The Origin and Permanent Value of the Old TestamentKent, Charles Foster
Religion
The Origin and Permanent Value of the Old Testament
Kent, Charles Foster
Bible. New Testament -- Criticism, interpretation, etc.; Bible. New Testament -- History; Bible. Old Testament -- Introductions
The Psalter doubtless passed through different stages of canonization,
as did the Old Testament itself. The earliest collection was, in the
beginning, probably made for liturgical purposes, and its adoption in
the service of the temple was practically equivalent to canonization.
When successive collections were added, they too were thus canonized.
The result was that the Psalter, when complete, enjoyed a position
somewhat similar to that of the Law and the Prophets, although the
authority of each rested upon a different basis. That the Psalter was
early canonized is further demonstrated by a quotation in I Maccabees
vii. 17 (about 125 B.C.) from Psalm lxxix. 2, 3, introduced by the
words, _as it is written in the Scriptures_. This conclusion is also
supported by the significant reference in the New Testament to the _Law,
the Prophets, and the Psalms_ (Lk. xxiv. 44). Jesus' use of the Psalter
indicates that in his day its canonicity was already thoroughly
established. Lamentations, by a late tradition attributed to Jeremiah,
was probably also canonized contemporaneously with the Psalms.
[Sidenote: _The other books of the fathers_]
The canonization of the book of Proverbs, like that of the Psalter, was
undoubtedly by successive stages. The Jews of the Greek and Maccabean
period were especially appreciative of this type of literature, and it
was doubtless accorded its position of authority primarily because it
rang true to human experience. That it was attributed to Solomon also
told in its favor. Ben Sira's indirect testimony suggests that it and
the books of Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, which were in close accord
with the point of view of later Judaism, were already in his day
associated with the Law and the Prophets. The book of Ruth was probably
at this time added to the other historical books.
[Sidenote: _Canonization of the book of Daniel_]
The absence of any reference in Ben Sira to Daniel is significant. The
first allusion to it comes from the last half of the second century
before Christ. First Maccabees i. 54 appears to quote the prediction of
Daniel ix. 27, and in I Maccabees ii. 59, 60, Daniel and his three
friends are held up as noble examples of virtue. Thus it would seem that
within a half century after the book of Daniel was written its authority
was recognized. In New Testament times its canonicity is fully
established (_e.g., cf_. I Cor. vi. 2, and Dan. vii. 22).
[Sidenote: _Date of the completion of the Hebrew Old Testament canon_]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account