Feb 14 2017 - The Order of the Old Testament Books

When I was young, we were taught a song that helped us to learn and remember the order of the books in the Bible. It began as follows:

Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers
Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges and Ruth,
Samuel, Samuel, Kings, Kings, Chronicles,
Ezra and Nehemiah, Esther and Ruth…

It was a useful song and certainly helped us to find our way around the Bible – particularly useful for “Sword Drill” – though I still have some difficulty with the order of some of the Minor Prophets! I thought no more about the ordering of the Old Testament books until I began to learn Hebrew at Theological College. Suddenly I encountered the Hebrew Bible with its books ordered in a rather different manner from that found in our Old Testaments.

The order in which the Old Testament books appear in our English Bibles, the order rehearsed in my childhood song, is the result of two different and contrary factors – and here I speak solely about our “Protestant” Bibles. The Hebrew Bible concludes with Chronicles, and there is some evidence that this was the structure of the Bible that Jesus knew and read (see Luke 11:50 in which Jesus seems to list murders from the beginning and end of the Hebrew Bible). However, the Christian church in the first few centuries was predominantly Greek speaking (hence the original New Testament documents are in Greek). The church therefore used a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (generally the “Septuagint”) as its Old Testament Scriptures. This translation had the Old Testament books in much the same order as is found in contemporary English Bibles – though it also contained a number of additional books and additions to other books. The Septuagint later formed the basis of the Latin translation, the Vulgate, which formed the common Bible of the Western church until the Reformation.

The Reformation brought new attention to the authority of Scripture and gave rise to the concern to produce translations of the Scriptures into the language of the common people. Translators turned again to the original sources of the Scriptures rather than relying on the secondary Greek translation of the Old Testament or subsequent Latin translations. There was a renewed interest in the Hebrew Scriptures. Protestant translators and churches rejected the Old Testament material that was not found in the Hebrew Scriptures, material they judged apocryphal. Nevertheless, the ordering of the Old Testament books remained that of the Septuagint and Vulgate rather than that of the Hebrew Scriptures – perhaps either because of familiarity with that ordering or in order to gain acceptance. I want to suggest that this was a compromised reformation and that the time is long overdue for the Old Testament section of our Bibles to reflect the order of books found in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Why?

I have been reading a book called, Biblical Theology: Retrospect and Prospect (IVP, 2002). It consists of a number of chapters written by different scholars addressing issues in Biblical Theology. The first half of the Book is devoted to Biblical Theology of the Old Testament and several of the articles suggest that such a theology needs to be shaped by the canon of the Old Testament, including the ordering of the Old Testament books.

I have been deeply impressed with the chapter by Brian G. Toews entitled, “Genesis 1-4: The Genesis of Old Testament Instruction.” Brian Toews suggests that Genesis 1-4 (note 1-4 not 1-3), should be seen as an introduction to the Theology of the Old Testament:

“Genesis 1:1-2:3 presents the ideal world that God created. The world in which the rest of the OT takes place is the world of Genesis 2:4-4:26. This is the real world of the OT text and the real world in which the reader lives. Thus there is a tension between the ideal world and real world. This tension drives the OT narrative. Genesis 4 presents the first generation(s) of humanity living outside the Garden of Eden under the consequences of sin. Genesis 4 serves as the prototype for humanity outside the garden. The generations of humankind outside the garden understand life only in light of what transpired in the garden, but they are understood in light of Genesis 2:4-4:26. This tension is never resolved in the OT narrative, except in its prophetic vision. The tension is ultimately released only in humankind’s entrance into the blessing and rest of God granted in the new creation portrayed in Revelation 21-22.” (ibid. p.40)

The themes of God who reveals himself through his Word along with human response to (or failure to respond to) that Word are then played out against the blessing of God’s presence with (or absence from) his people in the earth/garden/land. This cycle of narrative, response, blessing and promise is played out throughout the canonical Old Testament concluding with Chronicles which begins again with Adam and concludes with the hope beyond exile that God will yet establish his messianic kingdom.

“Chronicles provides the typological presentation of the hoped-for messianic kingdom that will re-establish the rule of God designed for humanity in the beginning. The Davidic Messiah will come as the second Adam and establish his rule on the earth for those who seek the Lord. Solomon, the first son of David, provides a narrative type of the son of David to come who will fulfil the Davidic promise (1 Chron 17).” (ibid. pp.50-51)

I have left out much of the detailed argument in Brian Toews’ chapter which rewards careful reading and may serve to dispel any remaining scepticism. He concludes:

“A canonical theology must go beyond just another way to arrange the books. If there is good evidence to look at the Law, Prophets and Writings as literary-theological units, then this should determine the shape of OT theology as well. Moreover, Genesis 1-4 serves as the introduction not only to the Law but to the canon as a whole. These chapters set forth the fundamental theological issues for the rest of the OT. Thus the instruction of the OT should be presented in accordance with the three- or four-part structure of the OT, demonstrating how each part of the OT contributes to the theological themes and narrative structure introduced at its beginning.” (ibid. p.51)

Is it not about time that we completed the laudable desire of the Reformers to return to the Scriptures of the Hebrew Old Testament and printed the Old Testament section of our Christian Bibles with its books in the order they are found in the canonical Hebrew Scriptures?

Peter Misselbrook