What follows is a list of Protestant Old Testament canonical books that do not appear to be quoted from, paraphrased, or alluded to in any New Testament document. I call it a lonely cannon because these books were left out, so to speak, from the overflowing spring that writers chose from in their compositions. It is quite possible that I have missed a reference to some verse from among these. If you run across one (or a supposed one), please comment below.
The Lonely Canon
- Joshua
- Judges
- 1 Chronicles
- 2 Chronicles
- Ruth
- Esther
- 2 Kings
- Ezra
- Nehemiah
- Lamentations
- Song of Songs
- Zephaniah
In 1525, when the poor and oppressed peasants in Germany revolted against the cruelty and injustice of their masters, Martin Luther condemned them, “body and soul”, to hell. Believing the Christian State to be purposed by God to slay infidels, heretics, and political rebellion, Martin Luther said concerning “the least of these”:
Let everyone who can, smite, slay, and stab [the peasants], secretly or openly…
I will not oppose a ruler who, even though he does not tolerate the Gospel, will smite and punish these peasants without offering to submit the case to judgment.
For a prince and lord must remember in this case that he is God’s minister and the servant of His wrath, to whom the sword is committed for use upon…
(apologies to Anabaptists if I’ve misunderstood - I am still learning)
The Anabaptists first appeared in 1525. They believed that the major Reformers (Lutherans and Calvinists) compromised their commitment to Yeshua and did not take their faith far enough. Anabaptists were the radicals of the Reformation. The following are three main characteristics.
1. Unwavering, radical commitment of lives to Yeshua
They believed that following Yeshua did not mean Christianizing the world like it did to Calvinists and Catholics, it meant being separate from the world. The Amish, for example, have gone so far as to remove their entire society from the world so that they have no dependence upon it. Anabaptists did not believe (again, like Calvinists or Catholics) that the kingdom of Yahweh came into the world through government, but stood opposed to it (“separation of church and state” - meaning that God does not use the state to establish the church or the church to establish the state). This was seen as compromise with the world.
They did not believe that following Yeshua was exclusively an inner process as Lutherans did, but that real commitment to Yeshua meant and required an outward witness and struggle as much as the inner one. Nor did they believe like Luther and Calvin that man was so thoroughly corrupt that his will was in bondage and he was powerless to respond to God. Any commitment to Yeshua would be all God’s work and none of man’s, and therefore worthless.
They believed that commitment to Yeshua was a personal responsibility, and therefore, that infant baptism (a practice accepted by Catholics, Calvinists, and Lutherans) was contradictory, since an infant could not make a personal choice of commitment. It was also a confusion of state and church. Since most had previously been baptized as an infant, they re-baptized each other (hence ana or “re” baptism), signifying that no one could make their commitment to God for them and also that their membership in the church had nothing to do with the state (or vice versa).
2. Unwavering, radical commitment of lives to each other
Anabaptists believed that Yeshua and the early church formed a community whose love and commitment to each other were paramount. Therefore, they considered absolute equality of possession and money, and freely gave of anything they had to help each other. Part of the Anabaptists’ commitment to Yeshua is their commitment to sharing all things with one other in the community.
3. Unwavering, radical commitment to love and life
Anabaptists believed that when Yeshua came, he made it clear that his way was not of violence and war, but of self-sacrifice. And, again, because a person’s life is his own responsibility, no one should be forced or coerced into commitment to Yeshua by someone else. Violence and war, therefore, were the way of the world. Calvinists and Catholics believed that violence and war could be a means to their own ends or to the ends of faith - Anabaptists did not. Therefore, they lifted no weapon, practiced non-resistance, and willingly gave love and help even to those who sought their destruction.
First Anabaptist leaders:
- Felix Manz - drowned (since he re-baptized others, this punishment was seen to fit the crime)
- Conrad Grebel – jailed
- George Blaurock – tortured and burned at the stake
Summarized arguments against the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch as detailed in The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch by Umberto Cassuto. (See also argument 2)
3 - Contradictions and Disparities
1. Theophanies
Pro:
Different conceptions of Israel’s god and how he relates to his creation reflect different authors. J thinks of Israel’s god in human terms, interacting personally with men. E thinks of him in more transcendent terms, interacting through the agency of dreams, visions, or angels. To P, god is abstract and removed. We know only that God spoke to someone.
Con:
A. Divine names
The change in conception of deity and his relation to creation is easily answered by the reasons given for divine name usage in argument 1. Ancient Near Eastern literature, including all Hebrew literature, use different names to speak of god in different ways.
B. Not mutually exclusive
Different aspects of a person can be described by a single author. Unless it is inherently conflicting to describe the divine as in one instance human-like, and in another transcendent or abstract, there is no reason to postulate multiple sources.
C. Not the only explanation
There is nothing inconsistent or uncommon about a unitary work displaying divergent concepts. If one starts with the presupposition that the Pentateuch is a mosaic of different sources, they have not provided a better answer here than can be made by starting with the presupposition that the Pentateuch is a unitary work meant to be understood as a whole.
D. Literary purpose and meaning
Name usage reflects the purpose and intent of the story, not different authors.
2. Ethics
Pro:
Patriarchs are shown in different moral lighting. While J and E allow the patriarchs to be tarnished in a few respects, P’s portrayal of them is ideal and beyond reproach. The issue is not whether we might see them as doing good deeds, the issue is how the Torah judges the act.
Con:
A. Moral light and judgment takes the form of story, not doctrine
Different portrayals of patriarchal morality have meaning in the story, they are not evidence of different stories. Example: While Torah does not say when Jacob exploited his father’s age and infirmities to acquire the blessing that this was evil, the story bears it out. Just as Jacob took advantage of the darkness in his father’s eyes to switch brothers, so Laban took advantage of the darkness around Jacob’s eyes to switch daughters. And just as Jacob, the younger, presented himself in the place of the firstborn, so Jacob complains to Laban about having daughters switched, saying, “it is not done so in our country to give the younger before the firstborn.” Thus, out of his own mouth, Jacob condemns himself.
3. Family customs
Pro:
Different customs reflect documents that come from different environments. Example: Sometimes a father names his son, but sometimes the mother does so.
Con:
So-called divergent customs are not reflected in the text. In the example above, the reason a father sometimes names a son or daughter instead of a mother or vice versa is because when the circumstances surrounding a son or daughter’s name is connected to his/her father, the father is does the naming. When a son or daughter’s name is connected to his/her mother, the mother does the naming.
4. Outright inconsistencies
Pro:
Openly conflicting passages show that one passage originated with one author and the other from a different one. A Redactor introduced the inconsistencies as he pieced the different sources together.
Con:
A. Not an answer
This does not solve the problem, because a Redactor would have just as much reason to avoid purposely introducing inconsistencies into a text as an author would.
B. Divergent traditions, not authors
Inconsistencies are better explained by the presence of variant traditions among the Israelites. Instead of rejecting one in favor of the other, Torah found ways to include them both.
Summarized arguments against the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch as detailed in The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch by Umberto Cassuto. (See also argument 1)
2 - Language and Style
1. Language
Pro:
There are characteristic linguistic differences in the Pentateuch. Because an author rarely changes linguistic usage from chapter to chapter in the same composition, different uses of vocabulary and grammatical construction point to different authors. Example: “To bring up from Egypt” and “to bring forth from Egypt” both convey the same idea, but use different words to do so. The change in word usage evidences change in author.
Con:
A. Mechanical instead of Literary Investigation
Many of the linguistic differences arise because one is dealing with the text superficially, divorcing words from their context. Looking deeper, one sees meaning and purpose in the change of usage. “To bring up from Egypt” expresses something different than “to bring forth from Egypt.” The first speaks of a future goal—entry into the Promised Land, while the second speaks of liberation from past and present bondage.
B. Ignoring linguistic rules
Grammatical changes associated with a specific author are the result of rules of the Hebrew language which apply to all authors at all times. In some cases, it is impossible to construct vocabulary differently than how they exist. Thus, the differences are due to the exigencies of a language and not restricted to a particular person’s expression.
C. Circular reasoning
Because it is supposed a certain author only said a certain word, it is assumed that when a certain word is used, it is indicative of that author. It is not always shown why a certain author used the word supposedly characteristic of him. Sometimes this is explained because a particular divine name occurs nearby. But when we wonder why the one who said a certain word should also be the one who used a certain divine name, we are usually only left with the premise which has yet to be established—that said author who uses that specific divine name usually says that word.
2. Style
Pro:
Differences in style which point to different authors. P is cold and dry, extremely detailed, and constantly repeating the same things, whereas others like J and E are passionate, poetic, and full of life.
Con:
Things that are characteristically applied to P are limited in narrative and composed of that which is hard to infuse life and warmth into (like genealogical lists). In the few places where a genealogical list is assigned to J, we find the same frigid and passionless manner of writing. And in those few narrative portions ascribed to P, there is more vitality and freedom of expression. Stylistic differences occur, therefore, not because of the existence of specific documents by different authors, but because of the form of language being employed.
Summarized arguments against the Documentary Hypothesis of the Pentateuch as detailed in The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch by Umberto Cassuto.
1 - Divine names
Pro:
Variations in the use of divine names shows that Torah was composed of(by) different texts(authors) which can be identified by the use of their particular names (Elohim for source E; Yahweh for source J, etc). Each new author/text represents stages in the development of the religious community, from a primitive stage which thought of god in more human terms to a classical stage that thought of god in more abstract terms, eventually culminating in a corrupt stage which lost god in ritual and law keeping. The different sources were later pieced together by a Redactor, who picked and chose from one source here and one source there to form a disparate mosaic. This accounts, therefore, for the haphazard divine name usage throughout.
Con:
A. Misunderstanding of ancient narrative and grammar
Different divine names (a generic appellative and a proper name) were chosen for specific purposes. Elohim for philosophical, wisdom, pagan, and transcendent relation; Yahweh for personal interaction, moral association, poetic, nationalistic/ethnic identification. One can go through all five books of Moses and beyond and encounter this purpose for every use of a divine name. This rule is also definitive of ancient near eastern literature whether Egyptian, Babylonian, or something else.
B. Refuted by other texts
This rule is followed in all Hebrew literature in all times. It is seen in every occurrence in scripture. Therefore such use of a particular divine name cannot be called characteristic or identifiable of a particular author or source text.
C. Inconsistent
Selection of different divine names for purpose and content of text occurs in other ancient works that are universally attributed to only one author (example: Temple Scroll). In certain sections of text which are believed to belong to E or J, the wrong name appears and is thus either erased or assumed to be an error introduced by the Redactor. The wrong name is then changed and replaced with the one desired by the presupposition.
D. Based on philosophy/methodology of the time
Wellhausen was friends with others who thought in Romanticism’s idea of stages of cultural development and different texts being assembled into one mosaic. Mimicked the exact same ideas occurring in other areas like Homeric studies. While those theories were eventually rejected, the Documentary Hypothesis was not. His theory originating in a Protestant antinomian bias of the time which saw the “spirit” as good but the “law” debased/bad.
This is the unofficial announcement. Although Deus Creator Omnium will be put to rest by the end of the month, from the ashes will spring slaveofone’s Digest. As mentioned in my first post, this blog is only temporary. It has awaited the establishment of my personal web space at the Echo of Eden, which features much more than a blog… The time is at hand.
Addendum - You’re watching the brand-new Digest, so don’t change that channel.
How will the struggle for justice be waged? And I think that is one of the most important questions confronting our generation. As we move to make justice a reality on the international scale, as we move to make justice a reality in this nation, how will the struggle be waged? It seems to me that there are two possible answers to this question. One is to use the all to prevalent method of physical violence. And it is true that man throughout history has sought to achieve justice through violence. And we all know the danger of this method. It seems to create many more social problems than it solves. And it seems to me that in the struggle for justice that this method is ultimately futile. If the Negro succumbs to the temptation of using violence in his struggle for justice, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate life of bitterness, and his chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos. And there is still a voice crying [Yeshua] into the vista of time saying to every potential Peter, put up your sword
. And history is replete with the bleached bones of nations and communities that failed to follow this command.
Martin Luther King, Jr., Justice Without Violence- 3 April 1957
On this day when our nation observes a day to Martin Luther, will it observe his words? Will it realize that violence does not stop violence–only love? Love has conquered the old world religions. Love has conquered racism. Love has conquered sexism. And I have a dream that love will conquer terrorism…because there is no greater legislation than this…because God is love and nothing can conquer God. Israel, Palestine, Iraq, U.S. - follow Yeshua…put up your sword.
I’ve never actually stood out on the sidewalk waving homemade signs admist a crowd of protestors. My Libertarianism was enough to anger me, but it was faith–my desire to follow Yeshua–which actually put me on the street corner with my signs. The whole thing was spurred on by Bush’s proposal to send more troops to Iraq. I guess I had imagined not escaping without having something hurled at me. It was quite pleasing to only be attacked by the cold of the night and a few derogatory remarks. (First time anyone ever called me a Communist…strange that) I didn’t exactly agree with some of the things being said at the protest… I also wasn’t there for a lot of the reasons others were… But it was good to act for change and give voice to part of the message of Yeshua–that the kingdom of Yahweh is not one of military force, violence, or power, but of self-sacrifice, love, and submission to one’s enemeies and those who would destroy you.
There were four signs at my disposal which I interchanged every ten or fifteen minutes:
- Iraqi bloodshed should not be on U.S.
- Violence is the problem, not the solution
- [picture of Yeshua’s head] Warmonger’s will inherit the earth?
- Our troops are not Islam’s martyrs
I may be shooting myself in the foot by doing this… But since I stumbled onto a way to get into Biblical Archaeology Review’s and Bible Review’s Online Archives through a simple, innocent word search on Google, there are probably several others already making use of the secret back door… If you like what you see and are able to purchase the BAR and/or BR archive CDs, do so here
