Turning Jordan

In the first post about Seitz’ new book, I summarized the main argument of the book as follows:

In several places, Seitz shows that popular explanations of canon formation are inadequate either methodologically (historical and social concerns, rather than theological and hermeneutical) or historically (misunderstanding the link between the Old Testament and the rule of faith).  His own proposal emphasizes a need for a canonical method which addresses theological and hermeneutical concerns, as well as suggesting a strong link between the Old Testament and the rule of faith.  He develops this proposal by first recognizing the differences in association between the Prophets (which have a stable association) and the Writings (which has a more loose association for various reasons).  Out of this, Seitz argues that the “central core,” or “grammar” of the Old Testament is not the Law, but “the Law and the Prophets.”  The Writings come along this core, not having associations within its own books (as Law and Prophets do), but with the core books themselves.  For Seitz, this is why the early church reference to “Law and Prophets” does not necessitate a closed, fixed third section of the Tanakh (the Writings); rather, the Law and Prophets contain the core message and grammar, with Writings merely commenting on that message.  To necessitate such a closed canon would be to misunderstand the very idea of canon in the first century.

Here, I want to critically review this argument.  I do this to hopefully engage with others who have read it and either have the same concerns as I do, or agree with Seitz, and can engage my criticisms.

To start, there are many ideas that can be positively affirmed in Seitz’ book.  First, it builds itself upon the general framework of the canonical approach of Brevard Childs.  Focus on the final form of the text, rather than a reconstruction of its historical development, is a welcomed approach.  Second, the new paradigm of “association” as opposed to fixed or closed canons has great appeal, but, as I will note below, at what cost?  Third, I was very excited to see Seitz interact with the work of John Behr on matters of the rule of faith.  During my own seminary days, professor Steven McKinion introduced me to very similar ideas, which, in my opinion, better make sense of the formation of the New Testament than more traditional evangelical views.  Lastly, Seitz makes a great case for the achievement of association in the book of the Twelve.  The interdependence of these texts in their growth as a collection may only be rivaled by the Psalter, which also shows great unity while also keeping its individuality.

Several points, however, do not sit well with me.  First, Seitz never develops what he actually means by association.  By the end of the book, we know he is not talking about the textual links between juxtaposed books, nor any kind of textuality at all (whether in-, inner-, inter-, or con-), but rather how books had come together and stabilized during the formation of the canon.  Bringing textual links into this general discussion (as he did with the Twelve) would have strengthened his argument within the Latter Prophets, but would have also weakened his argument for association in the Writings.  By focusing on stabilization (in opposition to the “migration” of texts), Seitz is able to see stronger association in the Prophets as compared with the Writings.  This still begs the question of what brought texts into association with one another.  In my opinion the strong association Seitz observes in the Prophets had to do with its chronologically ordered historical narratives in relation to Deuteronomy (Former Prophets) and its overtly prophetic, and chronological, character (Latter Prophets).  Given these associations (and the textual links), what new principle of association could arrange them differently?  In much the same way, one must ask about principles of association in the Writings before judging whether such associations are weak or strong.  When we do this, we see that Seitz’ observation of a more weak or loose association in the Writings has more to do with changing principles of association than it does with the “individuality” of books.  In later arrangements, principles had more to do with genre and chronology than the textual links which brought the Writings together in the first place.  This may be why the Prophets remain stable, while the more diverse Writings lose their more textual and thematic associations in favor of more genre-oriented and chronological arrangements.

Second, Seitz overstated his case of association by extended the achievement of Twelve to the entire Prophets section.  It is true that “the Prophets” is a very stable collection within Hebrew canons, with a little bit more flexibility in the translated canons (in both Greek, Latin, and English).  However, we still must ask how the individuality of the Latter Prophets is any different than the individuality of the opening of the Writings (Psalms-Job-Proverbs)?  That collection also remains stable, though can sometimes be re-arranged.  Interestingly, much like the associations in the Writings, Isaiah moves in Baba Bathra 14a-15b to third position in the Latter Prophets because of thematic concerns of destruction versus consolation.  Again, as stated above, the stability of the Prophets was due to its already established principles of association that remained the same throughout the history of canonical arrangements.  If chronology and the genre of “prophecy” already existed in principle, than we would not expect much migration of books.  Instead, as we might expect, we see other books migrate besides these stable genres.

Third, I want to discuss several aspects of Seitz’ view on the “loose association” of the Writings, which he severely underestimates.  At the outset, it is granted the history proves his point that the Writings were migratory.  For some reason, those who compiled the various canons felt more freedom in the placement and arrangement of those books which are found in the Writings today.  In this we can agree.  And, given Seitz’ use of association, as noted above, this observation makes sense.  However, as I also mentioned previously, the association in the Writings is only loosened because of a change in the principles of association changed (and perhaps even the methods of interpretation).  Something must bring texts into association.  For the Former Prophets, it was a continuous historical narrative given shape in relation to the book of Deuteronomy.  Given the later focus of translational canons on chronology, it is no surprise that these books remain stable.  It also makes sense of the migration of “historical” books from the Writings into the Former Prophets.  Here, Ruth can be inserted after Judges, with Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Esther following Kings.  Clearly, putting the historical books into chronological order was the foremost concern.  Seitz, somewhat ironically, notes the consequences of this change in principle: “Its [Chronicles’] placement alongside 1 and 2 Kings dampened, if not blunted altogether, the specific prophetic character of both works, turning a Former Prophet into history and then reinforcing the decision by ranging Chronicles next to it in a new category with Ezra-Nehemiah and Esther.  The accomplishment of the prophetic division was thereby obscured, and the pivotal role of Chronicles as a Writing was likewise affected” (118-119).  In this we also agree.  But Seitz lack of clarity on how “Chronicles as a Writing was likewise affected” shows that there must have been some reason why Chronicles needs to be associated with the Writings, and not the Prophets.  Seitz never speculates what that might be.

For the Latter Prophets, a prophetic-poetic form is clearly the dominant genre, but chronology is also strongly present.  This is what brought these books into association.  And again, given the later focus of translational canons on genre, it is no surprise that this section remained relatively stable.  This enables some of the “prophetic” books of the Writings to re-associate with the prophetic literature.  Here, Lamentations is associated with Jeremiah most likely from a traditional of similar authorship, and Daniel is often placed after Ezekiel, but before the Twelve.  What brings books from the Writings to the Latter Prophets is the prophetic genre, but books also placed within the collection, they are other associations.

Association in the Writings, unlike that of the Prophets, was neither genre nor chronology; rather, we see books being brought together because of textual and thematic links.  Looking at association by smaller collections, we find three: 1) Psalms-Job-Proverbs, 2) Ruth-Songs-Qoheleth-Lamentations-Esther, and 3) Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, Chronicles.  Within this first grouping, we should note the analogy between the Psalter and the Twelve.  Both of these “books” are comprised of multiple individual texts, but by association are to also be read as a whole.  Both books are great achievements of association in canon formation, and both are such on par with each other.  Both remain relatively stable throughout transmission history (Psalter is stable in MT and LXX, but not Qumran, while Twelve is stable in MT and at Qumran, but not in LXX).  Proverbs is likewise a developing work over a vast amount of time.  Beyond this analogy, we also see that this first group remains closely associated throughout the various arrangements (so much so that in the MT they retain their own unique accent system!).  The poetic and wisdom elements of these texts surely could be one reason they are associated, but other compelling reasons also exist.  First, the relation between the Psalter (David) and Proverbs (Solomon) is clear enough, as the relation of father to son, but this does not explain why Job remains close.  Presumably it was similar vocabulary and conceptual links that brought these books together.  Here, the common theme of wisdom in Job and Proverbs were historically associated.  In this regard, the classic definition of wisdom is found in Psalms (111.10), Job (28.28) , Proverbs (1.7; 9.10).  This mark of wisdom (as seen in the use of a concordance) is clearly dominate here, as well as in the Writings at large.  Between Psalms and Job we see the focus on an individually blessed and righteous man, who suffers, but who nonetheless continues to bless God with the words of his mouth.

In the second group, the “Megilloth”, we find Ruth, Songs, Qoheleth, Lamentations, and Esther.  In the Hebrew canons, this five-fold scroll can be rearranged in regards to festivals, but as a whole, the books remain associated with one another for some reason.  Significantly, one notes the important textual and conceptual links between Lady Wisdom (Prov. who is personified in Prov 31, and illustrated by Ruth in her book.  Seitz briefly mentions this in his book, but disregards because Ruth can migrate to a position after Judges.  Needless to say, he underestimates this important association.  Sailhamer describes it as follows (Intro. to OT Theology, 214n28):

It should be noted that…each of five books which follow Proverbs in the Hebrew Canon…has a grammatically feminine singular subject: Ruth, the Shulamite, Qoheleth (fem. sing. noun.), the daughter of Jerusalem, and Esther.  These are the only books in the Hebrew Canon that have a feminine singular subject throughout.  This suggests a conscious and intentional grouping of these books after the theme of wisdom as a young woman in the book of Proverbs.

For Sailhamer, the association of wisdom, begun in the first grouping, continues into the second grouping in terms of the character of the young woman, who is supposed to be related to wisdom.  There, thus, is a strong wisdom association between the first eight books in the Writings.

The third grouping consists of Daniel, Ezra-Nehemiah, and Chronicles, and is more historical in nature as compared to the first eight books.  Associations, however, abound within these books, which is what draws them initially together.  Just as the second group picked up on the wisdom theme from the first group, so this group continues a theme from Esther: where a faithful servant of God must struggle to find a way to honor God in the midst of exile.  We see this in both Daniel and Ezra-Nehemiah.  But beyond this conceptual link, we see the an attempt to understand Jeremiah in terms of the edict of Cyrus.  Seitz notes Sailhamer’s conjectures about the various orders, which we deem correct here.  For Seitz, he sees this as proving his point that the order of the Writings was in flux, but it also hurts his case too, since the edict of Cyrus is what associates these books so well together.  That later generations rearranged texts for apparently theological reasons strikes this reviewer as something important.

In sum, I’ve outlined only a brief account of some of the thematic, semantic, and conceptual links between the books of the Writings.  These are important links that would have gravitated these texts to one another in what Seitz calls “association”.  That later canonical arrangements were more free in migrating these texts to other parts of the Old Testament does not mean these original associations were any less stable than those in the Prophets.  It simply means that as the principles of association changed, so did the gravitational pull of texts to one another.  The historical books merged together, as did the prophetic and poetic works.
Finally, I want to address Seitz proposal that the central core or “grammar” of the Old Testament is what the NT calls “the Law and the Prophets”.  For Seitz, this means that the Law and Prophets form a kind of foundation for all future biblical reflection.  In his view, “the Writings” is not part of this core because of its different kind of association than the Prophets.  To quote Seitz, “Writings…are individual witnesses, and their internal associations within this division are not significant, which means they can and will change position” (93).  I don’t know what Writings he is looking at, but the notes just above show that some of the “internal associations” look much more stronger than those say between Isaiah and Jeremiah, or Jeremiah and Ezekiel.  Indeed, if Lamentations can so easily invade the “internal association” or Jeremiah and Ezekiel, how can that association be called anything but “loose”?

Instead of arguing for a central core of Law and Prophets, in  my opinion it may be more appropriate to speak of the Torah as the central core of the Hebrew Bible, with both Prophets and Writings serving equal, yet different canonical roles.  Seitz admits that the associations which brought about the Writings are different than those which originally brought the Prophets together, and that these were both developing during roughly the same timetable (94).  I agree with this.  However, in my view, one is equally able to conclude that the Torah is the core “grammar” with both Prophets and Writings offering complementary and critical commentary that helps to articulate more clearly the key themes of the Torah.  If the Writings developed independently of and simultaneously as the Prophets, and vice-versa, and both have their own original internal associations, then I’m not quite sure why we should give priority to the Prophets?  Why can’t both stand on their own in relation to the core of the Law?

In this view, I see the Prophets associated together to provide important commentary on the Torah in regards to Deuteronomy’s focus on a “prophet like Moses” and a future king in Israel.  The so-called Deuteronomic History traces the rising up of this King in relation to the prophets, as well as the falling away of kingship and the increasingly judgmental tone of the prophets.  At the core of the Prophets is the exile, which the Three and Twelve use to say something important about the involvement of both Israel and the nations in the last days.  The Latter Prophets also interact with the prophetic history (Former) and push forward the prophetic vision of the poetic seams in the Torah, as noted consistently in the important work of Sailhamer.  The Writings, on the other hand, though surely capable of extending this prophetic vision (e.g. the Psalter), nevertheless are largely associated with the wisdom element of the Torah.  This is especially seen in the association of Lady wisdom in Proverbs with the feminine characters in the Megilloth.  Again, when we do see the migration of texts from Writings to Prophets, this is largely due to a minimizing of the wisdom principle in favor of chronology.  Accompanying this change in principle, it is my suspicion that a change in hermeneutical principles by the time of Jerome helped push the rearrangement into print.

In favor of my position, I offer only one observation.  This is not my own, but relies on the discussion of Sailhamer, Chapman, and Dempster of compositional seams in the Tanakh.  These are seen in the relationship between Deuteronomy 34 to Joshua 1, and Malachi 4 [3] to Psalm 1.  In both cases, a division ends with reference to a future prophet and the implication that the reader should be on the lookout for him, and a new division begins by emphasizing the need to read the Torah night and day so that one can succeed/prosper.  That this similar message appears in such strategic positions in the Tanakh indicates that they are not there accidently, but intentionally in order to bring the Tanakh to a final closed position.  In this position, neither Prophets nor Writings are given priority over each other, but both reference the importance of studying Torah.  As such, both are reflections of such an activity.

In conclusion, I see great value in Seitz reflections on canonical methodology and the role of the rule of faith in the formation of the New Testament canon.  I hope that my own research complies with  this proposed framework.  However, I do not agree with his proposal of the “Law and Prophets” as the core grammar of the Old Testament, with the Writings serving a role alongside this core.  Instead, I see the Prophets and Writings working together with the Law rather than the Writings working beside “Law and Prophets”.  Within this view, I see the later re-ordering of the books not as an attempt to associate the Writings to their proper links in the ‘Law and Prophets’, but rather see new and different principles of association at work in these arrangements: particularly, genre and chronology.