube,
Cambridge 1956, 176-208; D. Kellermann, ‘Bemerkungen zur Neuaus-
gabe der Biblia Hebraica’, ZDMG Suppl III, 1, 1977, 128-38; B. Ken-
nicott, Vetus Testamentum Hebraicum cum variis lectionibus, 2 vols., Oxford
1776-1800; R. W. Klein, Textual Criticism of the Old Testament. From the
Septuagint to Qumran, Philadelphia 1974-; Elias Levita, The Massoreth Ha-
Massoreth, ed. C. D. Ginsburg, 1867, reprinted New York I968.
P. Maas, Textual Criticism, ET Oxford and New York 1958; M. L.
Margolis, ‘Hexapla and Hexaplaric’, A_]SL 32, 1915-I6, 126-40; ‘Textual
Criticism of the Greek Old Testament’, Proceedings of the American
Philosophical Society 67, Philadelphia 1928, 187-97; C. McCarthy, ‘Emen-
dations of the Scribes’, IDB Suppl, 263f.; W. McKane, ‘Benjamin Ken-
nicott: An Eighteenth-Century Researcher’,jTS 28, 1977, 445-64; B. M.
Metzger, ‘The Lueianic Recension of the Greek Bible’, Chapters in the
History of New Testament Textual Criticism, Leiden 1963, 1-41; _]. Morin,
Exercitationes ecclesiasticae in utrumque Samaritanorum Pentateuchum, Paris 1631;
H. S. Nyberg, Studien zum Hoseabuche, Uppsala 1935; K. G. O’ConneII,
The Theodotionic Revision of the Book of Exodus, Cambridge, Mass. 1972;
‘Greek Versions (Minor)’, IDB Suppl, 377-81; H. M. Orlinsky, ‘The
Origin of the Kethib-Qere System: A New Approach’ SVT 7, 1959, I84-
92; ‘The Textual Criticism of the Old Testament’, The Bible and the Ancient
Near East. Essays in Honor of W. F. Albright, ed. G. E. Wright, London 1960,
New York 1961, 113-32; ‘The Masoretic Text: Fact or Fiction?’, Pro-
legomenon to the KTAV reprint of C. D. Ginsburg, Introduction to the
Massoretico-Critical Edition qf the Hebrew Bible, New York 1966; R. R.
Ottley, A Handbook to the Septuagint, Cambridge and New York I920; D. F.
Payne, ‘Old Testament Textual Criticism: Its Principles and Practice,’
Tyndale Bulletin 25, Cambridge I974, 99-112.
C. Rabin, ‘The Dead Sea Scrolls and the History of the Old Testatment
 TEXT AND cANoN 87
Text’,]TS NS 6, 1955, 174-82; ‘The Translation Process and the Charac-
ter of the Septuagint’, Textus 6, 1968, 1-26; A. Rahlfs, ‘Lucians Rezension
der Kifinigsbiicher’, Septuaginta Studien 3, Gbttingen 1911, 361-658; E.
Revell, ‘Studies in the Palestinian Vocalization of Hebrew’, Essays in the
Ancient Semitic World, ed. _]. W. Wevers and D. B. Redford, Toronto 1970,
51-100; B. Roberts, ‘The Divergencies in the Pre-Tiberian Massoretic
Text’,_]_/S 1, 1949, 147-55, reprinted Leiman, Canon and Masorah, 484-92;
The Old Testament Text and Versions, Cardiff 1951; B. de Rossi, Variae
lectiones Veteris Testamenti, 4 vols., Parma 1784-5; A. Sanders, ‘Pre-
Massoretic Psalter Texts’, CBQ 27, 1965, 114-23; ‘Palestinian Manus-
cripts 1947-1972’,_]_]S 4, 1973, 74-83, reprinted Cross, Qumran and History,
401-13; M. H. Segal, ‘The Promulgation of the Authoritative Text of the
Hebrew Bible’, _]BL 72, 1953, 35-47, reprinted Leiman, Canon and
.4/Iasorah, 285-97; S. Segert, ‘The Ugaritic Texts and the Textual Critic-
ism of the Hebrew Bible’, Near Eastern Studies in Honor of W. F. Albright, ed.
Hans Goedicke, Baltimore 1971, 413-20; _]. D. Shenkel, Chronology and
Recensional Development in the Greek Text of Kings, HSM 1, 1968; P. Skehan,
‘A Fragment of the “Song of Moses” (Deut 32) from Qumran’, BASOR
136, 1954, 12-15; ‘Exodus in the Samaritan Recension from Qumran’,
[BL 74, 1955, 182-7; ‘The Qumran Manuscripts and Textual Criticism’,
SVT 4-, I957, 148-60, reprinted Cross, Qumran and History, 212-25; ‘The
Biblical Scrolls from Qumran and the Text of the Old Testament’, BA 28,
I965, 87-100, reprinted Cross, Qumran and History, 264-77; ‘Texts and
Versions’, The _]erome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, N 1968, II,
561-80; A. Sperber, ‘The Problems of the Septuagint Recensions’,_]BL
54, 1935, 73-92; H. B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek,
revised by R. R. Ottley, Cambridge 21914, reprinted New York 1968.
S. Talmon, ‘The Samaritan Pentateuch’,_]]S 2, 1951, 144-50; ‘Double
Readings in the Massoretic Text’, Textus 1,_]erusa1em 1960, 144-84; ‘DSIa
.t:~; a Witness of Ancient Exegesis of the Book of Isaiah’, ASTI 1, 1962,
H2-72; ‘The Three Scrolls of the Law that were found in the Temple
t Iourt’, Textus 2, 1962, 14-27; ‘Aspects of the Textual Transmission of the
Bible in the Light of Qumran Manuscripts’, Textus 4, 1964, 95-132; ‘The
I )ltl Testament Text’, The Cambridge History ofthe Bible 1, Cambridge and
\'t~w York 1970, 159-99, reprinted Cross, Qumran and History, 1-41; ‘The
1 t-xtual Study of the Bible — A New Outlook’, Cross, Qumran and History,
Q 1-400; ‘Confiate Readings (OT)’, IDB Suppl, 170-73; H. Stjohn Thack-
eray, ‘The Greek Translation of the Four Books of Kings’,_]TS 8, 1906-
-'. 262-78; The Septuagint and jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (Schweich
|.t-etures I920), London and New York 1923; D. Winton Thomas, ‘The
It-xtual Criticism of the Old Testament’, The Old Testament and Modern
Xttulr. ed. H. H. Rowley, Oxford and New York 1951, 238-63; A.
Thompson, ‘Textual Criticism, OT’, IDB Suppl, 886-91; E. Tov and R.
Kraft. ‘Septuagint’, IDB Suppl, 807-15; P. Walters and D. W. Gooding,
lltt' 7}-xt rg/‘the .§’r’ptur1_gz'rtt, (Iambridge and New York I973; Brian Walton,
88 INTRODUCTION
Prolegomena in Biblia Polyglotta, 1655, reprinted Leipzig 1777; G. E. Wei],
Initiation ti la Masorah. L’Introduction au Sepher Zikranot d’Elie Levita, Leiden
1964; ‘La Massorah’, RE] 131, 1972, 5-104; ‘Qere-kethibh’, IDB Suppl,
716—23;]. Wellhausen, Der Text der Biicher Samuelis, Giittingen 1871;]. W.
Wevers, ‘Septuaginta-Forschungen’, ThR 22, 1954, 85-138, 171-90;
‘Proto-Septuagint Studies’, The Seedof Wisdom, Essays in Honor ofT. Meek,
ed. W. S. McCullough, Toronto I964, 58-77; ‘Septuaginta Forschungen
seit 1954’, ThR 33, 1968, 18-76; E. Wiirthwein, The Text ofthe Old Testa-
ment, ET Oxford and New York 1957; Ziegler, Untersuchung zur Sep-
tuaginta des Buches Isaias, Gottingen 1934; ‘Die Vorlage der Isaias-
Septuaginta (LXX) und die erste Isaias Rolle von Qumran (IQlsa)’,_]BL
78, 1959, 34-59; F. Zimrnermann, ‘The Perpetuation of Variants in the
MT’, ,/QR 34, 1943-4, 459-74.

I. The Nature ofthe Problem

The purpose of this chapter is to discuss the problem of text critic-

ism in relation to canon. Few scholars would wish to disparage the
importance of the discipline of textual criticism which was one of
the first fields to develop a scientific methodology at the beginning
of the critical era of biblical scholarship. Within the last three
decades the field of text criticism has taken on a new importance,
particularly in the light of the Qumran discoveries and the
advances in comparative philology, to become one of the most
exciting areas of Old Testament studies. However, coupled with
the growing interest is the recognition that the methodological
problems are far from settled, and that diversity of approach has
continued to widen.
The discipline ofOld Testament text criticism raises a whole nest
of peculiar problems for the canonical approach to scripture which
has been outlined in the preceding chapters. The following issues
come immediately to mind:
(i) The expression ‘final form’ has been used to designate the end
of the literary development within the canonical process. What
about the continuation in the development ofa biblical composition
in relation to its textual history? ls it also part of the canonical
process? What are the similarities and dilferent‘es between the liter-
ary and textual development of a canonical writing.’
(ii) What are the goals oftextual t‘ritit'isin:’ lftlie ret"o\'t-ry of the
‘original text’ (autngrzlpli) is tlt'li't1<lt'tl. even as an llItilIlllIllEll)lt'
 TEXT AND cANoN 89
ideal, does not this goal assume a method of historical research
sharply opposed to a canonical method which has relativized the
importance of recovering an alleged original stage within the liter-
ary process? However, if the goal of textual criticism is simply to
reconstruct the history ofthe text’s development, does not this goal
also run counter to a literary method which focuses on the results of
the process rather than the process itself?
(iii) ls it even possible to speak of a canonical Old Testament
text in the light of the multiplicity of textual traditions - proto-
.\/Iasoretic, Old Greek, Samaritan, to name but a few? If the term
canon implies a community for which a text is authoritative, which
of the various different communities is the one to choose and on
what grounds is the choice to be made?
(iv) Why should the Christian church be committed in any way
to the authority of the Masoretic text when its development
extended long after the inception ofthe church and was carried on
within a rabbinic tradition?

2. History of the Discipline

Before turning to address these problems it is necessary to gain

some perspective by briefly reviewing the history of modern Old
Testament text criticism. Attention to textual problems extends far
hack into the ancient period. It includes the work of the rabbis and
.\lasoretes, the contribution of the church fathers, and the various
interpretative activities involved in the various translations. How-
ever, it has become increasingly clear that these early examples of
scholarly activity with the text were of a different order and arose
from a different concern from that of the modern discipline of text
criticism (cf. Talmon, ‘The OT Text’, S. Brock, ‘Origen’s Aim’).
The modern critical study ofthe text ofthe Old Testament emerged
in the sixteenth century and was associated with the publication of
the great Polyglot Bibles. The discovery ofthe Samaritan text ofthe
l’t-ntateuch in 1616 in particular touched off an important critical
tlt-bate. At first the challenge to the superiority ofthe Masoretic text
u';t.s‘ fought along confessional theological lines with Catholics
t.\1orin, Cappellus) attacking the MT, and Protestants (Buxtorf,
Ilottinger) defending it. Closely associated with the issue of the
lit-braica veritas was the controversy over the age and integrity ofthe
90 INTRODUCTION
Hebrew vowel points which again lined up Cappellus and the Bux-
torfs as antagonists. With the defeat of the old orthodox Protestant
position represented by the Buxtorfs, the issue of text criticism
moved slowly out of the arena of theological polemics toward a
more objectively established critical methodology.
In terms of the Hebrew text the two great collations of biblical
manuscripts published in the last part of the eighteenth century by
Kennicott and de Rossi established definitively the scope of the
variants within the Masoretic consonantal tradition. Then in the
early nineteenth century Gesenius’ dissertation brought the con-
troversy over the Samaritan Pentateuch to a generally accepted
resolution.
One of the most creative attempts to open up a new critical
approach to text criticism of the Old Testament was the brilliant
book of Abraham Geiger published in I857. In his Ursa/mfl Geiger
sought to trace the internal history of the Hebrew text and its
ancient translations in order to show that the biblical text had a
history which reflected the changing religious responses within
Judaism. The book caused an enormous controversy among Jews
and Christians, but it did much to undercut the monolithic
interpretation of the Masoretic text as a static entity.
During the last halfof the nineteenth century much ofthe critical
work on the Hebrew text turned on the issue of seeking to recover
an original Hebrew text which lay behind the recensional activity of
the Masoretes. Rosenmiiller had propounded the theory that all the
known variants of the MT represented only one recensional source.
Later, Lagarde narrowed the Urtext theory even further by deriving
all the variants from one single exemplar (cf. Goshen-Gottstein,
‘Hebrew Biblical Manuscripts’). The use of the versions, especially
the Septuagint, seemed to provide the only open avenue by which
to penetrate back to this original. For a time scholars such as
Thenius defended the theory ofa general superiority of the Greek
over the Hebrew, but by the end of the century the work of
Wellhausen, Driver and Cornill, among others, had established the
need for a critical evaluation ofeach individual passage in an effort
to recover the original text without any overarching theory of tex-
tual superiority. In some sense, the method of text criticism repre-
sented by Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, especially the third edition, was
the logical extension of this search For an Urtext by rneans oi‘ the
versions and Free emendation. In this respect, the new Stuttgart
 TEXT AND canon 91
edition shows some improvement, but still belongs to the same
general tradition (cf. Kellermann). Significantly the publication of
the two great critical editions of the Septuagint, which demons-
trated the complexity of using the Greek, began in the early twen-
tieth century but left little impact on the method reflected in Biblia
Hebrazica.
The discovery of a hoard of new manuscripts from the Cairo
Geniza in I890 produced a fresh impetus for the history of text
criticism. In the position of Paul Kahle in particular a major new
alternative to Lagarde’s hypothesis emerged. Kahle argued that
there had never been an Urtext and its reconstruction was a futile
enterprise. Rather, a great diversity of textual traditions had
existed before the establishment of an officially promulgated, stan-
dard text which finally formed a confluence from different textual
streams. These ‘vulgar’ texts were never fully discarded, which also
accounted for the continuing diversity after the period of stabiliza-
tion. Although Kahle was able to push his research into the period
before stabilization, he agreed with Lagarde in deriving the estab-
lishment of the MT from a rather arbitrary set of decisions by the
rabbinic academy.
The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls broke wide open the field
of Old Testament text criticism in the mid-twentieth century and
provided scholars with actual manuscript evidence from that long
hidden period before the stabilization of the Masoretic text. This
eharacterization is not to suggest that the recovery of the textual
history of the Old Testament became a simple enterprise in which
ronsensus immediately reigned. However, the new material has
opened up the possibility for major advances in understanding the
textual history which has transformed the field within the last sev-
eral decades.
Space is too limited to describe in detail the important contribu-
tions to the field made by Cross, Talmon, Goshen-Gottstein, and
liatrthélemy, among others. Of particular importance is Cross’s
t-htboration of Albright’s local text theory, which has emphasized
hoth the diversity of textual tradition and also the homogeneity
within the recensional history of various text types. However, both
Iltlmon and Goshen-Gottstein, in resisting certain aspects of
(Iross's theory, stress the multiplicity of traditions in a manner
\\'lllt'll emitimies to represent some of the important emphases of
lxnhle. .-\lso ll;irt|i(-leiny, on the basis of the Qumran community
92 INTRODUCTION
itself, emphasizes the ability of divergent textual traditions to co-
exist which would caution against too quickly assigning the decisive
role in the formation of the text to geographical factors. However,
in spite of the ongoing debate regarding the history of the Old
Testament text, certain major elements of a consensus have
emerged.
Behind the apparently monolithic structure ofthe MT lay a long
history of textual development in which the state of the text was in
great fluidity. During several centuries prior to the stabilization of
the Hebrew text in the late first century, rival text traditions com-
peted with each other without there emerging any offlcial or
authoritative text. The authoritative role of the proto-Masoretic
tradition derived from a variety of historical factors many of which
remain unknown. However, the authority of the MT did not neces-
sarily entail a textual superiority, in the modern sense, as being the
grounds for its selection. Finally, long after the process of stabiliza-
tion had begun, a considerable amount oftextual fluidity continued
to be tolerated within jewish communities (cf. Aptowitzer).

3. The Goats of Old Testament Textual Criticism

There is no better way to illustrate the problematic dimension of

modern Old Testament text criticism than to examine the conflict-
ing formulations of the goals of the discipline. At the beginning of
the modern critical period it was widely recognized that the MT
had suffered some injury, but it was generally assumed that the
damage was slight. The task of text criticism was simply to restore
the best Hebrew text which was often regarded as only one step
removed from the original. Increasingly it has become evident that
neither is such a goal attainable nor does it adequately reflect even
the nature ofthe problem. The basic issue at stake is a methodolog-
ical one. On what level is the Old Testament text to be recon-
structed? Is it to be a Masoretic tradition of the Hebrew text from
the tenth century AD? ()r is it a reconstructed text from the time of
\

stabilization, c. AD 100? Or should it be on the level ofthe earliest

textual evidence from (say) the third century Btz? Finally. should it
be an attempt to reconstruct the most likely original text as
intended by its author by means ofeomparative |)liilology;’ All ol
0
 TEXT AND canon 93
these options find modern defenders, often in an eclectic, mediating
form.
(i) Ralph Klein begins his manual ofOld Testament text critic-
ism by accepting the traditional goal: ‘Textual criticism is the
discipline that tries to recover the original copy (autograph) ofa
piece of literature by comparing its available copies, all of which
inevitably contain mistakes’ (vii). But at the conclusion ofthe book,
in the light of his own discussion of the new evidence, and the
virtual impossibility of even approximating to the autographs, he
qualifies his goal, suggesting that reconstructing the history ofthe
text’s growth may be the real contribution of the discipline (84).
(For other variations ofthe ‘original text’ theory oftext criticism see
the treatment of Bentzen, Introduction, I, 94tT. and R. K. Harrison,
Introduction, 2571f).
(ii) Among the major practitioners ofthe comparative philologi-
cal method (G. R. Driver, D. Winton Thomas, M.J. Dahood, etc.),
the recovery ofthe original text is also generally assumed to be the
goal (cf. Thomas, 258f.). In practice, the method frequently entails
disregard of the vocalization, sporadic use of the versions, and a
reinterpretation of the consonantal text in the light of comparative
Semitics (cf. Driver, xvii). The fragile and speculative nature of
much of the practice of this enterprise has been carefully rehearsed
by James Barr and needs not be repeated, but the hermeneutical
problems ofthe method still remain largely unexplored. Not sur-
prisingly, Klein also allows for this approach to text criticism with-
out defining its relation to the goals ofa recensional history.
(iii) A third approach to the Old Testament text which is repre-
sented by Barthélemy, A. Thompson, A. Sanders, and the
other members of the United Bible Project defines its goals in a
more consistent, but modest fashion. It limits the task to recon-
structing the earliest forms of the text which can be determined by
critical analysis of existing textual evidence. This approach recog-
nizes that no one unified form ofthe text at this stage of reconstruc-
tion may appear, and it has as its goal simply to register the degrees
of diversity. It also makes no claim as to the relation between its
reconstructed level and the original form of the text. However, in
spilt‘ of the consistency of the goal it remains a serious question
whether this proposal is adequate to form the basis ofthe text ofthe
t)ltl 'l'estuntent used by modern Jews and Christians as sacred
.~<eripture. Why should at level in between the original and the final
94 INTRODUCTION
form of the Hebrew text be deemed normative? Does not this
approach imply that the textual development from 300 ac to AD 100
is not part of the canonical process and can be thus disregarded?
(iv) Finally, the confusion regarding the place of the MT is wide-
spread among both Jews and Christians. Orlinsky has polemicized
vigorously against the idea that there is any one fixed Masoretic
text, and he emphasizes the multiplicity of Masoretic traditions.
Yet Goshen-Gottstein has made out a good case that the real var-
iants within the MT are negligible and only variant readings within
the one textual family are found. Again, D. F. Payne first warns
against treating the MT as sacrosanct, but ends up concluding, at
least for Genesis, that the MT seldom ‘leads one astray and is to be
trusted’. The same ambivalence toward the MT is reflected in
Wi'1rthwein’s manual (cf. 76ff.). Is there still a vestigial assumption
ofa special place for the MT which continues to resist substituting
an eclectic text after the example of Rahlfs Septuagint or l\lestle’s
New Testament?

4. Canon and Text

One of the least satisfactory elements in the text-critical manuals is

the failure to relate the text-critical enterprise to the history of the
Old Testament canon (cf. Roberts, Wiirthwein, Klein). Yet the two
subjects are closely related. Only when the formation of the litera-
ture had reached a final stage of development within the canonical
process did concern for the text of the literature emerge (cf. Tal-
mon, ‘The OT Text’, 159). The textual history of the Old Testa-
ment is, therefore, a derivative of the concept of canon.
Although it is evident that the main process of canonization
preceded the beginning of the textual history, it has become
increasingly clear that the two processes overlapped. The new evi-
dence from Qumran has demonstrated that the Old Testament text
history had begun about 300 ac. Most critics would date the final
literary form of the book of Daniel more than a hundred years later.
Moreover, the strikingly different structure between the Hebrew
and Greek forms of such books as Jeremiah would also provide
internal evidence to confirm the overlap between the literary and
textual formations of the Old Testament books.
In the light of this overlap, it is not surprising to lintl important
 TEXT AND canon 95

elements of similarity between the canonical shaping in its literary

development and the canonical shaping in its textual development.
In both phases the formation of the literature as sacred scripture
involved its ongoing use within a religious community in contrast to
a purely scholarly endeavour. Again, both phases involved a pro-
cess which exerted critical judgments respecting the preservation
and transmission of the literature. Nevertheless, there are some
equally important elements of difference between the literary and
textual phases. The literary process involved major moves affecting
the understanding of the literature, such as combining sources,
restructuring the material into new patterns, and providing new
redactional contexts for interpreting the tradition. By contrast, the
textual phase of Old Testament formation was minor in compari-
son. Differences between the Hebrew and Greek forms of the book
of Jeremiah, for example, mark the widest degree of variation
within this phase, but generally only slight variations in the mean-
ing are at stake. Again, the literary phase often involved consider-
able freedom on the part of the tradents in exerting an active,
intentional effect. By contrast, the textual phase reflects a far more
conservative, passive role with the activity focused on preserving
and .maintaining traditions rather than creating them.
The relationship between these two phases of the literature has
important exegetical implications. Commentaries generally assume
that the first task of exegesis is to establish a critical text before one
begins the task ofinterpretation. Clearly such a procedure has some
pragmatic advantages which might even support its continuation
under certain circumstances. Nevertheless, the interpreter should
at least be aware that this exegetical approach has reversed the
historical sequence in the canonical formation ofthe literature. The
literary development shaped the major lines ofinterpretation which
the textual development sought to preserve. The danger of mis-
understanding is acute when one attempts to establish a text with-
out first understanding its canonical function as a whole. Only
recently have Old Testament text critics such as Talmon,
(loshen-Gottstein, and Barthélemy demonstrated how many tex-
tual decisions reflect a type of midrashic exegetical activity within
the Bible itself. By assuming that text criticism is based on a purely
objective, scientific methodology by which mechanical errors of
transmission are corrected this important dimension of the textual
phase is badly tnisundcrstood. The recognition at least of the inter-
96 mrnonucrron

dependence of canon and text is an important first step toward

correcting this widespread mistake.

5. Coal and ll/Ietlzod of a Canonical Approach to Text Criticism

In the face of the widespread confusion regarding the goal of text

criticism and the level on which the enterprise operates, the canoni-
cal approach to the Old Testament is unequivocal in defining its
goal as the recovery and understanding of the canonical text. How-
ever, to define what is meant by the canonical text and to describe
the method by which this goal is achieved requires a more detailed
exposition.
First of all, both the goal and method of procedure stand in an
analogy with the previously discussed canonical method which
focused its attention on describing the canonical shaping within the
literary development of the literature. The method entailed a care-
ful balance between a traditional and a critical perspective. On the
one hand, the canonical critic identifies with the historic Jewish
community in starting with the received form of the literature
which comprised the Hebrew canon. On the other hand, he seeks
critically to discern the canonical function of the literature. That is
to say, he attempts to analyse how the literature, made up of dispa-
rate parts, was constructed to perform a theological role as scrip-
ture for a continuing religious community. Thus, the canonical
function ofa book is neither to be separated from its received form,
nor is it to be simply identified with the whole.
The canonical approach to text criticism is broadly analogous to
this literary method to the extent that it also entails a traditional
and a critical element which are held in a careful balance. The
canonical critic also begins with the received textual traditions of
the historic Jewish community, thus establishing his point of stand-
ing, but at the same time he seeks critically to understand the
canonical function of this particular textual tradition. The critical
enterprise entails a full description of the history of the text affect-
ing the formation of the received tradition as well as a comparison
and Critical evaluation of the received text in the light ofalternative
textual traditions. A basic characteristic ofthe canonical approach
in regard to both its literary and textual level is its concern to
describe the literature in terms ofits relation to the historic_]ewish
 TEXT AND carton 97
community rather than seeing its goal to be the reconstruction of
the most original literary form of the book, or the most pristine form
of a textual tradition. In sum, the methodological issue at stake
does not turn on the scope ofthe task, nor even on the application of
the full range of historical critical analysis, but rather on what one
understands to be the purpose of the discipline.
In spite of the analogy which has been described between the
literary and textual levels within the canonical process, the crucial
question still remains: What is meant by the received or canonical
text? Which community is doing the receiving? What text is being
transmitted, and what period within the history of the biblical text
is being discussed? The thesis being proposed is that the Masoretic
text of the Hebrew Bible is the vehicle both for recovering and for
understanding the canonical text ofthe Old Testament. What is the
justification for such a position?
(i) If one takes seriously the development ofa canon of Hebrew
scriptures, some immediate implications respecting the text of the
Hebrew Bible can be drawn. Not only did the literary shape of the
tradition receive a fixed form with the establishing ofthe canon, but
the text of the Hebrew Bible also moved out ofits earlier stage of
fluidity into a stabilized form by the end of the first century AD.
This stabilized Hebrew text was clearly a derivative of a fixed
canon. Moreover, it was only the Hebrew text that was stabilized.
The Greek Old Testament continued to remain fluid and obtained
its stability only in its dependence upon the Hebrew. The striking
difference in the process ofstabilization between the Hebrew text of
the Old Testament and the Greek text of the New Testament
should not be overlooked. An approach to text criticism which is
appropriate to the New Testament does not necessarily apply to the
Old Testament. The problems are not identical and critical dis-
ccrnment is called for.
(ii) Constitutive of canon is a religious community for whom this
corpus of literature functioned authoritatively. However, there
were many different Jewish communities in the Hellenistic period
with different authoritative texts. Why should the one community
which finally supported the Masoretic text be singled out? The
reason is that only this one historic community has continued
through history as the living vehicle of the whole canon of Hebrew
scripture. The Greek-speaking Jewish community of Egypt died
out. Similarly the community of Quin ran ceased to exist in the first
98 INTRODUCTION

century. Although the Samaritan community has continued in a

very restricted sense, it has retained only a portion of the total
Hebrew scriptures, which accounts for its sectarian position within
Judaism. Moreover, the relation of canon and text effected an
important theological transformation within Judaism. Following
the stabilization of the Hebrew text, the various Jewish com-
munities began to establish their identity on the basis of the
Masoretic text, thus reversing the historical relationship between
text and community. The importance ofthis move has been largely
overlooked by the usual sociological description of the different
Hellenistic Jewish communities.
(iii) The stabilized Hebrew text of the Jewish community was
only a consonantal text. During the course of its development cer-
tain indicators ofa few basic long vowel values were introduced in
order to aid in the correct reading of the text, but it was not until
the sixth or seventh century AD that various systems were
developed to designate full vocalization. Moreover, it has become
clear that the vowel points served to preserve and register the oral
tradition of how the text was to be read and did not function as a
critical or innovative grammatical enterprise. Wiirthwein’s discus-
sion is far from the mark when he characterizes the pointing as a
‘new beginning’ (17). Once again, in terms of the relation of canon
and text, only the historic Jewish community whose authoritative
text was the Masoretic was the tradent of the oral tradition of the
vocalization of the Hebrew Bible. A very different relationship to
the oral tradition is represented by the Greek-speaking community
of Alexandria and by the Latin-speaking Christians of Jerome’s
age. (ContrastJ. Barr’s insightful handling of the textual evidence
from Jerome, Comparative Philology, 207ff., with the misleading infer-
ences of Bentzen, Introduction I, 62f.) In the famous vowel point
controversy of the seventeenth century Buxtorf correctly sensed the
canonical dependence ofthe consonantal text upon the proper voc-
alization — a dimension which escaped Cappellus - but he mis-
understood the issue by attempting to draw historical rather than
theological implications.
(iv) The increasing authority of the Masoretic text among the
Greek-speaking Jews of the Hellenistic period who used a trans-
lated form of their Bible is clearly evident in the recensional history
of the Septuagint. From the Jewish perspective the (lreck Bible
never had an independent integrity which could contest the Heb-
 TEXT AND CANON 99
rew. Thus the Greek was continually brought into conformity with
the Hebrew and never the reverse.
(v) But was not the relation of canon and text very diflerent for
Christians from what it was forJews? Did not Greek-speakingJew-
ish Christians continue to use the Septuagint as an authoritative
text, as the New Testament and early church fathers appear to
demonstrate? Why should decisions within the Jewish community,
some of which extended chronologically after the rise of Christian-
ity, be deemed normative in any sense for Christians? It is evident
that at the time when the New Testament was being written the
vocalization of the Hebrew text was still in a more fluid state than
in the period following, and that the New Testament’s freedom in
the use oftextual traditions reflected a practice which was common
to that pre-stabilization age. However, the crucial point to be Inade
is that the early Christian community ofthe New Testament never
developed a doctrine of scripture apart from the Jewish. It made no
claims of having a better text of scripture, as did, for example, the
Samaritans. Rather, the theological concern of Christians with the
text of the Old Testament was of a different order. Christians
sought to demonstrate the messianic claims ofJesus Christ on the
basis ofthe same scripture held in common as authoritative by both
religious communities. Christians at first appeared to lay no
emphasis on a given text, but continued to use whatever texts were
current among their Jewish contemporaries. By the second century
the diflerences between theJewish Hebrew Bible and the Christian
Greek Bible had become a controversial issue. In time Origen’s
Hexapla was an attempt to equip Christians with a linguistic tool
by which to wage disputation (cf. Brock). With the growing politi-
cal and religious alienation of Jews and Christians, the church
increasingly lost contact with the synagogue and the Hebrew scrip-
tures, but these moves were culturally dictated, rather than being
derived from a doctrinal stance. In sum, the church’s use of Greek
and Latin translations of the Old Testament was valid in its histor-
ical context, but theologically provides no grounds for calling into
question the ultimate authority of the Hebrew text for church and
synagogue.
I00 INTRODUCTION

6. Masoretic Text and Canonical Text

Up to this point the case has been made for describing the Masore-
tic text as the vehicle for the canonical text of the Old Testament.
Now it is in order to pursue more precisely the relationship between
the Masoretic text and the canonical text. The term canonical text
denotes that official Hebrew text of the Jewish community which
had reached a point of stabilization in the first century AD, thus all
but ending its long history of fluidity. From that period on, the one
form of the Hebrew text of the Bible became the normative and
authoritative expression of Israel’s sacred scripture. Stabilization
marked the point which separated the text’s history into two
sharply distinguished periods: a pre-stabilization period marked by
a wider toleration of divergent text types, and a post-stabilization
period characterized by only minor variations of the one official
text.
However, the point needs to be emphasized that the Masoretic
text is not identical with the canonical text, but is only a vehicle for
its recovery. There is no extant canonical text. Rather, what we
have is a Hebrew text which has been carefully transmitted and
meticulously guarded by a school of scribes through an elaborate
Masoretic system. The earliest extant manuscripts ofthe entire Old
Testament stem from about the tenth century AD (the Aleppo
Codex is dated to the first half of the tenth century, but has been
damaged in part. Codex Leningradensis dates from AD 1008). This
means that the canonical text of first-century Judaism is now con-
tained within a post-canonical tradition. Therefore, even though
the expressed purpose of the Masoretes was to preserve the canoni-
cal text unchanged, in fact, a variety of factors make clear that
changes have occurred and that a distinction between the MT and
the canonical text must be maintained.
A brief characterization of the MT will serve to illustrate the
problem. Orlinsky has made the point convincingly, even if in
slightly exaggerated form, that there is not just one Masoretic text,
but a variety of different Hebrew texts within the Masoretic tradi-
tion. Even after the period of stabilization the Hebrew consonantal
text was not fixed absoltttely, but a certain small degree of flexi-
bility was maintained. Talmon has demonstrated the role ofsuch
devices as double readings in maintaining a tlivcrsity of traditions
 TExT AND CANON lOl
within the one textual family. Similarly such techniques as the
kethih/qere system and the seherin offer the clearest evidence of an
attempt to record a diversity in the text’s reading. Again, the rab-
binic tradition of the tiqquné sopherim, the inverted nuns, suspended
letters, etc. show a certain degree of freedom in the handling of the
text. Finally, that numerous mechanical corruptions within the MT
have occurred in spite of the meticulous care in its transmission is
evident to anyone who has worked with Kennicott and de Rossi.
If one turns to discuss the vocalization and accentuation of the
MT, then the diversity within the textual traditions becomes even
greater. This observation is not to suggest that little attention was
paid to how the text was read. Rather, exactly the opposite case can
be made. However, the differences between the Eastern and West-
ern recensions and between the rival families of Ben Asher and Ben
Naphtali affected the orthography as well as the vocalization and
accentuation systems.
The first task ofthe Old Testament text critic is to seek to recover
the stabilized canonical text through the vehicle of the Masoretic
traditions. This process involves critically establishing the best
Masoretic text which is closest to the original text of the first cen-
tury. It also involves weighing the evidence for the best tradition of
vocalization using the familiar historical and logical criteria. It
should be noted that in this endeavour the terms ‘best’ and ‘origi-
nal’ text are fully commensurate with a canonical approach. In the
post-stabilization period the effort to establish a superior and origi-
nal text is justified by the canon’s concern to distinguish between
an established, authoritative text and its subsequent elaboration. A
canon implies that text and targum are not to be confused. In
actual practice the task of recovering a text close to the first-century
Masoretic text is certainly attainable and supported by Qumran
manuscripts of the proto-Masoretic text type.

7. The Pre-stabilization Period in Old Testament Textual History

According to the canonical model for doing text criticism the goal of
the enterprise is the recovery and the understanding of the canoni-
cal text. One begins with the tradition and then seeks critically to
understand it. In order to achieve this goal the Old Testament text
critic must turn to a study of the Old Testament text before its
102 INTRODUCTION
canonical stabilization and bring to bear upon the investigation the
historical dimension of the text’s development.
It is of crucial importance to recognize the striking differences
in the textual situation which obtain between the pre- and post-
stabilization phases. Indeed, the failure to take seriously the differ-
ence, which is to say, to take seriously the effect ofthe canon, lies at
the heart of the methodological controversy over Old Testament
text criticism. Whereas in the post-stabilization period the differ-
ences within the Masoretic traditions are minor in the light of the
one dominant, unified tradition, in the pre-stabilization period the
multiplicity of textual traditions is the most characteristic feature.
Although logically one can posit an original text lying behind the
diversity, in terms of textual history the actual forms of the earliest
attested traditions are extremely diverse. As a result, the connec-
tion between the allegedly original text and the earliest extant
manuscripts is highly uncertain. One could even argue that the
diversity oftexts derives from an oral stage in between the original
delivery and textual transmission which would suggest that even
the concept of an original text is often misleading. At least in terms
of some of the duplicate texts in the Old Testament the extreme
diversity would appear to point in this direction.
In terms of the hermeneutical issues involved in establishing a
methodology for text criticism, the difference in the analysis of the
pre-stabilization period between Cross’s local text type theory and
Talmon’s and Goshen-Gottstein’s multiple text family hypothesis is
indecisive. Both theories recognize great diversity as well as certain
elements of homogeneity within this fluid textual situation. How-
ever, Cross’s position is useful in delivering the full impact of the
recent text-critical evidence on the traditional theories regarding
the text. He argues that there is no evidence before the time of
Hillel for recensional activity which would eventually lead to stabil-
ization, and thus even the terms ‘standard’ and ‘vulgar’ texts are
anachronistic during the entire pre-stabilization period. The
proto-Masoretic tradition was at_best one among many competing
traditions with no special claim for authority during an extended
pefiod.
Certain important facts affecting the evaluation of the MT
emerge from a study of this recensional history. The period ol
textual fluidity extended from at least 300 Bt: to An lllll, anti can in
part be reconstructed, which often pro\.'itles historical criteria for
 TizxT AND cANoN 103
determining the priority of the different traditions. The present MT
developed from an earlier proto-Masoretic text which extended
back into the pre-stabilization period. However, the proto-
Masoretic text also was comprised ofa mixture of different textual
families which appears evident in the light ofthe different text types
represented in the parallel passages of Kings and Chronicles. The
selection of the MT as the dominant tradition by rabbinicJudaism
in the first century AD did not arise from an arbitrary, academic
decision, as once postulated, but was rather the culmination ofa
long recensional history. However, the grounds for selecting this
one particular tradition are far from clear, but appear to involve the
use of texts within certain religious groups for liturgical and didac-
tic purposes.
The most obvious implication to be drawn from this history of
the pre-stabilization period is that the subsequent status accorded
the MT did not derive necessarily from its being the best, or the
most original, Hebrew text. Its choice as the canonical text was
determined often by broad sociological factors and internal religi-
ous conflicts (cf. Geiger), and not by scholarly textual judgments.
However, this does not imply that the selection was completely
haphazard or arbitrary The MT is frequently a shorter, more
pristine tradition showing few signs oflater harmonistic expansion.
Nevertheless, to characterize the MT as the hebmica veritas is to
draw an erroneous implication from its canonical status.

8. The Text-critical Task

Up to this point in the discussion an attempt has been made to set

out the broad lines of consensus regarding the relation of the MT to
the other textual families in the pre-stabilization period without
pursuing the many minor differences which continue to exist
among scholars. However, the crucial difference in Old Testament
text-critical methodology now emerges which separates the canoni-
cal approach from the usual practice of the discipline. It is gener-
ally assumed that the goal of text criticism is to penetrate as far
back as possible in the pre-stabilization period in an effort to
recover the earliest or best text possible. At times this attempt at
recovery assumes the presence of an Urtext, but the practice oftext
criticism is similar by critics in the school of Kahle who can only
I04 INTRODUCTION
reckon with recovering earlier stages from among multiple textual
traditions. Several major problems arise from this approach to text
criticism. First ofall, it is difficult to determine the criteria by which
to adjudicate the superiority of a text. Often simple historical
criteria are assumed which have customarily been applied to any
classical text. The best text is the earliest, pristine form which is
closest to the original. But from a canonical perspective this
assumption fails to take seriously the peculiar features of the bibli-
cal literature. Just as in its literary phase when the literature
developed beyond its original stage to reflect a different theological
significance in its new canonical shape, so the textual history span-
ning several generations also shares in the canonical process. By
applying the criterion of superiority to the earliest, most pristine
text one fails to ascribe integrity to the process leading up to the
text’s final stabilization. Any subsequent alteration in the text,
whether mechanical or intentional, serves to distort the original
text and is therefore evaluated negatively.
The canonical approach to text criticism applies a very different
methodology in its use of the textual history in the pre-stabilization
period. It does not attempt to establish a ‘better’ text than the
Masoretic, but chooses to remain with the canonical text and thus
identifies the level of the literature with which it is concerned.
Nevertheless, this canonical approach is vitally interested in all the
evidence from the recensional history of the pre-stabilization
period. It simply uses the evidence in a different manner towards
achieving a particular goal, namely, the understanding of the
canonical text.
The use of the recensional history of the early period is invalu-
able in providing a historical perspective by which critically to
assess the Masoretic text. The history of the text often enables the
interpreter to measure the range of mechanical errors which have
entered the Masoretic text. Then again, the nature ofthe Masoretic
text’s intentional changes can be better understood when compared
with the other textual traditions. One can make judgments as to
whether a particular MT has broadened or narrowed a textual
tradition, whether a particular reading reflects an ancient stage in
the development of the text, or is the result ofa later alteration and
represented by only one text type. Frequently one can bring into
sharper focus the exact contours of the Masoretic interpretation by
contrasting it with a rival tradition (cf. Gen. 2.12 in the MT and (I).
 TEXT AND cANoN I05
There is yet another side to the text-critical responsibility within
the context ofthe canon. The usual method of text criticism results
in each successive generation of critics offering fresh suggestions
regarding the form of the original text. This highly individualistic
model seems unaware of the continuing and enduring role of the
canonical text, held in common by ongoing religious communities,
which serves an authoritative function. The point is not to defend
unreflected tradition, but at least to remain in conversation with it.
Thus an important part of canonical text criticism is critically to
evaluate the effect ofa given form of the Hebrew text on its reader
within the context of the biblical tradition. For example, in
I Sam. 1.24 the peculiar phase w'hanna‘ar na‘ar (‘the lad became a
lad’) appears to have arisen because ofa haplography which drop-
ped out a sentence still witnessed to in a Qumran manuscript and
in the Greek. The canonical approach to this text would assess the
effect of this mechanical error in the MT in relation to its earlier
and apparently original reading in the other text families. In addi-
tion, it would attempt to assess the range ofinterpretation possible
for this mutilated MT text, both in terms ofits syntactical options
(cf. Driver, Samuel), and its secondary vocalization. W'ithin the
fixed parameters of a canonical corpus the method seeks to deter-
mine how the meaning of a given passage, even if damaged, was
influenced by its relation to other canonical passages. The obvious
gain in such an approach is that the continuity with the entire
history of exegesis is maintained. Moreover, the means for its criti-
cal evaluation is provided rather than arbitrarily setting up an
individualistic reading which never had an effect upon any histori-
cal community.
Finally, a word is in order respecting the use of the comparative
philological method for Old Testament text criticism. Many of the
problems of adequately controlling the use of comparative Semitics
for interpreting the Hebrew Bible have been discussed by James
Barr (Comparative Philology) and do not need repeating. For anyone
taking seriously the canonical shape of the text, the attempt to
recover an original text apart frotn the tradition raises basic her-
Ineneutical questions. Moreover, the tendency of the philological
method to ignore the actual recensional history of the text in the
claim that tl1c new linguistic evidence supersedes all previous
attempts at interpretation runs completely counter to the method
lieill_t{ proposed. Such ll method fails utterly to comprehend the
106 INTRODUCTION
nature of the Hebrew scripture which reflects in its very shape the
history of its continuing use by a community of faith.
However, the comparative philological method is not to be dis-
missed out of hand, but can also serve a significant role within the
canonical approach, if correctly employed. By determining a range
of possible meanings within the context of Semitic languages, the
biblical interpreter has an additional tool by which to bring into
sharper focus the peculiar effect ofthe Masoretic interpretation. Or
again, when the interpretation of the MT is itself uncertain, as is
often the case with hapax legomena, the comparative evidence adds
additional, extra-biblical evidence for its understanding. Finally,
the comparative method can provide an important historical link
from which better to comprehend how the text was heard by other
diverse textual traditions.
To summarize: This chapter has attempted to outline an under-
standing of Old Testament text criticism in relation to the canon.
The effect of taking the canon seriously is to establish the level of
the biblical literature in accordance with its historical stabilization
by the Jewish community and to seek to understand this received
text in the light of its historical development. The methodological
issue at stake is a hermeneutical one, and is ofdecisive importance
in determining how one construes the entire exegetical task.
 PART TWO

THE PENTATEUCH
 V
INTRODUCTION TO THE PENTATEUCH

Bibliography
W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity, Baltimore 21957; O. T.
Allis, The Five Boo/cs (J Moses, Philadelphia 21949; A. Alt, Essays in Old
Testament History and Religion, ET Oxford and New York 1966; I. Ben-
zinger, jahwist und Elohist in den Kiinigsbtichern, Stuttgart 1921; E. C. Bis-
sell, The Pentateuch. Its Origin and Structure, London and New York 1885
(extensive bibliography of all older literature); J. Blenkinsopp, ‘The
Structure of P’, CBQ 38, 1976, 275—92; Bright, ‘Modern Study of Old
Testament Literature’, The Bible andthe Ancient Near East, FS W. F. Albright,
ed, G. E. Wright, Garden City, N.Y. 1961, l3—3l; History oflsrael, London
and Philadelphia 21972; W. Brueggemann, ‘The Kerygma ofthe Priestly
Writers’, ZAW 84, 1972, 397-414; ‘Questions addressed in the Study of
the Pentateuch’, The Vitality if Old Testament Traditions, Atlanta 1975, l3—
28; M. Buss, ‘The Study of Forms’, Old Testament Form Criticism, ed. John
H. Hayes, San Antonio, Texas 1974, 1-56.
U. Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pen-
tateuch, ET Jerusalem 1961; H. Cazelles, ‘Positions actuelles dans l'exég-
ese du Pentateuque’, De Maria Qumran. I/Ancien Testament, Hommage a Mgr.
/. Coppens, Gembloux/Paris 1969, 34—57; H. Cazelles, and P. Bouhot,
‘Pcntateuque’, DBS 7, 687-858; R. E. Clements, ‘Covenant and Canon in
the Old Testament’, Creation, Christ, and Culture. FS T. F. Torrance, Edin-
burgh 1976, l—l2; D. A. Clines, The Theme ofthe Pentateuch,jSOT Suppl
lfl, 1978; G. W. Coats, From Canaan to Egypt, Washington 1976; R-
Cornely, ‘De pentateucho mosaico’, Introductionis in S. Scripturae libros com-
pendium, Paris “I934, 303-45; F. Craghan, ‘The Elohist in Recent
Literature’, BTB 7, 1977, 23-35; F. M. Cross, Cartaanite Myth and Hebrew
Ilpic, Cambridge, Mass. and London 1973, esp. ‘The Priestly Work’,
'.Z93—325; F. Delitzsch, ‘Pentateuch-kritische Studien’, Zeitschriftfiir /circh-
liche I/Vis.mzschaft und /rirchliches Leben 1, Leipzig 1880 (12 articles); O. Eiss-
feldt, Hex'ateuch-Synapse, Leipzig 1922; K. Elliger, ‘Sinn und Ursprung der
pricstcrlichen Gcschichtscrziihlung’, ZTK 49, 1959, 121-43; P. F. Ellis, The
Yrtlmlist. The Bible ’.r First Thenlo_t_Iian, Notre Dame, Ind. and London 1968; I.
110 THE PENTATEUCH
Engnell, ‘The Pentateuch’, A Rigid Scrutiny, Nashville 1969 (=Critical
Essays on the Old Testament, London 1970), 50-67; G. Fohrer, ‘Pries-
terschrift’, RGG3 5, 568f.; T. E. Fretheim, ‘Source Criticism, OT’, IDB
Suppl, 838i.
C. H. de Geus, The Tribes of Israel . An Investigation into some of the
Presuppositions of Martin Noth’s Amphictyony Hypothesis, Assen 1976; C. H.
Gordon, ‘Biblical Customs and the Nuzi Tablets’, BA 3, 1940, 1-12; N.
K. Gottwald, The Tribes of Yahweh, London (=Liberated Israel , Maryknoll,
l\1.Y.) 1979; K. H. Graf, ‘Die sogenannte Grundschrift des Pen-
tateuchs’, Archivfiir wissenschcflliche Erforschung des Alten Testaments I, Halle
1869, 466-77; W. H. Green, The Higher Criticism of the Pentateuch, New
York 1895; P. Grelot, ‘La derniere étape de la redaction sacerdotale’, VT
6, 1956, 174-89; H. Gunkel, ‘Die Grundprobleme der israelitischen
Literaturgeschichte’, Reden und Aufsiitze, Géittingen 1913, 29-38; H. A. C.
I-Iiivernick, An Historico-Critical Introduction to the Pentateuch, ET Edinburgh
1850; M. Haran, ‘Shiloh and Jerusalem. The Origin ofthe Priestly Tradi-
tion in the Pentateuch’,jBL 81, 1962, 14-24; H, Hayes and M.
Miller, eds., Israelite and judaean History, OTL, 1977; Hempel, ‘Pries-
terkodex’, Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopoidie der classischen Altertumswissenschafl,
22, Stuttgart 1954, cols. l945iT.; E. W’. Hengstenberg, Die Authentie des
Pentateuchs, 3 vols, Berlin 1836-39; S. Herrmann, A History ofIsrael in Old
Testament Times, ET London and Philadelphia 1975; G. Hblscher, Ges-
chichtsschreibung in Israel , Lund 1952; H. Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hex-
ateuch, Leipzig 1893; F. I-Iommel, The Ancient Hebrew Tradition as illustrated
by the Monuments, ET London and New York 1897; A. Hurwitz, ‘The
Evidence of Language in Dating the Priestly Code’, RB 81, 1974, 24-56;
B. Jacob, Der Pentateuch, Leipzig 1905.
A. S. Kapelrud, ‘The Date of the Priestly Code (P)’, ASTI 3, 1964,
58-64; Y. Kaufmann, The Religion of Israel, ET Chicago 1960, London
1961; R. Kessler, Die Querverweise irn Pentateuch. l7berlieferungsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung der expliziten Querverbindungen innerhalb des vorpriesterlichen Pen-
tateuchs, Diss. Heidelberg 1972; R. Knierim, ‘Old Testament Form Critic-
ism Reconsidered’, Interp 27, 1973, 435-67; H.-_]. Kraus, Geschichte der
historisch-lcritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments von der Reformation bis zur
Gegenwart, Neukirchen-Vluyn 21969; M. G. Kyle, The Deciding Voice of the
Monuments in Biblical Criticism, Oberlin, Ohio 21924; M. Léihr, Unter-
suchungen zum Hexateuchproblem I: Der Priesterkodex in der Genesis, BZAW 38,
1924; B. Luther, ‘Die Personlichkeit des jahwisten’, Appendix to E.
Meyer, Die Israeliten und ihre Nachbarstiimme, Halle 1906; S. E. McEvenue.
The Narrative Style of the Priestly Writer, Rome 1971; G. Mendenhall,
‘Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law’ and ‘Covenant Forms in Israelite
Tradition’, BA 17, 1954, 26-46, 50-76=Law and Covenant in Israel and the
Ancient Near East, Pittsburgh 1955; S. Mowinckel, Erwiigunger: zur Pen-
tateuch Quellenfrage, Trondheim 1964; Tetrnteuch-Pentateuch~He.rat¢-uch, Berlin
1964; C. R. North, ‘Pentateuclial Critieisln’, The ()lrl Testrirrrerrt and .1-for/err:
 INTRODUCTION To THE PENTATEUCH 111
Study, ed. H. H. Rowley, Oxford and New York 1951, 48-83; M. Noth,
Hberlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948; ET A History of Pen-
tateuchal Traditions, Englewood Cliiis, N._]. 1972.
E. Otto, ‘Stehen wir vor einem Umbruch in der Pentateuchl-tritil-ti”, VF
22, 1977, 82-97; L. Perlitt, Vatlre und Wellhausen, BZAW 94, 1965; O.
Ploger, ‘Pentateuch’, RGG3 5, 211-17; G. von Rad, Die Priesterschrift im
Hexateuch, BWANT lV 13 (=65), 1934; Das formgeschichliche Problem des
Hexateuchs, BWANT IV 26 (=78), 1938; ET The Problem ofthe Hexateuch and
Other Essays, Edinburgh and New York 1966; R. Rendtorff, ‘Literatur-
kritik und Traditionsgeschichte’, EvTh 27, 1967, 138-53; ‘Traditio-
historical Method and the Documentary Hypothesis’, Proceedings of the
Fifth World Congress ofjewish Studies (1969), Jerusalem 1971, 5-11; ‘Der
“_]ahwist” als Theologe? Zum Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik’, SVT 28,
1974, 158-66; Das iiberlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW
147, 1977; W. Richter, Exegese als Literaturwissenschaft, Giittingen 1971; H.
Ringgren, ‘Literarkritik, Formgeschichte, Uberlieferungsgeschichte’,
TLZ 91, 1966, 641-50; L. Rost, ‘Zum geschichtlichen Ort der Pen-
tateuchquellen’, ZTK 53, 1956, 1-10; W. Rudolph, Der ‘Elohist’von Exodus
bis _]osua, BZAW 68, 1938; A. Sanders, Torah and Canon, Philadelphia
1972; A. H. Sayce, The ‘Higher Criticism’ and the Verdict of the Ildonuments,
London and New York 21894; H. H. Schmid, Der sogennante jahwist:
Beobachtungen und Frage zur Pentateuchforschung, Ziirich 1976; K. Scholder,
Urspriinge und Probleme der Bibelkriti/: im I7. jahrhundert, Munich 1966; H.
Schulte, Die Entstehung der Geschichtsschreibung im Alten Israel , BZAW 128,
1972; C. A. Simpson, The Early Traditions qfIsrael, Oxford and New York
1948; D. C. Simpson, Pentateuchal Criticism, London and New York 1924;
R. Smend, Die Erziihlung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht, Berlin
1912; R. Smend, jr., ‘Pentateuchforschung’, BHH 3, 1413-19; J. A. Sog-
gin, ‘Ancient Biblica] Tradition and Modern Archaeological Discoveries’,
BA 23, 1960, 95-100; E. A. Speiser, ‘The Wife-Sister Motif in the Pat-
riarchal Narratives’, Biblical and Other Studies, ed. A. Altmann, Cambridge,
Mass. 1963, 15-28; W. Staerk, ‘Zur alttestamentliehen Literarkritik.
Grundsatzliches und Methodisches’, ZA W 42, 1924, 34-74.
R. Thompson, I1/Ioses and the Law in a Century of Criticism since Graf,
Leiden 1970; H. Tigay, ‘An Empirical Basis for the Documentary
Hypothesis’,jBL 94, 1975, 329-42;]. Van Seters, ‘Confessional Reformu-
lations in the Exilic Period’, VT 22, 1972, 448-59; R. de Vaux, ‘A propos
du second centenaire d’Astruc, Réflexions sur 1’état actuel de 1a critique
du Pentateuque’, SVT 1, 1953, 182-98;]. G. Vink, ‘The Date and Origin
of the Priestly Code in the Old Testament’, The Priestly Code and Seven other
Studies, OTS 15, 1969, 1-144; P. Volz and W. Rudolph, Der Elohist als
Erztihler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchltritik, Berlin 1933; N. Wagner, ‘Pen-
lateuchal Criticism: No Clear Future’, Canadian journal of Theology 13,
Toronto 1967, 225-32; H. Weidmann, Die Patriarchen und ihre Religion im
I.icht der Forscbung seit_/ulius Wellhausen, FRLANT 94, 1968; A. Weiser,
112 THE PENTATEUCH
Introduction to the Old Testament, ET London (=The Old Testament: its Forma-
tion and Development, New York) 1961; Wellhausen, Die Composition des
Hexateuchs und der historischen Bflcher des Alten Testaments, Berlin 31899; H. M.
Wiener, Essays in Pentateuchal Criticism, London and Oberlin, Ohio 1910;
F. V. Winnett, ‘Re-Examining the Foundations’,jBL 84, 1965, 1-19; H.
W. Wolff, ‘The Kerygma of the Yahwist’, ET, Interp 20, 1966, 13]-
58=W. Brueggemann and H. W. Wolff, The Vitality ofOld Testament Tradi-
tions, Atlanta 1975, 41-66; ‘The Elohistic Fragments in the Pentateuch‘,
ET, Interpr 26, 1972, l58—73=Vitality, 66-82; G. E. Wright, ‘Modern
Issues in Biblical Studies: History and the Patriarchs’, E.rpT 71, 1960,
292-6; W. Zimmerli, ‘Sinaibund und Abrahambund’, TZ 16, 1960, 268-
80=Gottes Ojfenbarung, Munich 1963, 205-16.

I. The History gill/Iodern Critical Research

The history ofthe modern critical study ofthe Pentateuch has been
reviewed many times and is readily available in Old Testament
Introductions (Eissfeldt, Fohrer, Kaiser), in encyclopaedia articles
(cf. under Pentateuch in RGG3, IDB, BHH, DBS), and in several
monographs (Hblscher, Kraus). Nevertheless, the importance of
this history is such that discussion ofit cannot be entirely omitted.
First, the basic methodological issues of critical biblical scholar-
ship, which have strongly aflected the entire discipline, were ham-
mered out primarily in the study of the Pentateuch. Knowledge of
the history is, therefore, indispensable for methodology. Secondly,
present research continues to occupy itself with many of the same
problems and often returns to the older positions for resolving
difficulties. Knowledge of the history is, therefore, crucial for
evaluating the continuing debate.

The literary critical method

The traditional Jewish and Christian manner of reading the Pen-

tateuch assumed that the five books had been written by Moses and
represented a unified and datable composition which depicted his-
torical events from the creation of the world until the death of
Moses. Certain problems with this traditional understanding had
been occasionally seen, especially in the seventeenth century (Spin-
oza, Simon, Le Clerc,) but not until the eighteenlll century tlitl :1
consistent effort emerge which sought to olli-r n tlillitrt-nt lilt‘r;n'y