Zwaarddijk

Is there any good book or other source that clarifies how the order of the biblical books has developed over time and what various branches of different orders have existed in different places and times?

I realize there may very well be times and places where the order was not even considered - if you have each book occupying a scroll of its own, you may not consider there to be much of a reason to have an actual order to them.

DCHindley

Good luck on that. Here are some things to keep in mind. Jews kept their sacred scripture on scrolls (rolls). Christians preferred the codex (book form). The Tanakh (Hebrew scriptures) as we have it today was finalized in the 4th century CE. The Tanakh preserves the Hebrew form of the books determined to be sacred at that time, and these Hebrew books have been the norm for Judaism ever since.

Prior to then, Alexandrian Jews had translated the books of the law into Greek in the 3rd century BCE. In the interim between the 3rd century BCE and the 4th century CE, Greek translations of the other books held sacred to the Jews were also made. Some of these translations were made from Hebrew books hat were not preserved in the Tanakh (e.g., Ben Sira), and others were composed in Greek (Bell, Susannah, etc). Except for the five books of the Law, I don't think they were organized in any special way, as they were transmitted individually.

Starting around the 3rd or 4th century CE, Christians started publishing these Greek translations used by Jews in codex format. They called it the "Old Testament" and it was followed by the books of the Christian "New Testament." The books of the Christian "New Testament" usually followed the order we find in our modern bibles. The "Old Testament" books were ordered so that the book of the prophet Malachi (with a messianic prophesy) immediately preceded Matthew.

The Christian books had already been circulating in smaller codices since the 2nd century CE. The books contained in these smaller codices were usually grouped as follows - the 4 gospels, the Pauline Letters, the book of Acts with the General Epistles, and Revelation all by itself.

Modern editions of these books sometimes try to preserve the order usually found in manuscripts, or create their own orders. I gotta go, but below are the order of books in various modern bibles editions.

RSV is the Revised Standard Version. LXA is the edition of the Septuagint published by Alfred Rahlfs. BGT is a combination of LXA plus the Nestle-Aland Greek NT. VUL is the Latin Vulgate. TNK is the Tanakh as Published by the Jewish Publication society.

DCH

RSV	LXA	BGT	VUL	TNK
Genesis	Genesis	Genesis	Genesis	Genesis
Exodus	Exodus	Exodus	Exodus	Exodus
Leviticus	Leviticus	Leviticus	Leviticus	Leviticus
Numbers	Numbers	Numbers	Numbers	Numbers
Deuteronomy	Deuteronomy	Deuteronomy	Deuteronomy	Deuteronomy
Joshua	Joshua	Joshua	Joshua	Joshua
Judges	Judges	Judges	Judges	Judges
Ruth	Ruth	Ruth	Ruth	1 Samuel
1 Samuel	1 Samuel	1 Samuel	1 Samuel	2 Samuel
2 Samuel	2 Samuel	2 Samuel	2 Samuel	1 Kings
1 Kings	1 Kings	1 Kings	1 Kings	2 Kings
2 Kings	2 Kings	2 Kings	2 Kings	Isaiah
1 Chronicles	1 Chronicles	1 Chronicles	1 Chronicles	Jeremiah
2 Chronicles	2 Chronicles	2 Chronicles	2 Chronicles	Ezekiel
Ezra	Ezra	1 Esdras	1 Esdras	Hosea
Nehemiah	Nehemiah	Ezra	Ezra	Joel
Esther	Esther	Nehemiah	Nehemiah	Amos
Job	Job	Esther	Esther	Obadiah
Psalm	Psalm	Judith	Judith	Jonah
Proverbs	Proverbs	Tobit	Tobit	Micah
Ecclesiastes	Ecclesiastes	1 Maccabees	1 Maccabees	Nahum
Song of Solomon	Song of Solomon	2 Maccabees	2 Maccabees	Habakkuk
Isaiah	Isaiah	3 Maccabees	Psalm	Zephaniah
Jeremiah	Jeremiah	4 Maccabees	Psalm 151	Haggai
Lamentations	Lamentations	Psalm	Proverbs	Zechariah
Ezekiel	Ezekiel	Odes	Ecclesiastes	Malachi
Daniel	Daniel	Proverbs	Song of Solomon	Psalm
Hosea	Hosea	Ecclesiastes	Job	Proverbs
Joel	Joel	Song of Solomon	Wisdom	Job
Amos	Amos	Job	Sirach	Song of Solomon
Obadiah	Obadiah	Wisdom	Hosea	Ruth
Jonah	Jonah	Sirach Prolog	Amos	Lamentations
Micah	Micah	Sirach	Micah	Ecclesiastes
Nahum	Nahum	Psalms of Solomon	Joel	Esther
Habakkuk	Habakkuk	Hosea	Obadiah	Daniel
Zephaniah	Zephaniah	Amos	Jonah	Ezra
Haggai	Haggai	Micah	Nahum	Nehemiah
Zechariah	Zechariah	Joel	Habakkuk	1 Chronicles
Malachi	Malachi	Obadiah	Zephaniah	2 Chronicles

RSV	LXA	BGT	VUL	TNK
Matthew	Tobit	Jonah	Haggai
Mark	Judith	Nahum	Zechariah
Luke	Wisdom	Habakkuk	Malachi
John	Sirach Prolog	Zephaniah	Isaiah
Acts	Sirach	Haggai	Jeremiah
Romans	Baruch	Zechariah	Baruch
1 Corinthians	Epistle of Jeremiah	Malachi	Lamentations
2 Corinthians	Prayer of Azariah	Isaiah	Ezekiel
Galatians	Susanna	Jeremiah	Daniel
Ephesians	Bel	Baruch	4 Esdras
Philippians	1 Maccabees	Lamentations	Prayer of Manasseh
Colossians	2 Maccabees	Epistle of Jeremiah	Matthew
1 Thessalonians	1 Esdras	Ezekiel	Mark
2 Thessalonians	3 Maccabees	Susanna	Luke
1 Timothy	4 Maccabees	Daniel	John
2 Timothy	Prayer of Manasseh	Bel	Acts
Titus		Matthew	Romans
Philemon		Mark	1 Corinthians
Hebrews		Luke	2 Corinthians
James		John	Galatians
1 Peter		Acts	Ephesians
2 Peter		Romans	Philippians
1 John		1 Corinthians	Colossians
2 John		2 Corinthians	1 Thessalonians
3 John		Galatians	2 Thessalonians
Jude		Ephesians	1 Timothy
Revelation		Philippians	2 Timothy
Tobit		Colossians	Titus
Judith		1 Thessalonians	Philemon
Wisdom		2 Thessalonians	Hebrews
Sirach		1 Timothy	Laodiceans
Baruch		2 Timothy	James
Epistle of Jeremiah		Titus	1 Peter
Prayer of Azariah		Philemon	2 Peter
Susanna		Hebrews	1 John
Bel		James	2 John
1 Maccabees		1 Peter	3 John
2 Maccabees		2 Peter	Jude
1 Esdras		1 John	Revelation
Prayer of Manasseh		2 John
Psalm 151		3 John
3 Maccabees		Jude
4 Esdras		Revelation
4 Maccabees

Zwaarddijk

Thanks, but alas, you answered a lot of questions I didn't ask, with a lot of answers I already knew.

The reason I ask is relatively simple: I've seen the claim repeated in a few books that certain things in the NT are written as though they were intended to follow immediately on 'the last book of the OT' (and the point is made explicitly - the author actually labors under the oppression that the authors of Mark and Matthew opened the last book of the OT and tried making a sequel that would nicely tie in by means of obvious tie-ins to the previous installment in the series). The author is apparently unfamiliar with the fact that book order in the OT was not the same - or even more properly wasn't even a thing - in pre-Christian times. What I want is a proper source to refer to in my debunking.

Finding a particular credible source that deals with this is a bit less easy though - it seems most serious authors on this issue assume most people are clever enough to work this out for themselves so they just don't go and say anything about it. What also makes it difficult is knowing whether patristic lists of canonic books are supposed to correlate to the order in which the church fathers considered the books to be, or the lists just had an order due to the fact that unordered lists are tricky to write.

Roger Pearse

Erm, I think there must be several confusions in here.

First, do we need to suppose that desiring to "follow on" to a text contained in a canonical list would necessarily involve collecting all those texts in a single volume? I don't see it.

In the first century AD all these books would be on a separate volume (roll / wax-tablets / sheet of parchment or papyrus / primitive codex). But this does not mean that the concept of a collection did not exist. And some idea of who the last prophets were ... surely this must have existed? (I don't really spend time with the OT, so others may know better). If so, it requires no more than the idea?

The technology to produce a codex large enough to contain the whole OT did not exist prior to the 4th century. Whether partial collections existed before then in the papyrus codices of the 2nd and 3rd centuries I don't know; but it would hardly matter.

I think you're engaged in exploring a mare's nest here. What is in your mind - and probably your correspondents - is the idea of a fixed list as in a table of contents, unchanged for centuries. But in antiquity we are well before any such bibliographic standardisations, because the technologies did not exist. And I really do not see how any valid theological argument -- and what on earth are you arguing about here? for it can't possibly show that either Christianity is true or false, or that living by societal values is true or false, whatever you determine on this issue -- can be based on this kind of stuff either way.

I would doubt that any antique patristic list treats the order of the NT books as something ordained by God or a council. I think perhaps you have, willing or not, a picture of a modern printed edition in your mind, and that anachronism is distorting everything?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Zwaarddijk

The main thing I want to reach is the conclusion that the author whose work I am criticizing is too ignorant about relevant issues, and assumes too many things to have remained exactly the same.

As indeed I said, their being on separate rolls does not necessarily imply that the idea of a collection/canon was missing - HOWEVER, the existence of a canon does not necessarily imply the existence of an order within the canon. Maybe they had, maybe not? So where would I find whether they had such orders? I, of course, am convinced they didn't really have such an order, but I want something that either confirms this hunch or something that refutes it.

I know.

That is what clearly is in the mind of the author whose work I am criticizing. I want to have a source that states in clear language that such a table of contents is an anachronistic idea in the context of 1st century Judaism.

The thing I want to demonstrate, is that the author whose work I am criticizing is not sufficiently knowledgeable about the topic in general.
Why the hell do you assume I assume this? What I am striving to do is to explicitly, and with a source that isn't myself, establish that exactly the notion you think I labor under in fact is wrong.

But, as I am no authority on the issue, referring to my own knowledge about the issue does not seem sufficient, and I would prefer to be able to refer to someone else's scholarly work on the topic.

I am also more interested in the Old Testament canon.

I think no one's quite getting that I just want to get the reasonable idea here *confirmed*, not question it or anything. Pretty much everything everyone's said here just agrees with my stances, and disagrees with the author I am criticizing. Yet everyone seems to be talking down to me.

spin

Just a parenthesis...

When the various Greek translations were put together in codices, Vaticanus seems to have ended with Daniel while Sinaiticus ended with Job.

Toto

Would this question have anything to do with this controversy?

(more at that link on the differing order in the LXX and the "Old Testament" used by different flavors of Christians.)

Zwaarddijk

Toto, nope, my aim is at D.M. Murdock, viz. these two samples from Who Was Jesus - Fingerprints of the Christ:

"Moreover, even though it also appears to have been built upon Matthew in order to answer questions raised by that gospel, the beginning of Mark seems to have been written to follow directly the last Old Testament book of Malachi, since instead of the birth narrative, Mark begins his gospel with an account of John the Baptist, the "voice crying in the wilderness" and "the messenger" as prophesied "in the prophets," e.g., Malachi. (c.f. p. 69, p. 115)"


"In the Old Testament (2 Kings 2:11), the esteemed Jewish prophet Elijah ended his earthly career by being taken up to heaven alive, such that "the Jews expected he would return just before the advent of the Messiah, whom he would prepare the minds of the Israelites to receive. In the last book before the New Testament, the prophet Malachi ("My messenger") says:
"Remember the law of my servant Moses, the statutes and ordinances that I commanded him at Horeb for all Israel. Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes. And he will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse." (Mai 4:4-5)

Thus, in the biblical book, cahpter and verses directly preceding the gospel of Matthew it is said that Elijah would appear "before the great and terrible day of the Lord," ..."

It is clear from these two samples - there's about three more in Christ in Egypt, one in The Christ Conspiracy and three in Suns of God - that Murdock is under the impression that the order you find in modern tables of contents for modern single-volume bibles has been meaningful and identical ever since 2nd temple judaism - she makes the argument that certain bits of the gospels were meant to directly follow "the last book of the OT", which indicates she thinks that the author really had the modern order in front of him and just worked in as many tie-ins to the previous book as possible. My argument is that if she is going to use that argument, she needs to convincingly show that Malachi actually was considered the last book in order of the OT (not just, say, last book as far as chronology goes), which she has not - she has just gone on a naive assumption.

It seems clear other orders were in use in early Christianity - as shown at the link you provided - http://www.biblelight.net/hebrew-canon.htm .*




I know this is a minor detail, but the number of times she keeps calling things 'illogical' even when they're not per se illogical, I feel mandates thoroughness in debunking.
In general, WWJ-FoC is much better than The Christ Conspiracy or The Suns of God as far as facts go, but sometimes the reasoning does not add up - even when she makes claims that are probably correct. However, unlike the two other books I mentioned, WWJ-FoC makes significantly weaker claims as well, most claims being stuff most atheists would agree with except possibly the underlying logic on a few counts.

mountainman

Maybe you can start with the earliest surviving extant Greek bible codices (all from the 4th/5th century) such as Vaticanus, Sinaticus, Alexandrinus, Bezae. Many of these things are now online.





εὐδαιμονία | eudaimonia

spin

Given that the book prior to the first gospel in both C. Sinaiticus and C. Vaticanus is not Malachi and the last book in the Tanak isn't Malachi either, you should be able to force a "cough up the ancient evidence for the claim or shut up."