CANON OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. The acceptance and collection of the inspired books of the OT canon includes the history of the acceptance of the OT books, the reasons why they were accepted and collected, and the divisions of the books, and also why other books called Apoc. were not accepted into the canon.

Outline

I. Introduction. The word canon comes from a Gr. word meaning rule. It has come to refer largely to the standards of the Church. Church rules are called “canon law”; clerical vestments are sometimes called “canonics.” The most widely used sense of the word refers to the canon of Scripture; i.e., the list of books regarded by the Church as authoritative and divine. There are actually two points to consider in discussing the principles of canonicity; first, why the books are authoritative and divine, and second, when and how they were accepted by the Church and collected into a canon. Especially in the OT field the matter is complicated by the fact that much of this process took place in the distant past for which historical evidence is very scanty. Opinions may, therefore, differ somewhat, depending upon the viewpoint of the observer and the confidence he places in the evidence that is available.

In the last cent. or more there has arisen a sharp divergence of opinion among Biblical scholars which deeply affects questions of canonicity. In former ages most of the students of the Bible believed it to be true and accepted its supernatural teachings. Since the rise of rationalism and its penetration into the citadels of the Christian faith, it has become common to deny the possibility of the supernatural, and with this denial the Bible has been dissected and challenged in many ways. Study of the OT canon in such circles is a study of the history of the growth of the error of Biblical acceptance and belief on the part of the Christian Church. It is clear that conservative and liberal Christians approach the subject of the OT canon from very different viewpoints. It is more important to assess the evidence bearing on the subject with care, and also to judge whether opposition to the historic view of the canon stems from compelling argument or from theories previously adopted on other grounds.

The conservative scholar is not without bias. He freely confesses that full information on the OT canon is no longer available. He utilizes freely every scrap of evidence remaining. He is also heavily influenced in all these matters by the teaching of Christ. Christ’s teaching and work guarantee to the Church the possibility of a real factual revelation from God, and also that the OT canon embodies that very revelation as Scripture. In a real sense the study of the OT canon could begin and end with the witness of Jesus Christ. It need not end there, however, for such ancient factual, extant witness is in full accord with the teachings of Jesus Christ on the canon.

To be more specific: The conservative scholar has always believed that the OT is what it says it is, and that it arose in the way it claims. The Pentateuch was written by Moses, the prophets by those men whose names are mentioned, the Davidic Psalms by David, and the history books written at a time roughly contemporaneous with the events concerned. The whole was completed about 400 b.c. The school of thought often called higher criticism includes several varied positions. All deny the genuineness and early date of the OT books as a whole. Some extreme views, as the Swedish view of oral tradition, hardly admit any of the OT may have been written down before 400 b.c. Older critics said that the Pentateuch was written by four or more authors or schools of authors (J, E, D, and P) as late as 1000 years after Moses. David and Solomon wrote very little. The prophetic books should be divided among the prophetic authors and several of their successors, or the prophets wrote nothing at all. There is today wide diversity in the critical camp, but there is unanimity in the belief that the historic Christian view of the origin of the OT and its canonization is wrong. The corollary to the critical view is that the OT is full of error, historical, factual, and doctrinal. It may be a revelation from God only in a general sense of experiential revelation, not in the sense of factual divine truth. The presence of these widely divergent opinions complicates greatly the study of the OT canon. Similar problems of criticism beset the NT canon but in that case the sources are much nearer to the events concerned.

II. The conservative view of canonicity. The classic statement of the Protestant position on the OT canon is in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647 which in this point is in agreement with most historic Protestant denominations. It says: “Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the Books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these...,” and there follow the thirty-nine books of the OT and the twenty-seven of the NT, “all which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life” (I. 2). “The authority of the holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church, but wholly upon God (who is truth itself), the Author thereof; and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God” (I. 4).

The historic Roman Catholic position is not so much different as is commonly supposed. The Council of Trent in 1546 declared that the Synod received “with an equal affection of piety and reverence, all the books both of the Old and New Testaments—seeing that one God is the author of both—as also the said traditions as well as those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated either by Christ’s own word of mouth or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession” (Fourth Session in P. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom [1877], II, 80). There follows a list of the OT books with the Apoc. and the NT books. Note that both standards express full belief in the Bible as the Word of God, and as true because it is the Word of God. The Catholic creed differs by holding, in addition to the OT, the Apoc. books and Catholic tradition. The decrees of the First Vatican Council of 1870 are in accord with this teaching.

These views on the infallibility of the Bible and its origin from God Himself have characterized the entire Christian Church of the ages up to the liberal movements of recent times, as is widely recognized. (See the writer’s Inspiration and Canonicity of the Bible [1957], 75-77.) They depend partly upon external testimony, partly on the testimony of the books themselves, and appeal finally to Christ Himself. Note that the conservative Protestant position holds that the OT canon is a list of authoritative books. The Rom. position has been said to be an authoritative list of books. This summary is not entirely accurate. Both Roman and Protestant creeds stress the idea that the books have God for their author. Their authority is inherent. They are the Word of God, the truth. It often has been emphasized that the Protestant view makes inspiration the test of canonicity which is correct. There remains the further problem of the test of inspiration. The Roman Church holds apparently that church decision is the criterion of inspiration and canonicity. The Protestant tests of inspiration will be discussed below.

III. Biblical evidence for traditional views on authorship.

A. Brief survey of liberal views. The liberal position in all its varieties holds that the OT canon is a list of non-inspired books agreed upon by men and mistakenly accepted as divine. Liberals differ as to why the particular books were elevated to such eminence. Some stress the action of religious councils (though the evidence is very scanty). Others claim that the books written in Heb. were considered authoritative, but there were other old Heb. books not so received. Others suggest antiquity as the cause of such recognition. But allegedly younger books were canonized when older books were not. These varying views will be remembered and tested as the subject develops. To investigate and weigh in detail the evidence for the genuineness of all the OT books would require a volume (see articles on each OT book). Standard OT introductions are available on the subject. The outlines of the argument should be given as a background to the study of the canon. The OT canon is made up of individual books, which therefore need to be studied at least in brief.

B. Pentateuchal claims for Mosaic authorship. The Church always has believed that the Pentateuch came from the hand of Moses. The three arguments are the claims of the books themselves, the evidence of the later writings, and the assurances of Christ Himself.

Regarding the claims of the books themselves, they are not always appreciated. It is true that the story of Genesis which deals with the pre-Mosaic age makes no claim of any authorship. It is, however, closely integrated with the following books. The last ch. of Genesis sets the stage for the opening of Exodus, and the listings of Jacob’s family in Genesis 46:9-27 are repeated as far as Levi in Exodus 6:14-16. Obviously the writer of Exodus 6 had the list of Genesis 46 before him. There are other touches. Moses took with him from Egypt the bones of Joseph (Exod 13:19) as Joseph had commanded (Gen 50:25). The God of Moses is the “God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob” (Exod 3:6). The children of Esau are called brethren of Israel (Deut 2:4) which had been explained in Genesis 25:26 and elsewhere. Moab and Ammon are also called children of Lot in Deuteronomy 2:9 and 19 in agreement with Genesis 19:37, 38. The Sabbath command depends on the creation narrative (Exod 23:12; Gen 1:1-2:2). The whole thrust of the Exodus is to bring the Israelites into the land promised by an oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as recorded in Genesis (Deut. 1:8, etc.). Obviously Genesis is bound by many links to the other four books of Moses.

That Moses wrote Exodus-Deuteronomy is claimed repeatedly. No one else could have written these details of Moses’ life nor recorded the words of the Lord to Moses, unless the books are a colossal invention. The expression, “the Lord said unto Moses,” or a similar phrase occurs over seventy-five times in Exodus alone. A similar situation prevails in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. The books record what the Lord told Moses alone at the bush, as well as on Mt. Sinai. No one but Moses knew the things here written. Certain parts of these books are directly ascribed to the writing of Moses—the poetry of Exodus 15, Deuteronomy 32 and 33, the travel logbook of Numbers 33, the covenantal law of Exodus 20-24, the section called “this law” referred to in Deuteronomy 28:58; 31:9 (prob. including at least 27:1-31:9) and other passages. Almost the whole Book of Deuteronomy claims to be Moses’ spoken words. Most of the chs. of Leviticus (KJV) begin with the words, “And the Lord spake unto Moses...saying.” There is a tendency in critical thought to minimize the self-testimony of the Pentateuch, but it should not be allowed. It could be said that the Pentateuch is a forgery or a pious fraud, but it should be admitted that it clearly claims Mosaic authorship.

Furthermore, this claim is in accordance with the facts of Moses’ life. A leader, a scholar, a man of God, he was chosen of God to receive His word face to face (Num 12:6-8). Called a prophet by the 8th cent. prophet Hosea (12:13) Moses stands at the head of that noble line of men who revealed God’s will to Israel and wrote much of it down for all time (Deut 18:15-22).

C. Witness of other OT books to the Pentateuch and to each other. The following books re-echo the testimony that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. There is no extra-Biblical lit. at all from the Biblical period of Israel’s history. The other OT books are united in their testimony to Moses’ authorship and some of these books are admittedly quite early. Moses is mentioned fifty-six times in Joshua and his written law is referred to four times (Josh 1:7; 8:31, 32; 23:6). Joshua wrote Moses’ law on plastered stones as Moses had commanded (8:34; Deut 27:1-28:68, etc.). Joshua allocated forty-eight cities to the Levites (Josh 20:1-21:41) “as the Lord commanded by the hand of Moses” (Num 36:13). He also named the cities of refuge which had been promised in Exodus 21:13, specified as six in Numbers 35:6; half of them in Trans-Jordan—named in Deuteronomy 4:41-43 and three more W of Jordan promised in Deuteronomy 19:2. In short, the narrative moves on smoothly through Joshua until Joshua’s words are written “in the book of the law of God” and laid up in the sanctuary (Josh 24:26).

The law or commands of Moses are mentioned in Judges 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 8:9; 2 Kings 18:6 (a quotation of Deut 24:16); 18:4-6, 12; 21:8; 23:25. These references are only the more important ones. They show that throughout the history of the monarchy Moses was regarded as the fountain of Israel’s law. It is not only that Moses was widely regarded as a great leader and that a law book was later attributed to him by pious fraud. Rather Moses was remembered throughout the centuries as the author of the law of Israel under God.

Nowhere is this more specific than in the Books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. These related history books are written, many believe, by Ezra himself (W. F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine [1960], 226). In them the law in written form is ascribed to Moses a dozen times. Portions from most of the books of the Pentateuch are quoted as Mosaic (Neh 9:14=Exod 20:10; Deut 5:12; 2 Chron 25:4=Deut 24:16; Neh 13:1, 2=Deut 23:3, 4). This witness of Chronicles-Nehemiah was of less value formerly when the date of Chronicles was put as late as 250 b.c. Now, however, on the basis of evidence from the DSS the Books of Chronicles are dated at about 400 b.c. (F. M. Cross, The Ancient Library of Qumran [1958], 189, and others). This gives valid testimony to Israel’s belief back into the Pers. period. It is no answer to say that Ezra and his fellows were merely glorifying Moses. Close attention to the documents shows that these books ascribe nothing to Moses that is not in the Pentateuch. They quite accurately ascribe the liturgy of the Temple worship to David and name several of his associates, Heman, Ethan, etc. They are aware that the Temple was built only in the time of Solomon but the law is called Mosaic in all its parts.

Moses is mentioned also in the Psalms, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Micah and Malachi. In the Psalms, one poem is attributed to “Moses, the man of God” (Ps 90). The expression “man of God” is used many times in the OT as equivalent to prophet (1 Kings 13:20-23, etc.). In Psalm 103, a Psalm of David, the revelation of God to Moses is mentioned, then a v. from Exodus 34:6 is quoted. Several Psalms mention Moses’ and Aaron’s leadership. Psalm 106 gives a detailed history of Moses’ leading the people out of Egypt, and remarks that at the Red Sea Israel believed God’s word, but later when they refused to enter Pal. they “believed not” His word. The implication, against the background of the history cited, is that Israel refused God’s word spoken by Moses.

According to the critical view the Pentateuch was not even in existence as a unit in the days of the monarchy, but was written down much later and falsely attributed to Moses. Such a view automatically rules out any conservative position on the OT canon. It is essential, therefore, to realize the strength of the witness available for the early date, and Mosaic origin of the first division of the Scripture.

The testimony to the Pentateuch during the period of the monarchy is a bit difficult to give because critical scholarship is divided in its estimate of the date and value of the books of history, and the prophetical books allegedly written during this time.

The older critics held that Joshua and Judges were written largely by the same four schools that wrote the Pentateuch (J, E, D, P). Therefore their witness for the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch would be late and valueless. Samuel, however, was regarded as largely J and E, and therefore in the time of the monarchy. Kings was late; Hosea, Amos, Micah, and the “first” Isaiah were early. The rest were late. The Psalms and other books were in part as late as the Maccabees in 168 b.c. These views seem somewhat strange now, since the findings of the DSS which will be discussed below.

It is now fashionable to call the books of Samuel a priceless, almost contemporary account of the rise of the monarchy (J. Bright, A History of Israel [1959]). Followers of Martin Noth give great credit to the accuracy of the historical books Joshua-2 Kings, but argue that they were all “redacted” by the “Deuteronomist” at about 620 b.c. They speak of a Tetrateuch (Gen-Num) and a Deuteronomic Work (Deut-2 Kings). Albright, however, would place many Psalms as early as David and even put Proverbs in the monarchy. He argues that no Psalms are later than the 4th cent. (op. cit. p. 226, 227).

Many scholars still hold such prophets as Amos, Hosea, Micah and parts of Isaiah to be genuine (John D. W. Watts, Vision and Prophecy in Amos [1958], p. 13, n. 1). Others, however, follow the more sceptical Swedish school which argues that nothing of any extent was written in Israel before the Exile. All was in the shape of oral tradition and the great bulk of the OT was written down after the Exile—apparently in that short time after Zerubbabel and before the new dating of Chronicles in 400 b.c. Little of Israel’s condition during this period is known, but it would seem that it was under duress in Babylon and in a wretched condition in Pal. It does not seem a likely time for the monumental achievement of the collecting of ancient traditions and writing them up in a form that has ever since impressed all mankind with its genius, moral force, and spiritual power.

In view of these uncertainties among critical scholars, it seems worthwhile to gather some of the evidences that the historical books, the Psalms and the early prophets clearly allude to and quote from the Pentateuch including “P,” or the allegedly postexilic Tetrateuch of the Swedish school. The pre-exilic evidence agrees with that of the Chronicles at 400 b.c.

An early prophet like Hosea makes definite allusions to every one of the five books of the Pentateuch including all four of the alleged documentary sources (J, E, D, and P). Hosea 12:3, 4 refers to the birth of Jacob, wrestling with the angel, and his vision at Bethel (all J). Hosea 12:9a; 13:4 quotes from the commandments, Exodus 20:2 (E). Hosea 12:9 refers to dwelling in booths in the feast of Tabernacles, a detail found only in Leviticus 23:42 (P). In Hosea 9:10 there is a reference to Israel’s apostasy at Baal-peor which is found in Numbers (also in Deut). Hosea 11:8 refers to the destruction of the cities of Admah and Zeboiim which is reported only in Deuteronomy 29:23 (D). Hosea 9:9 and 10:9 refer also to the battle in Judges 20. There are several allusions in Hosea to other OT books, but as is usual, there is no quotation of other books or allusions to any ancient traditions not found in the OT books. Hosea does not witness to Moses’ writing, but it does clearly witness to the ancient existence of the Pentateuch. The date of Hosea in the days of Jeroboam II is well before the fall of Samaria in 722 b.c.

There are many other cases of allusions to the history and wording of the Pentateuch, in the Psalms, and the early prophetical books written prob. during the monarchy.

The Book of Joshua according to Noth and others is Deuteronomic and comes from before the Exile. How then does it refer so frequently to the first four books, the Tetrateuch and the P document supposedly written after the Exile? A table of the more striking correspondence will be helpful:

Actually, Joshua 24 summarizes much history from Genesis, Exodus and Numbers.

It is clear that, whoever wrote Joshua, he was familiar with the books of the Pentateuch however one divides them. He frequently refers to the ancient history of the patriarchs, the commands of Moses and the history of the nation under Moses. But, he never refers to any other history or tradition except what the Pentateuch gives. The picture in the other books is similar:

The subject has a fascination, and actually leads to innumerable references. Numbers 10:35 (J, E) is quoted by Psalm 68:1, 2, a Psalm studied linguistically by W. F. Albright and dated to the early Monarchy (“A Catalogue of Early Hebrew Lyric Poems,” HUCA XXIII [1950-51], 10). Note the other reference of Psalm 68 to the Song of Deborah, Judges 5:4, 5 mentioned above.

The first commandment (Exod 20:2) has been referred to above as quoted in Hosea 12:9; 13:4. It is also quoted in Psalm 81:10. Psalm 81 refers to other incidents of the Exodus—e.g., first, v. 3, blowing of trumpets on the new moon which is mentioned elsewhere only in Numbers 10:10 (though sacrifices on the new moon are often mentioned). The waters of Meribah (Ps 81:7) are referred to in Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

There should be mentioned also the great summary passages in the OT. These recall more or less of the history of Israel, alluding briefly to many books. Jepthah in Judges 11:5-22 mentions particularly the Trans-Jordan conquest related in Numbers and Deuteronomy. Joshua 24:2-18 ranges through much of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. Samuel’s speech in 1 Samuel 12 has already been cited for the Pentateuch. He also refers to the wars fought by Barak against Sisera, by Gideon (called Jerubbaal) and by Jephthah. The historical Psalms 78, 105, 106, 135, and 136—repeat the same story, once with an actual quotation (Ps 135:14=Deut 32:36). Parts of Psalms 105 and 106 are in turn quoted extensively in 1 Chronicles 16.

There are other interrelations of OT books. Isaiah 7:12 quotes from Deuteronomy 6:16 as Jesus did years later (Matt 4:7). Isaiah 10:26 alludes to Gideon’s victory in Judges 7:25. Isaiah 12:2 quotes from Exodus 15:2, as does also Psalm 118:14. Micah 3:12 is quoted by name in Jeremiah 26:18. Jeremiah depends heavily on Isaiah 15 and 16 in his own denunciation of Moab (Jer 48). Jeremiah also quotes from Hosea (Jer 30:9=Hos 3:5) and from Numbers (Jer 48:45a, 46=Num 21:28, 29). It is interesting to observe that Jeremiah stops his quotation from Numbers just before the reference to Sihon which is applicable to the early time but not to Jeremiah’s day. In all these summaries of ancient history and allusions to other books and events, there are none or next to none, which cannot be explained by the Pentateuchal books. If these books were passed on for years by oral tradition as some argue, it seems clear that all the tradition was at last written down. There is no hint of selectivity.

The bearing of the above study on the OT canon is obvious: the OT books were written as they claim, stage by stage and year by year throughout Israel’s history from Moses on down to the later prophets. There is no ancient extra-Biblical witness to prove this, but there is a great deal of inner Biblical witness, whereby one book gives witness to another’s antiquity.

IV. Conservative view of the origin of the OT.

A. The concept of a prophet. Ingrained into the faith of both OT and NT is the principle that God has revealed Himself. A great v. on the subject is Hebrews 1:1; “God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets.” The OT prophet was a man who claimed to speak truly the Word of God. A prophet was not one who trained for a work or who was appointed to an office or inherited a position. He was one called of God. Several of the prophets recount the experience of their call. Ezekiel saw a vision of God on His throne who gave Ezekiel a book and commanded him to eat the scroll that God gave to him, then go and speak to the people using God’s words (Ezek 3:3, 4). Isaiah saw the vision of the Lord. After the angel had cleansed Isaiah’s lips, God commissioned him to go and speak to the people (Isa 6:6-9). Jeremiah heard the Lord’s call to be a prophet, but replied that he was poor in speaking. Then the Lord touched his mouth and said, “Behold, I have put my words in your mouth” (Jer 1:5-9). Moses, the great prophet at the start of Israel’s national life was called at the burning bush. He also objected that he could not speak well. God’s reply was “I will be with your mouth and teach you what you shall speak” (Exod 4:10-12). Later God gives more detail concerning His freedom of speaking to Moses. When Miriam and Aaron spoke against their brother, God said, “If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision, I speak with him in a dream. Not so with my servant Moses...With him I speak mouth to mouth” (Num 12:6-8). Moses is not distinguished from a prophet, but is called the prophet par excellence for God revealed Himself to Moses in special clarity. Elsewhere Moses is clearly referred to as a prophet (Hos 12:13) and indeed he is the type of all the prophets to follow including Christ Himself (Deut 18:15, 18). Other examples could be given, although all prophets are not always as detailed in speaking of their call.

Israel had many prophets through her long history and the documents repeatedly assert that the faithful of the nation listened to these prophets, accepting their words as the words of God. One could hold that the prophets were self-deceived and the people mistaken, but clearly ancient Israel believed that God spoke by the prophets. The evidence is not clear that the nations surrounding ancient Israel also recognized prophets. There is a questionable reference to this effect in the Mari letters, but evidence is scarce (cf. E. J. Young, My Servants the Prophets [1955], 193-198). It is clear from the Bible, however, that false prophets and prophets of Baal abounded in Israel. The question therefore arises, how were Israelites to distinguish true prophets from false? The Bible gives three signs of a true prophet: (1) His word must be in accord with the true religion (Deut 13:1-5). (2) His predictions must come to pass (18:21, 22). (3) His word may be accompanied with miraculous signs (Exod 4:3-9; 1 Kings 13:3-5; 2 Kings 20:8-11; etc.). It is curious and significant that the false prophets are not credited with performing miracles. The only exceptions seem to be the Egyp. magicians in the early plagues, and the witch of Endor. Many times the predictions of the false prophets are proved false. Not every prophet was believed in Israel, but some were believed even at great odds.

The conclusion is that throughout the history of Israel (and even before, because Enoch, Noah, and Abraham were prophets) there were men who were recognized as spokesmen for God and their word was regarded as true by the faithful in the nation. It may be remarked that this recognition was not given to others. Priests did not declare the Word of God except by the use of the Urim and Thummim, which seem only to have given a yes-no answer to questions. Kings also had no such power. Of course, priests and kings could also be prophets as, for example, Ezekiel and David, but priests as priests did not receive revelations from God. Their work was to instruct from the existing law.

It stands to reason that since what these prophets spoke was regarded as the Word of God, what they may have written was also so regarded. For this reason, the Pentateuch was accepted as being the work of Moses. Those who refuse to accept the idea that there were prophets who delivered supernatural revelations from God find it hard to believe that a prophet’s word would have been accepted by his contemporaries. They feel that some interval must exist or must be claimed from the time of writing of an ancient writer to the time of its reception. The time for such an acceptance is prob. short in the NT field. Those who saw the risen Christ were convinced at once of His power to reveal. Those who heard the Apostle Paul speak with power evidently accepted his epistle without delay or demur. There is therefore no inherent reason why the writings of the OT should not have been accepted by the authors’ contemporaries; the conservative view is that they were so accepted.

B. The sequence of writing prophets. According to the claim of Joshua, he accepted at once Moses’ “book of the law” (Josh 1:8) and proceeded to follow in the footsteps of the great leader. The Jordan opened up before Joshua as the Red Sea had done for Moses. The captain of the Lord’s host humbled Joshua and instructed him (5:15-6:2) as God had done with Moses (Exod 3:5, 10). Joshua acted as a prophet, in the areas of both prediction and miracle (Josh 6:26; 10:13, 14). Later generations remembered him as a prophet (1 Kings 16:34). It is stated that his writing was added to the “book of the law of God” (Josh 24:26). The claim is evident that the Book of Joshua was written by Joshua the prophet and added to the Pentateuch.

It is believed by many that this is a preposterous conclusion because Joshua is a much later writing. The claim is made that the cities listed as distributed by Joshua reflect a later time of Israel’s history. However, following A. Alt (Kleine Schriften [1953] I, 201) one may hold that the material fits an early age regardless of the writing. The date and authenticity of Joshua is a literary question where much subjectivity comes into play. Space does not allow a discussion here, but conservative scholars are capable of arguing for a date of Joshua contemporary to the events described.

The Book of Judges follows Joshua. In old Heb. listings Judges and Ruth were evidently one book. This is natural, for the Book of Judges consists of two major parts. The first is a framework which tells the story of the successive oppressions and deliverances of Israel. The second part is a kind of appendix containing two stories (Judg 17; 18; 19-21) which tell of incidents occurring during the period of the judges. The two incidents tell of sinful situations, and both are concerned with Bethlehem (17:7; 19:1). The Book of Ruth is a similar story only telling of a godly family, and it too is concerned with Bethlehem. Who wrote the Book of Judges is not known. Presumably it was written by someone at the end of this period, who had by oral and/or written tradition a knowledge of the facts. All the Heb. classifications—though they are quite late—ascribe Judges to a prophet. There is no adequate evidence for or against this conclusion. It should be noted, however, that Judges is purposefully tied in with the connected history of Israel.

Note that the Book of Joshua ends with Joshua’s death (Josh 24:29-31). These vv. are also found in Judges (Judg 2:7-9). Joshua could not write about his death, but it seems that the author of Judges appended a few vv. (“And it came to pass after these things,” Josh 24:29 KJV) to the preceding book as a kind of catch-line to show the connection of his book.

Exactly the same thing is done in Judges-Ruth. At the end of Ruth the genealogy of the baby born to Ruth and Boaz is carried down to the time of David and is obviously written in the days of the monarchy, not in the days of the judges. This by no means suggests that all of Judges-Ruth was written in the monarchy. Rather it suggests that the author of the history of David in Samuel was using the catch-line principle.

The same thing was done in 2 Chronicles-Ezra. Chronicles ends with two vv. which are identical with Ezra 1:1-3a. Examination will show that 2 Chronicles ends in the middle of a sentence; Ezra 1:3 has the completion of that sentence. Evidently it was the practice for the author of a second book to place a concluding appendix or catch-line on the previous book to show the connection. An exceedingly curious item is available to prove that these two vv. were added to 2 Chronicles as a catch-line. There is an apocryphal book called 1 Esdras which is little more than a copy of 2 Chronicles 35:1 through Ezra with a brief part of Nehemiah. It is most interesting that where this book makes the joining between 2 Chronicles and Ezra, the two verse catch-line of 2 Chronicles 36:22, 23 is omitted.

This catch-line practice is common in antiquity. Before bound books were invented, it was necessary to write them on several scrolls, or in Mesopotamia on several clay tablets. To show the connection between individual scrolls or tablets the catch-line principle was often adopted. In the Epic of Gilgamesh this device is clearly illustrated in those tablets which are not broken at the beginning or end. It was a common and logical device.

This use of a connecting paragraph between books is a significant evidence of the intention of the authors to represent a continued story of Israel’s history. It also answers an old question: How could Moses write about his own death in Deuteronomy 34? The answer is that Moses in all likelihood did not write Deuteronomy 34. His writing stopped with the Song of Moses in Deuteronomy 33:29, which was his “swansong,” uttered just before his death (Deut 33:1). The concluding ch. is Joshua’s appendix, tying together his own writing and that of his great predecessor. Thus there is a continued story of Israel’s history from the beginning to the Babylonian captivity, with which 2 Kings ends.

There is more, however, to this concept. The Books of Samuel-Kings were written by successive prophets; the evidence is found in the Books of Chronicles. It will be remembered that the Books of Kings end the record of each reign with a notation that more information is available in the books of the records of the kingdom. For Solomon it is called “the book of the acts of Solomon” (1 Kings 11:41). For Rehoboam it is “the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah” (14:29). For Jeroboam it is referred to as “the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Israel” (14:19). Such a notation is found for all the following kings of Israel and Judah with rare exceptions. No other sourcebook is mentioned in Kings.

The mention of these chronicles is not surprising. Other kings kept chronicles and their records have been found (cf. D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings [1956]). That the records were the official court records of Judah and Samaria is hinted at by the fact that no mention is made of records of the final kings of each kingdom who were carried away captive. Clearly the Book of Kings was compiled from such court records.

The Book of Chronicles, however, cites other sources. It was written, according to Jewish traditions, by Ezra and, as mentioned above, even critical opinion is veering around to this view. But Chronicles after each king of Judah (no detailed history of the northern kings is given) cites a different history book as its source. Typical is the notation after David’s death: “Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer” (1 Chron 29:29). After Solomon there is a similar reference to books of the prophets Nathan, Ahijah and Iddo (2 Chron 9:29). After Rehoboam, the work of the prophets Shemaiah and Iddo is mentioned (2 Chron 12:15). Of the following kings five are cited as having their story written by the prophets (Abijah, Jehoshaphat, Uzziah, Hezekiah and, questionably, Josiah). Six others have no historian cited (Jehoram, Ahaziah, Amon, Jehoahaz, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah). Most of these died in a foreign land. For eight others there is a mention of “the book of the kings” (Joash), the book of the kings of Israel and Judah (Amaziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah—along with the writing of Isaiah—and Josiah and Jehoiachim). The source for Manasseh is the book of the kings of Israel (i.e., Judah since Israel had fallen).

It may be noticed that the sources of the Chronicles are usually not the same as they were for the authors of Samuel-Kings. The Chronicler in some cases used the same or similar court records. In many cases he also used the histories written by successive prophets. What were these histories? Actually one can be relatively sure what these histories were, because it is clear that the books of Samuel-Kings were one of the sources of the Book of Chronicles. The Chronicler knew and used some of the court records and also knew and used the books of Samuel-Kings. It would seem therefore that his references to the books of Samuel, Nathan, Gad, Ahijah, Iddo, Hanani, Jehu the son of Hanani, Isaiah and Jeremiah, are really references to the books of Samuel-Kings. Therefore the books of Samuel-Kings were written by this succession of writing prophets who carried the history of God’s people on down from the days of the judges to the Exile. The books of Samuel-Kings are classified in all Jewish classifications as books of the prophets.

C. Interrelation of prophets and histories. In Jewish tradition there was not the division between prophetical books and historical books, that the Eng. seems to reflect. The later Talmud division called the book of Joshua-Kings the Early Prophets and Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and the Twelve Minor Prophets, the Latter Prophets. The NT, as will be pointed out later, called all the OT books after Moses “Prophets.” This outlook is reflected in the situation referred to above that the major historical books of Samuel-Kings were apparently written by prophets.

A further illustration of this tendency for prophets to write history are the parallels to the prophetical books found in the Books of Kings. Most readers are aware that Isaiah 36-39 is paralleled by 2 Kings 18:17-20:20. Only the prayer of Hezekiah (Isa 38:9-20) is omitted. Why is this section found in both books? The reason is clear, for it continues the historical sequence of that book, and it belongs there. According to the testimony of 2 Chronicles 32:32, Isaiah wrote such a history. The Book of Kings does not claim to abstract anything from Isaiah. Rather it cites the court records of Judah as a further source of information. The conclusion is natural that this part of Kings was written by Isaiah from court records available to him. When he wrote his own book, this section was put into it also as a prelude to the latter division of Isaiah.

These chs. make a suitable background for Isaiah 40:1-48:22. The present writer espouses the chronology which recognizes Hezekiah as co-regent with his father Ahaz from 728-715 b.c. (see H. Stigers, Commentary on Kings WBC in loc.) then as sole king from 715 to 686 b.c. Isaiah outlived Hezekiah by a few years and wrote of Sennacherib’s death in 681 b.c. (Isa 37:38). By this time the city of Babylon apparently had a rebirth of power and was visible as a threat to Assyria. It will be remembered that Manasseh was shortly to be carried captive to Babylon (2 Chron 33:11). Isaiah saw the growing Babylonian menace, rebuked Hezekiah for toying with a treaty with Merodach-baladan, the Babylonian rebel against Sennacherib, and was shown by God’s revelation the woes of the Babylonian Captivity to come and God’s deliverance from it. Isaiah 36-39 forms a suitable backdrop to this prophecy. Isaiah had written it for the historical book. He repeated it in his prophetical book just as many an author today reprints a magazine article as a ch. in a book.

The Book of Jeremiah has a similar phenomenon. The downfall of Jerusalem in 586 b.c. is written in detail in 2 Kings 24:18-25:30. This section is also given, except for 25:22-26, in Jeremiah 52:1-34 (and there is an extra section in 52:28-30). The matter is more complicated however, because a part of the same section (2 Kings 25:1-12) appears a third time, in Jeremiah 39:1-10, where it fits perfectly in the narrative of the book. Furthermore, the vv. of Kings (2 Kings 25:22-26) that do not occur in Jeremiah 52 do occur in Jeremiah, scattered through the sequel to the fall of the city (Jer 40:7-10; 41:1-3).

It is said in Chronicles that Jeremiah gave his lamentations for Josiah, condemned Zedekiah and predicted Jerusalem’s fall (2 Chron 35:25; 36:12, 21). It is most natural to suppose that Jeremiah wrote in 2 Kings the final history of Jerusalem. Some of this history appears in the body of the Book of Jeremiah; some is appended as a summary at the end.

To summarize: There was a body of historical lit. in ancient Israel written by a succession of prophets. Two of the prophets cited as contributing to this history were Isaiah and Jeremiah. These prophets have left books of their messages which parallel in interesting ways the appropriate parts of the history books. The witness is cumulative, for the prophets of Israel were the recognized authors of its sacred history, as well as the authors of the oracles of God’s will for its life and duty.

D. Books of uncertain authorship. It would be gratifying to say that the case is closed; all the OT books were written by prophets and were for this reason accepted by the faithful in the nation. Unfortunately, all the old extra-Biblical testimony has perished and the testimony of the OT books themselves is not complete. There are a few books which can not be proved to be authored by prophets. On the other hand, neither can it be proved they were not. It is only that evidence is lacking.

Opinion again will differ with one’s viewpoint. Did David write the seventy-three Psalms ascribed to him? or were they Maccabean? Did Solomon write Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon, or are they much later? Critical scholarship alleges varying dates for these books. Until this dating is agreed upon, opinions on canonicity will be divided. The extremely critical views of the past must now be surrendered. Some few scholars once held that Ecclesiastes was written in the days of Herod the Great. This was obviously wrong for the DSS now include a fragmentary copy dating from about 150 b.c.

The Psalms also were called late—all postexilic and several Maccabean. Now scholars like Albright recognize them as of the monarchy. If they are of the monarchy, why deny Davidic authorship to many of them? David was famous for his music (Amos 6:5). Early witnesses point to David as the founder of Psalmody (1 Chron 15:19-21; 16:7-34). This last section repeats Psalms 96:1-13; 105:1-15; 106:1, 2, 48 and calls them Davidic. It is customary to call the Psalm titles worthless, but the testimony of Christ is to the contrary (Mark 12:36, referring to Ps 110). Reference to other ancient poems will show that it was common to use titles for such pieces (2 Sam 1:17; 22:1; 23:1; Isa 38:9; Hab 3:1, 19). The conclusion that David could not have written his Psalms is the conclusion of critical scholars based upon internal evidence usually approached with a subjective interpretation. This is doubtless the reason for the extremes of thought from the late date assigned in the commentary of M. Buttenwieser (1938) to the commentary of M. Dahood (1966) which agrees largely with the position taken above. Of course, not all the Psalms are by David. Several are attributed to Ethan, Heman, Jeduthun, Asaph and the sons of Korah. Chronicles names these as prophets (1 Chron 25:1-5). Several of the Psalms have no author specified either in the Heb. or LXX. There is no evidence that they were written by prophets, nor any evidence to the contrary. Two of these orphan Psalms are cited in 1 Chronicles 16 as Davidic. Another is so cited by the NT (Acts 4:25). For the rest they were written, it now appears, during the time when prophets were active in Israel. They are included in the collection called the Law and the Prophets as will be seen. The matter must rest until more information is discovered.

The books of Solomon may be considered together. Was Solomon their author, and was he a prophet? The evidence is not compelling, but it is considerable. Some would question Solomon’s right to write inspired material because they resent his large harem. It should be observed that many of Solomon’s wives were no more than political hostages. In ancient times foreign treaties were often celebrated by intermarriage, and Solomon, as his kingdom extended over many smaller city states, contracted many marriages that were probably purely political. This is not to deny that Solomon was polygamous as was his father David, but the Bible does not picture Solomon as a creature of lust. Actually, its condemnation is that Solomon allowed his foreign wives, important people as some of them were, to introduce their alien worship into the environs of Jerusalem. His error in his later years was not lust so much as religious compromise (1 Kings 11:1-8). In his earlier days Solomon was a man of God. His prayer in 1 Kings 8:23-53 breathes pure devotion. The Lord spoke to Solomon by revelation (1 Kings 3:5-14; 6:12-13; 9:3-9). At least two Psalms are attributed to him (Pss 72 and 127 RSV). There is no inherent reason why Solomon may not be called a prophet and be credited with the writing of Scripture.

The bulk of Proverbs is clearly credited to him (Prov 1:1; 10:1; 25:1). The proverbs at the end of the book, notably chs. 30 and 31 may be by another hand, but the references to Agur and King Lemuel are so figurative and poetical that they could actually be alternative names for Solomon himself. In any case, these words are called words of prophecy (Prov 30:1; 31:1; cf. the writer’s discussion of these vv. in WBC in loc.).

There are many arguments against the Solomonic authorship of Proverbs, but they are all general and subjective. Some claim that the book depends on the ancient wisdom lit. of Babylon and Egypt. This may be admitted, but who in Israel would be more apt to know such lit. than Solomon? The format of Solomon’s work may show certain similarity, but in any case the teaching of Proverbs is quite different from that of the surrounding proverbial lit. (see the writer’s discussion in WBC 555-557).

Ecclesiastes has generally been attributed to Solomon. Bentzen’s quite critical Introduction remarks, “The superscription evidently identifies the speaker with Solomon, cf. also 1:12, 16; 2:7, 9.” (A. Bentzen, Introduction to the Old Testament [1958], II, 188.) Of course, Bentzen does not accept this ascription. As mentioned above, a fragment was found among the DSS dating to about 175-150 b.c. (F. M. Cross, Ancient Library of Qumran [1961], 165). As the MS shows a history of textual tradition back of it, Cross and others suggest a date at least as early as the 3rd cent. There is no need to deny the Solomonic authorship. Bentzen’s argument for a late date is based on the presence of Aram. words and expressions, which prove much less than formerly, since alleged Aramaisms are frequent in Ugaritic lit. of 1400 b.c. The dialect of the Heb. also is said to be late, which is not easily proved. It is not particularly like the Heb. of the Dead Sea lit. The language has unusual dialectal peculiarities, but since there is little extra Biblical lit. from 930 to 250 b.c. to compare it with, it is unsafe to date the book by its style and language. The material in the book has been likened to Greek scepticism as well as to Egyptian and Babylonian philosophy. Since there is disagreement about interpretation of the book, such parallels of thought are also uncertain. The conclusion is that there is no positive argument against the Solomonic authorship. The Heb. style is not like Proverbs, but the subject matter and literary format also differ and authors often use different style for different books.

The same can be said of the Song of Solomon. The author appears to be Solomon although the claim is not quite as sure as in the case of Ecclesiastes. The language includes foreign words which even Driver thought were suitable enough for Solomon’s cosmopolitan day. There is no sufficient reason to depart from the traditional authorship (E. J. Young, Introduction to the OT [1949], 323, and others).

There are other books of which the authorship by a prophet cannot be proved: Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, Job (Lamentations may fairly be ascribed to Jeremiah, with E. J. Young, op. cit. 335-366, Ross Price in WBC and others). Apparently Ezra wrote his book and Chronicles and his companion Nehemiah wrote the book that bears his name. Nowhere in early sources are these men called prophets, though Ezra is so called in later lit. The authorship and date of Job is disputed, though the Dead Sea finds include a copy of 200 b.c. Esther is missing in the DSS, though Josephus knew the book well and the feast of Purim was familiar to the author of 2 Maccabees (2 Macc 15:36). Jewish tradition assigns Esther to the time of Ezra. It is no problem to place Job as early as 400 b.c. (the writer would place it much earlier).

All these books of uncertain origin may be placed within the period when well-known prophets were active. Unknown prophets also may have been present. Nehemiah tells of false prophets with whom he had to contend (Neh 6:7, 14). Nowhere in the OT is David himself specifically called a prophet, but he clearly was, which the NT makes plain (Acts 2:30). There is no definite evidence against the prophetic authorship of these books, but something in their favor. It will be shown that they were classed among the prophets by Christ and the apostles.

E. Reception of the OT books. Why were the OT books received by the Jews of their day? One view has already been suggested: they were written by men whom their own contemporaries recognized to be prophets of God. The believers in Israel accepted the words of the prophets and naturally treasured their writings. This view as developed above adequately explains most of the OT books, though there are several for which information is incomplete. There is no proof that any of these books were not written by prophets, except for the theories of destructive criticism which would reduce all of the OT to a naturalistic compilation. This view must be studied in the various OT Introductions and esp. conservative works on the Pentateuch (see G. Archer, SOTI).

An alternative view which will be further considered below is that the OT was written by three classes of men. First, Moses was the lawgiver to whom God spoke “mouth to mouth” (Num 12:8). Other books, namely Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the Twelve Minor Prophets were written by prophets and therefore received. Still other books, called “Writings” in the Heb. Bible were written by men who were inspired of God but did not have the office of a prophet. This view is propounded by W. H. Green (General Introduction to the OT, the