One Scripture or Many (C. Helmer - C. Landmesser)

ONE SCRI PTURE OR MANY?
This page intentionally left blank

One Scripture or Many?
Canon from Biblical, Theological,
and Philosophical Perspectives
Edited by
Christine Helmer
and
Christof Landmesser
3
3
Great Clarendon Street, Oxford oxz 6ii
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the Universitys objective of excellence in research, scholarship,
and education by publishing worldwide in
Oxford New York
Auckland Bangkok Buenos Aires Cape Town Chennai
Dar es Salaam Delhi Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kolkata
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi
So Paulo Shanghai Taipei Tokyo Toronto
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press
in the UK and in certain other countries
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press Inc., New York
Oxford University Press 2004
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
Database right Oxford University Press (maker)
First published zcc
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press,
or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate
reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction
outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department,
Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover
and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Data applied for
ISBN 0199258635
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
Typeset by Regent Typesetting, London
Printed in Great Britain
on acid-free paper by
Biddles Ltd, Kings Lynn
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Without the enthusiasm of all the authors in this volume, this dis-
cussion of the unity of the canon from their dierent research per-
spectives would not have been actualized. We thank the authors
for their participation in the discussion and for their contribu-
tions. We are grateful to Hilary OShea, Senior Editor of Classics
at Oxford University Press, as well as to Lucy Qureshi, Commis-
sioning Editor of Theology and Bibles, Enid Barker, Dorothy
McCarthy and Lavinia Porter for their kind com mitment to the
project, the ease of accessibility and com munication, and the
precision of their comments on the typescript. The typescript
was made possible by a number of assist ants working at vari-
ous stages of its preparation. Our thanks goes to Leann Long,
who proofread many of the articles and who suggested changes
for improvement of the English. For keying in the Hebrew, we
thank Timothy Finlay and Hye Kyung Park. We are grateful to
Paul Metzger who prepared the indices. For general editing, we
are indebted to Katie Goetz, and, most of all, to Ray Bitar, who
saw the production of the typescript from start to submission
with enthusiasm and humour, patience and encourage ment.
A special thanks goes to Stefan Budian who was commissioned
to design the cover of the book. Finally we thank Oxford Uni-
versity Press for consenting to publish this volume.
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements v
Notes on Contributors ix
1. Introduction: A New Biblical-Theological
Approach to the Unity of the Canon 1
CuvIs1Ii Hii:iv :i CuvIs1oi L:i:issiv
2. Transhistorical Unity of the New Testament Canon
from Philosophical, Exegetical, and Systematic-
Theological Perspectives 13
CuvIs1Ii Hii:iv
3. From Literature to Scripture: The Unity and
Plurality of the Hebrew Scriptures in Light
of the Qumran Library 51
Av:I L:ci
4. Unity and Plurality in Jewish Canons:
The Case of the Oral and Written Torahs 108
Bij::I D. So::iv
5. Unity: Within the Canon or After the Canon 151
J::is B:vv
6. Interpretative Unity of the New Testament 159
CuvIs1oi L:i:issiv
7. Unity of Scripture Constituted through Jewish
Traditions of Interpretation 186
AvI S:cI
8. The Unity Behind the Canon 217
NIuoi:s Woi1ivs1ovii
Index of Authors 233
Index of References 238
Index of Subjects and Names 245
NOTES ON CONTRIBUTORS
J::is B:vv is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Hebrew
Bible at Vanderbilt Divinity School, and has occupied professor-
ial chairs at Edinburgh University, Princeton Theological Semin-
ary, Manchester University, and Oxford University. Among
his numerous books, the most inuential in the eld of biblical
the ology include: Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism
(Claren don 1983), Beyond Fundamentalism (Westminster 1984),
The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (Fortress 1993),
Biblical Faith and Natural Theology (Clarendon/Oxford Uni-
versity Press 1993), and The Concept of Biblical Theology (For-
tress 1999). His most recent work is History and Ideology in the
Old Testament (Oxford University Press 2000).
CuvIs1Ii Hii:iv is Assistant Professor of Theology at
the Claremont School of Theology. Her publications include:
The Trinity and Martin Luther: A Study on the Relationship
Between Genre, Language and the Trinity in Luthers Works
(15231546) (Philipp von Zabern 1999), Biblischer Text und
theo logische Theorie bildung (Neukirchener Verlag 2001) co-
edited with Stephen Chapman and Christof Landmesser, and
Schleier machers Dialektik: Die Liebe zum Wissen in Philosophie
und Theologie (Mohr Siebeck 2003) co-edited with Christiane
Kranich and Birgit Rehme-Iert.
CuvIs1oi L:i:issiv is Professor of New Testament in
the Protestant Theological Faculty at the Johannes Gutenberg-
Universitt Mainz. He has written Wahrheit als Grund begri
neutestamentlicher Wissenschaft (Mohr Siebeck 1999), and
Jnger berufung und Zuwendung zu Gott: Ein exegetischer Bei-
trag zum Konzept der matthischen Soteriologie im Anschlu an
Mt 9,9-13 (Mohr Siebeck 2001). He also co-edited the volumes
Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift: Studien zur Hermeneutik
des Evangeliums (Walter de Gruyter 1997) with Hans-Joachim
Eckstein and Hermann Lichtenberger, and Biblischer Text und
theologische Theoriebildung (Neukirchener Verlag 2001) with
Stephen Chapman and Christine Helmer.
Av:I L:ci is Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible and Dead
Sea Scrolls in the Department of Religious Studies at the Uni-
versity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. His most important
works are: Weisheit und Prdestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung
und Prdestination in den Textfunden von Qumran (Brill 1995),
Vom prophetischen Wort zur prophetischen Tradition: Studien
zur Traditions- und Redaktionsgeschichte innerprophetischer Kon-
ikte in der Hebrischen Bibel (Mohr Siebeck 2002), as well as the
volume Demons: The Demonology of Israelite-Jewish and Early
Christian Literature in the Context of Its Environment (Mohr
Siebeck 2003) co-edited with Hermann Lichtenberger and K. F.
Diethard Rmheld.
AvI S:cI is Professor of Philosophy at Bar-Ilan University,
founding director of the Graduate Program for the Study of
Hermeneutics and Culture, and Senior Research Fellow at the
Shalom Hartman Institute for Advanced Judaic Studies in Jeru-
salem. He has written extensively on Continental philosophy,
religion, and morality, Jewish philosophy, and the philosophy of
Halakhah. His books include: Albert Camus and the Philosophy of
the Absurd (Rodopi 2002), Kierkegaard, Religion, and Existence
(Rodopi 2000), and Religion and Morality (Rodopi 1995) with
Daniel Statman. He is joint editor of The Journal of Democratic
Culture, and has edited several collections of essays on contem-
porary Jewish and Israeli thought.
Bij::I D. So::iv is Director of the Jewish Studies Pro-
gram and Associate Professor of Religion at Northwestern Uni-
versity. He is the recipient of fellowships from the American
Council of Learned Societies and the Yad Hanadiv Foundation.
His book, A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 4066
(Stanford University Press 1998), received the Salo Wittmayer
Baron prize from the American Academy for Jewish Research
in 1998. He currently serves on the Pentateuch committee of
the Society of Biblical Literature and on the editorial board of
Prooftexts: A Journal of Jewish Literary History.
NIuoi:s Woi1ivs1ovii is Noah Porter Professor Emeritus
of Philosophical Theology at Yale University. Before moving
x Notes on Contributors
to Yale, he taught at Calvin College and the Free University of
Amsterdam. He was Wilde Lecturer at Oxford University in
1993, Giord Lecturer at St Andrews University in 1995, and
President of the American Philosophical Association. A few of
his many important books are: Works and Worlds of Art ( Oxford
University Press 1980), Reason Within the Bounds of Religion
(Eerdmans 1984), Lament for a Son (Eerdmans 1987), and Divine
Discourse: Philosophical Reections on the Claim that God Speaks
(Cambridge University Press 1995).
Notes on Contributors xi
1
Introduction
A New Biblical-Theological Approach
to the Unity of the Canon
CuvIs1Ii Hii:iv :i CuvIs1oi L:i:issiv
Since its origins, the eld of biblical theology has been con-
sidered a bridge discipline, spanning the gap and staging the dia-
logue between the historically and exegetically oriented biblical
disciplines and the conceptually oriented theological disciplines.
As a discipline distinct from either biblical or theological stud-
ies, biblical theology proved successful in preventing premature
dogmatic impositions onto the interpretation of ancient texts.
The eld continued to thematize key problems primarily in
view of the Christian Bible, such as the relation between the two
testaments, and to determine the precise tasks of the two disci-
plines informing biblical theology: exegesis and theology. Yet
the eld continues to be uncertain regarding the legitimacy, war-
rants, and justications for theological and philosophical claims
made in connection to its work. In this volume, a new direction
in biblical theology is proposed that seeks to place theological
and philosophical questions at the centre of biblical-theological
investigation. Our approach presupposes that theological and
This book on the unity of the canon is a further development of the biblical-
theological programme set in: Stephen Chapman, Christine Helmer, and
Christof Landmesser, eds., Biblischer Text und theologische Theoriebildung,
Biblisch-theologische Studien, no. 44 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Ver-
lag, 2001). That volume addresses the question of how biblical texts become the
objects of theological reception at dierent stages and contexts in the history of
their interpretation. Both trajectories within the Bible and trajectories that are
traced from the Bible through the history of theology to the con temporary con-
text are discussed in view of the formation of theological theory. Con tributors
2 Christine Helmer and Christof Landmesser
philosophical issues are already inscribed into the biblical texts;
religious experiences, the nature of reality, and the self/world/
God relation are already embedded in the conceptual develop-
ment recorded by those texts. If the biblical texts are taken as
expressions of religion and of a coherent world-view, then the
study of the texts historical dimension cannot exclude questions
concerning the conceptualization of the subject matter raised by
the texts themselves. At the very least, a sensitive hermeneuti-
cal theory would address the complex issue of how these texts
and their claims about religion and reality continue to be inter-
preted in dierent contexts in such a way as to contribute to the
on going formation of theories concerning religion and reality. If
a hermeneutical theory can show that the texts themselves have
distinct theological and philosophical presuppositions and make
particular theological and philosophical claims, then a biblical
theology can also show how these texts are read and continue
to be read as documents informing the formation of theological
theory. With the possibilities opened by hermeneutics, the three
perspectives of biblical studies, theology, and philosophy can be
brought into closer proximity in the eld of biblical theology.
This volume seeks to further biblical theologys enquiry into the
theological and philosophical issues raised by the texts through
explicit reection on one of the systematic-philosophical topics
underlying biblical theology precisely at a point intersecting
biblical, theological, and philosophical interests: the unity of the
canon. By considering the key concept of the unity of the canon,
biblical theology can engage the issue of its own relevance amid
the questions posed in the contemporary world of religion, the-
ology, and the academy.
In this volume, the canons unity is understood to be con-
sti tuted by interpretation that itself is a function of the inter-
pretative community, whether scholarly or for the purposes of
religious praxis. Furthermore, the interpretation of the canons
unity is itself compelled by a subject matter behind the text that
motivates the writing of the text in the rst place. When viewed
to this volume are from the biblical, historical, systematic- theological, and
practical-theological elds (Albrecht Beutel, Ottmar Fuchs, Eilert Herms,
Klaus Koch, Ulrich Luz, John W. Rogerson, Magne Sb, Christoph
Schwbel, and Hermann Timm).
Introduction: A New Biblical-Theological Approach 3
as the result of an experience, the original text is itself part and
parcel of the history of interpretation as its rst moment. If bib-
lical texts are to be relevant for interpreters and communities
of faith in successive generations, the foundational texts will be
con sidered open to perpetual interpretation and use. This under-
standing of the relevance of biblical texts shapes the perspective
from which the unity of the respective Jewish as well as the Chris-
tian canons is viewed. From this perspective, canon can be con-
sidered neither a static entity nor an airtight unied text. Rather,
canon is open to its appropriation by successive genera tions for
study and use. As recent studies in the history of the canons
formation, and particularly in research on the Dead Sea Scrolls,
the Septuagint, and non-canonical material have shown, canon
has both a certain uidity with respect to extra-canonical texts
and a particular shape used by the community that interprets
the text as well as determining the texts canonical character.
Given the canons openness to correction and to the traditions
of interpretation, the question arises as to how the unity of the
canon can be understood. Both subjective and objective unity
characterize the unity of the canon as text. On the one hand, the
text remains open to continuous subjective actual ization, and on
the other hand, an objective subject behind the text guarantees
the continuity of the tradition of interpretation throughout the
religions tradition. The unity of the canon is related to the unity
of the tradition.
Biblical theologys relevance for contemporary discussions
within both the academy and religious communities is a function
of hermeneutical engagement with biblical texts. These texts
originate through a process of interpreting a distinct world-
view and religious experiences structured by that world-view.
Biblical texts continue to function as an interpretative force in
relation to the various contexts in which the texts are received.
The relevance of biblical texts is determined by how they are
engaged in dierent contexts. They are engaged as relevant when
they are used in the interpretative task of the tradition to answer
questions concerning the fundamental constitution of the tradi-
tion. In this way, the texts have a unity-shaping function in rela-
tion to the distinct tradition in which they are interpreted and to
the plurality of interpretative choices yielded by the tradition for
the respective context. The interpretative task as a whole both
establishes the parameters of the unity of the tradition from the
side of the given text and establishes the relevance of the texts
by choosing to agree with the unifying parameters of the given
tradition. Furthermore, interpretation establishes relevance by
engaging, developing, and altering the choices oered by the
texts as distinct guides for the subsequent formation of religious,
theological, and philosophical theories. By posing the question of
relevance, biblical theology asks questions concerning the agree-
ment with unity in terms of both text and tradition as well as
interpretative decisions that privilege one theologically relevant
choice over another. Some proposals for unity have been mapped
out from a stance internal to the biblical traditions themselves, as
the study of intra-biblical theological trajectories, such as coven-
ant theology including its various conceptions within the Bible,
shows. Other approaches are more concerned to characterize the
tradition extending beyond the canonical boundaries of the text,
moving the question of relevance toward a project of updating
interpretations founded on parameters set at the origins of inter-
pretation itself. Acknowledging the relevance of these texts for
making interpretative choices, other approaches focus on carv-
ing out new possibilities for the formation of religious practice.
Engaging texts in new contexts for the formation of theory and
praxis establishes their relevance.
Biblical theology addresses its own relevance when it claries
the question concerning the actualization of biblical texts. Texts
are actualized in successive generations of academic study or in
communities of faith when they are interpreted and used. It is
possible that without actualization, the texts would become dead
letters rather than conveying the living tradition of the respec-
tive religion. The viability of these texts is demonstrated when
their actualization in contemporary contexts addresses the real-
ity of that actualization. If relevant, the biblical texts and tradi-
tions must then in some way contribute to the determination
of contemporary reality. This consideration is more than just
posing the hermeneutical question regarding the interpreta-
tion of one world-view from the perspective of another stand-
point. It has to do with the philosophical question of reality
and its determination. In this volume, we consider the biblical
texts to be proposals regarding a particular religiously construed
reality and its determination in light of foundational religious
commitments. The texts impact on the determination of reality
arms the continuity of traditions and conrms the openness
of traditions to a diversity of models interpreting reality with-
in diering contexts. Hence the question of the philosophical
determin ation of reality invites biblical-theological reection on
this philo sophical issue. By addressing the philosophical ques-
tion, biblical theology then takes these texts into theological con-
sideration in view of religion as it is constituted by particular
understandings of reality. Such a consideration necessarily in-
cludes the questions of epistemological justication for knowing
reality, especially as a supplement to substantive claims made
about that reality. The philosophical factor in biblical theologys
engagement with reality opens up the biblical texts to their rele-
vance for determining foundational commitments to the world
that inevitably structure any thinking and activity taking place
within the world.
By highlighting the relevance question with the question con-
cerning reality, biblical theology can view biblical texts in light
of their unity and diversity. As a hermeneutical and philosophi-
cal question concerning the biblical material in its actualization,
unity is seen to be more than the mere unity constituted by texts.
The unity of a world-view presupposed by dierent texts and the
unity of the religious tradition they fund are issues encompassing
a unity extending beyond textual boundaries. Furthermore, the
unity constituting tradition is informed by the dynamic diver-
sity of historical, theological, and philosophical proposals that
continue to be engaged, rejected, and accepted. It is to the topic
of unity that this volume is dedicated. In this book, the question
of the canon is posed in terms of unity drawn from plurality.
The unity of the canon is posed as a signicant biblical-theo-
logical question in view of its relation to religious traditions. For
the Jewish and Christian traditions, the canon has been appro-
priated as a unity by each successive generation. Irrespective
of concrete determination, and in spite of the dierent evalua-
tions of its literary boundaries by dierent strands of tradition,
the canon continues to be received as a unity. The history of the
canons eects (Wirkungsgeschichte) demonstrates the continued
perception of the canon in this way. This perception holds for
both the ways in which a religious community uses the canon
and the ways in which it is studied as the object of hermeneutical-
theological reection. Religious communities attribute to the
canon as unity an authority that informs the interpretative tra-
dition of those communities. The tradition-constituting func-
tion of canonical interpretation is a function of the canons unity.
The interpretative balance consists of highlighting parts of the
canon for articulating the norms of faith and morals in view of the
whole. Conversely, the whole remains the potential storehouse
of parts for correcting one-sidedness in theological, liturgical,
and spiritual formation. Seen as unity drawn from plurality, the
canon sets wide parameters for future hermeneutical legitima-
tion of its theological possibilities. Textually closed canons do
not preclude the possibility of investigating and acknowledging
the plurality and even non-uniformity of theological proposals
within the various biblical traditions.
Nevertheless, unity-shaping, hermeneutical-theological re-
ection does not begin once the canon is closed. Rather, the
inter pret ative activity of the tradition begins within the biblical
traditions. Religious, theological, and philosophical positions
are already xed by the text synchronically on a variety of histor-
ical layers and diachronically through the arrangement of books
within the canon. It is one task of biblical theology to investigate
the synchronic and diachronic plurality of these traditions for
the purpose of determining which traditions have had an im-
pact on the formation of communal identity and the formation
of hermeneutical-theological traditions. The tradition conveys
unity beyond the canons boundaries, extending the concept of
canonical unity to the unity of the tradition. Insights relating the
unity of the canon to the unity of the tradition is this volumes
key contribution to the discussion of unity. Canon cannot be
considered without the religious traditions and hermeneutical
trajectories that it funds and for which it is relevant. In view of
these relations, canon is inevitably connected to reality.
Theological understandings of the unity of the canon also
require that the question of unity be put under a microscope.
Even when articulated at a minimal level of content, the bibli-
cal texts theological claims inform the trajectories of theological
themes threaded through the Bible. There is theological reason
for reading the texts in their respective contexts in relation to
the contemporary situation. The texts as such narrate Gods his-
tory with Gods people; they tell of Gods salvic acts in history.
If these claims concerning Gods activity are valid for biblical
times, then they are relevant to the respective situation in which
the texts are read. With this overarching theological theme in
view, the interest in unity does not imply a hegemonic command
that all speak in the same way about God. The particulars of
the biblical texts do dier from each other in theological focus.
Sometimes they even contradict each other in relation to particu-
lar theological perspectives on a theme. By presupposing theo-
logical relevance of biblical texts, biblical theology must think
about unity as the continuity of theological themes from then
until now.
If the unity of the canon is not considered in the sense of a
closed scriptural list, then how might unity be conceived? The
argument unifying all contributions in this book is that the unity
of the canon is hermeneutically constituted. Unity is a function
of interpretation. The unity is outside not inside the text. It is
imposed onto the text by its hearer or reader, by a community of
interpretation or by academic scholars, whether from an intra-
biblical or an extra-biblical location. It is also in great part con-
stituted by communal beliefs about which writings were inspired
by God. As hermeneutically obtained, unity is not a licence for
interpretative abandon. Rather, subjectively constituted unity
is related to the reality of a unity-constituting feature of the text
that is often referred to in this volume as the unity behind the
text. By this phrase, the question of unity is referred to the ques-
tion of reality. The reality behind the text as its referent provides
the occasion for understanding the transcanonical unity estab-
lishing the continuity between biblical and post-biblical tradi-
tions.
The unity established by the tradition opens up the tradition
to the possibility of manifold interpretations. Unity is a func-
tion of complexity as interpretation recontextualizes particular
interpretations of the text in dierent interpretative contexts.
Recontextualization is a critical process; the semantic hetero-
geneity of biblical texts shows that the texts do not contribute
to the determination of an interpretative context in a uniform or
at way. As an open critical process, interpretation is, however,
informed by a minimum of agreement creating the conditions
for open possibilities in the rst place. Traditions of interpre-
tation arising from the biblical traditions are informed by a
minimum of hermeneutical presuppositions, quite likely a com-
mon faith that is shared by all participants in the entire trajectory
from the authors or tradents of the biblical texts to their modern
recipients. The texts contain the potential for unity that is sub-
sequently actualized in ongoing theological interpretation.
The inclusion of both Jewish and Christian perspectives in
this volume particularly focuses the question of common ele-
ments in interpretative perspectives through consideration of the
unity of both Jewish and Christian canons. Although Jewish and
Christian interpretative traditions assume dierent interpreta-
tive conditions, they share common presuppositions regarding
both the unity constituted by interpretation, and the reality be-
hind the text constituting the text and its interpretations. In this
volume, similarities regarding construals of subjectively and
objectively constituted unities can be observed, even when di~
erent canons, such as the Hebrew Bible, Oral and Written Torah,
the Old Testament or Septuagint, the New Testament, or the
diverse Christian Bibles (e.g. Roman Catholic, Protestant) are
considered.
While it is impossible to address the full range of questions
that might emerge, the essays collected in this volume each
access important questions concerning the unity of the canon
from the authors various biblical, theological, and philosophi-
cal perspectives. In the rst essay, Transhistorical Unity of
the New Testament Canon from Philosophical, Exegetical,
and Systematic-Theological Perspectives, Christine Helmer
takes up the question of the intra-systematic unity of the canon.
Drawing on Friedrich Schleiermachers work, she discusses
the canons unity in terms of a transhistorical essence remain-
ing constant throughout the historical trajectory of the Christian
religion. The goal of theological enquiry is to grasp the essence in
its various historical manifestations. The canon is a philosophi-
cal construct that minimally xes the essence in language. At the
origin of the Christian religion, the literary representation of the
essence is most pure due to its proximity to the origin ating im-
pulse of the religion. In Christian terms, the original apprehen-
sions of Christ and his redemptive work are xed as ideas in
texts. Exegetical theologys task is an innite search to deter-
mine which texts and passages best represent the original xing
of these apprehensions of Christ for the tradition that follows.
Systematic theology considers the unity of theological thought
in relation to the canon emerging from the work of exegetical
theology. From her conceptual vantage-point, Helmer presents
the idea of a canon in continuity with the unity of the tradition as
well as a canon that is open to correction and historical develop-
ment.
In From Literature to Scripture: The Unity and Plurality of
the Hebrew Scriptures in Light of the Qumran Library, Armin
Lange draws on his research on the Dead Sea Scrolls to expose
a complex process of canonical formation that lays the ground-
work for later Jewish and Christian canons. This process involves
the historical move from authoritative literature to a view of au-
thoritative literature as scripture. Lange documents this new
concept by analysing the citations of and allusions to scripture
in the non-biblical texts from the Qumran library in particular
and from ancient Judaism in general. The next question Lange
addresses concerns the reason for the new concept of scripture.
He nds his answer in the religious reforms of the years 175164
ni that shifted a temple-centred piety to a scripture-centred
piety. Jewish identity is re-congured in terms of its relation to
scripture that, in turn, establishes the unity of the developing
canon. Lange demonstrates the unity of the canon in historical
perspective in the interpretation of scripture and in the constitu-
tion of religious identity.
In his essay, Unity and Plurality in Jewish Canons: The
Case of the Oral and Written Torahs, Benjamin D. Sommer
addresses the unity of the canon in relation to tradition. Sommer
is less concerned with the Bible as a closed corpus than with a
sense of transcanonical unity, the unity encompassing the entire
tradition. The relation of rabbinic theology to biblical tradition
claries what Sommer means by transcanonical unity. The rela-
tion of Written Torah to Oral Torah exposes a point at which
Written Torah does not have obvious priority over Oral Torah.
Questions concerning the authoritative hierarchization of texts
cannot be easily answered. Sommers considerations make clear
that canon lists do not determine the canonicity of authoritative
scriptures. Rather, a transcanonical unity between Written and
Oral Torah, which can be ultimately understood in terms of Oral
Torah, accounts for the unity of the tradition. Against the back-
drop of the complex relations between Written and Oral Torah,
Sommer sketches a modern Jewish approach to the canons unity
and authority, an approach that engages a dialogue with modern
Jewish theologians, rabbinic texts, and the interdenominational
pursuit known as biblical criticism.
In his essay, Unity: Within the Canon or After the Canon,
James Barr addresses questions concerning the unity of the
canon as a classic question in biblical theology. For Barr, ques-
tions concerning unity are to be posed at four dierent levels of
increasing complexity regarding the relation between texts and
tradition. Barrs own understanding is oriented to a nal level of
unity spanning the dierences and similarities of biblical books
in comparison with the important traditions that emerged from
post-biblical times. For Barr, this raises questions concerning
the relation of biblical theology to doctrinal theology in their dis-
tinct formations. Doctrinal theology extends beyond the textual
boundaries of the canon to include the post-biblical traditions.
With this development, extra-biblical material is theologically
integrated into the tradition, and through this process, the bibli-
cal texts gain their signicance. What biblical theology and doc-
trinal theology have in common is an understanding of the reality
to which the Bible refers. This reality is to be distinguished from
its text; it lies behind the text. By the distinction between text
and reality, Barr sees a unity of subject matter for both biblical
theology and doctrinal theology. The distinction also serves to
keep both theological enterprises open to future developments.
A semantic perspective of the New Testament canon is pro-
vided by Christof Landmesser in his essay, Interpretative
Unity of the New Testament. For Landmesser, texts describe
a determinate access to the world; they aim to give something of
the world to be understood. Textual access to the world is the
product of an encounter with the subject matter of which the
text speaks. The materially determined interpretational access
to the world oered by the New Testament is of unique signi-
cance. New Testament texts are interpretational constructs that
attempt to understand the world against the backdrop of the bib-
lical traditions and under the condition of faith in Jesus Christ.
Through his semantic approach, Landmesser advances the idea
that the New Testament texts can be considered interpretational
objects. As interpretational objects, the texts open up a plurality
of interpretational accesses to the world, and compel an open-
ended interpretation procedure that cannot be reduced in com-
plexity, closed prematurely, or exhausted. Landmesser holds
that, even when all dierences are considered, the unity-shaping
moment is faith in Jesus Christ. A plurality of interpretations is
the result of both interpretational processes taking place in dif-
fering contexts and of inconsistent or incoherent inter pretative
attempts. If, for human beings, the world is never concluded,
then the task of Christian theology will continually be the recon-
textualization of the New Testament texts in each inter pretative
context.
In his essay, Unity of Scripture Constituted through Jewish
Traditions of Interpretation, Avi Sagi shows how Jewish tradi-
tions of halakhic interpretation see scripture as a pluralistically
constituted, polysemic text. Sagi addresses interpretative plural-
ity by appropriating Nahmanides fundamental insight that the
biblical texts are open to a diversity of interpretations. Hala khic
decisions do not reveal the one truth of the text, but Torah bind-
ing on the community. Acknowledging the anity between
Nahmanides and modern deconstructionism, Sagi contends
that a text cannot be construed independently of its reader; the
reader plays a decisive role in constituting the text as a unity by
determining its meaning for a particular context. Nevertheless,
not just any interpretation goes. By considering Nahmanides
position in his Commentary on the Torah, Sagi can claim a text
apart from its interpretation. For Sagi, that which is opened up
by the sages and their interpretation is the Torah of God. Her-
meneutical freedom is regulated by rabbinic rules of interpreta-
tion. However, halakhic tradition as such constitutes the Jewish
religion by determining the status and meaning of scripture. In
this view, the appropriate hermeneutical disposition is one that
is open-ended.
In the nal paper of this volume, The Unity behind the
Canon, Nicholas Wolterstor begins with a crucial distinc-
tion: the question concerning the unity behind the Christian
canon is not identical with the question concerning the unity in
the Christian canon. Wolterstors main argument involves con-
sideration of the Bible as a work. The question of interpretation
is taken up in view of the object of interpretation. That which
constitutes something as a work lies behind the text. Accord-
ing to Wolterstor, a work is a unity created by intention or
intentional authorization. The Bible as an entirety can be under-
stood in Wolterstors sense of unity. Wolterstor sketches the
overarching structure of the Christian canon by connecting the
dierent books in view of their content. The New Testament
owes its content to the person of Jesus. The Old Testament is
informed by two story lines: the story of creation and provi-
dence, and the story of redemption. For Wolterstor, the Chris-
tian canon is to be read in light of this relation between Old and
New Testaments. This unied reading does not preclude inter-
preting individual books as written by individual authors. It also
acknowledges the fact that the Old Testament was interpreted
by the early church in a way diering from original authorial
intention. Yet the stress is on recognizing the Christian canon
as a work united by two testaments and authorized as a unity
by God. The scriptures, taken as canon, are not Gods collected
works but Gods single work with many chapters.
The unity of the canon is discussed in this volume from a
range of perspectives with a variety of canons in view. Questions
are raised from the historical perspective concerning the for-
mation and legitimation of diering canon lists and their uses.
From the theological and hermeneutical-philosophical perspec-
tives, questions address the function of biblical interpretation
for the determination of canon. Reader, author, or interpretative
community contribute aspects to the canons unity as it is seen
as a subjectively construed hermeneutical unity. In terms of a
subjective determination, the role that the pragmatic context of
an interpretation plays is also an important factor in construing
the canons unity. The subjective interpretative unity, however,
is related to an objective construal of unity. In diering ways,
the unity behind the text, as divine agent, as transcanonical reli-
gious experience, or as transcanonical tradition, oer important
considerations to answering the question concerning the unity
of the canon.
2
Transhistorical Unity of the
New Testament Canon from
Philosophical, Exegetical, and
Systematic-Theological Perspectives
CuvIs1Ii Hii:iv
INTRODUCTION
Diversity characterizes the biblical canon when it is viewed for its
historical, thematic, and material-theological content. Historical
plurality is written into the redactional layers of both the Hebrew
Bible and the New Testament. Even in descriptions of one and
the same event, dierent narrators relay dierent stories, each
told from a particular historical and cultural location that lends a
dierent interpretational spin to the basic story. Furthermore,
thematic plurality characterizes biblical content. From the aetio-
logy of creation and human origins to archi tectural design, from
ethical injunctions to immoral behaviour, from curses to hymns,
the Bible represents its diverse themes in many literary genres
shaping the subject matter through dierent languages. And
I thank both Leann Long and Stephen Davis for our conversations on the
subject of this essay and for kindly suggesting improvements to the text.
For example, as Marvin Sweeney has shown, Jeremiah reects critically
upon the Isaian tradition in developing his own understanding of the exile from
Jerusalem. Marvin A. Sweeney, The Truth in True and False Prophecy,
in Christine Helmer and Kristin De Troyer, with Katie Goetz, eds., Truth:
Interdisciplinary Dialogues in a Pluralist Age, Studies in Philosophical Theology,
no. 22 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 926.
For a study of how genre shapes subject matter through the dierent
discourses a genre generates (e.g. disputation, hymn, sermon) see Christine
Helmer, The Trinity and Martin Luther: The Relationship Between Genre,
Language and the Trinity in Luthers Works (15231546), Verentlichungen
14 Christine Helmer
nally, material-theological plurality reveals dierences in con-
ceptions of self, world, and God. The Psalms portray the indi-
vidual tossed on the sea of emotions. Ecclesiastes exposes the
vanity of most human striving, opting for the pleasures of eating,
drinking, and enjoying the wife of ones youth (Eccles. 9: 79),
while the ethereal evangelist, John, advocates the sovereignty
above the fray in following the one who is in but not of this world
(John 8: 23; 18: 36). Even the doctrine of God is depicted by an
extreme amplitude between the God in whom one can and must
place ones fear and trust (cf. Exod. 20: 23), and the God of
prophetic witness who chooses one man and rejects his brother
(cf. Rom. 911). And after surveying the diversity of human
activity, wisdom literature can only maintain its awe in the face
of the incomprehensibility of divine ways (cf. Rom. 11: 336),
and in view of the divine foolishness that still puts human wis-
dom to shame (cf. 1 Cor. 1: 20, 25).
Despite this immense plurality, even embracing opposing
ideas, the Bible is taken as a unied whole by religious commu-
nities and scholars. Christians continue to acknowledge the early
churchs decision to accept the rst testament as an un redacted
whole, joining it with the second testament to form the larger
biblical unity of both Old and New Testaments. Furthermore,
in the theological sub-discipline of systematic theology, concern
with the Bibles unity has historically been more than a formal
designation of what is contained between two book covers. In
fact, theologians who have engaged seriously with scripture have
des Instituts fr Europische Geschichte/Abteilung Abendlndische Religions-
geschichte, no. 174 (Mainz: Philipp von Zabern, 1999).
In his preface to the Psalter, Luther writes, A human heart is like a ship on
a wild sea, driven by the storm winds from the four corners of the world. Martin
Luther, Preface to the Psalter, in Jaroslav Pelikan et al., eds., Luthers Works:
American Edition, 55 vols. (St. Louis and Philadelphia: Concordia and Fortress,
195886), 35. 255. (Hereafter referred to as LW.)
Of all theologians in Western history, it was perhaps Luther who was able to
make this amplitude fruitful in his theology, if problematic for his inter preters.
In The Bondage of the Will, Luther distinguishes between the hidden and
revealed God in view of Romans 911. Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will
(1525), in LW 33: 15295.
See Christof Landmessers chapter, Interpretative Unity of the New
Testament, section entitled Dierences between New Testament Texts, in
this volume.
Transhistorical Unity of the New Testament Canon 15
sought material principles determining the Bible as a whole,
while taking those principles to structure their own respec-
tive theologies. Martin Luthers intra-biblical principle was a
christo logical one. In order to distinguish between passages de-
claring Christs forgiveness and those passages either pronounc-
ing the human guilty or prescribing moral strictures, Luther
determined the material principle of all scripture to be what
conveys Christ. The principle of gospel, with its accompani-
ment of law, was not only Luthers privileged hermeneutical tool
for intra-biblical interpretation, it also structured the material
claims of his own theology. As an example in contemporary
theology, Brevard Childs seeks the unity of the biblical res in the
self-same referent of its witnesses; the entire Bible witnesses to
the one true God, whether in the distinctive voice of Israel or in
the trinitarian witness of the church. What is common to Luther
and Childs, to use just two examples, is that unity is preserved at
a transhistorical and materially determined level. Although the
Bible is constituted through diversity, the theological use of the
Bible suggests that certain transhistorical features are required
to set the general parameters for a religion, to serve as herme-
neutical points of continuity between past and present, and to
unify the tradition at a minimally determined material level so as
to open up hermeneutical and theological freedom for the future
life of the tradition. The question of the unity of the Bible is the
question concerning the unity of the history of the church and
theology.
The aim of this chapter is to oer a philosophical, exegeti-
cal, and systematic-theological view of the unity of the Christian
The term conveys is the authors translation of the German treiben.
Martin Luther, Preface to the Epistle of St James and St Jude, in LW 35. 396.
For Luther, the identity of God and the substance of salvation dispensed in
history is retained by a medieval semantics prohibiting the introduction of tem-
porality into the eternal referent. From whatever temporal location a theological
claim is made, either intra-biblical or extra-biblical, the eternity of the referent
is retained. See Helmer, The Trinity and Martin Luther, 758.
Brevard S. Childs, Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments:
Theological Reection on the Christian Bible (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 87.
For Janowski, the res behind the text is the same God who unies both testa-
ments of the Christian Bible. See Bernd Janowski, The One God of the Two
Testaments: Basic Questions of a Biblical Theology, trans. Christine Helmer,
Theology Today 57/3 (1997): 297324.
16 Christine Helmer
canon so as to account for the transhistorical stability of the
Christian religion. My approach will be based on the work of
Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher (17681834) and his
understanding of the canon as a concept that accounts for the
continuity of the essence of Christianity throughout the churchs
history by virtue of a stable core of ideas that are expressed in the
biblical text and also in the churchs history. Schleier machers
theological and philosophical thought provides a model for
showing the construction of the canons unity as a function of a
subjective hermeneutically constituted unity as well as an objec-
tive transhistorical factor uniting the diachronous history of the
church with the synchronous diversity of the many expressions
of Christianitys essence. Although Schleiermacher limits his
discussion of the Christian canon to the New Testament, I will
suggest possible ways to include both testaments of the Chris-
tian Bible.
The chapters structure follows Schleiermachers own order-
ing of the three theological sub-disciplines of philosophical
Although I closely follow Schleiermachers thought in this essay, I do not
agree with one signicant aspect of his concept of canon. In his Brief Outline,
Schleiermacher makes the terminological distinction between the Christian
canon or New Testament and the Christian Bible or Old and New Testaments
together ( 115, (63) ), and claims that exegetical theologys task is to investigate
the New Testament canon, using the Old Testament as an auxiliary hermen-
eutical tool ( 104 (58); 128 (689); 1403 (735) ). References to the Brief
Outline are found in Friedrich Schleiermacher, Brief Outline of Theology as
a Field of Study (1811/1830), trans., with essays and notes by Terrence N.
Tice, Schleiermacher Studies and Translations, no. 1 (Lewiston/Queenston/
Lampeter: The Edwin Mellen Press, 1990). (Hereafter referred to as BO.
Unless stated otherwise, the BO is cited according to the second edition of 1830
with references given for paragraph numbers. Page numbers are given in paren-
theses.) Since the publication of the rst review of the Brief Outline in 1812, a
host of voices has been raised in criticism of Schleiermachers view that the Old
Testament neither expresses the central perspective of Christianity nor is to be
used as a warrant for Christian systematic theology. For the famous rst review
see F. H. Chr. Schwarz, Review of Schleiermachers Kurze Darstellung des
theologischen Studiums zum Behuf einleitender Vorlesungen, Heidelbergische
Jahrbcher der Litteratur 5 (1812): 5267. Among numerous articles, see the
following two examples of a critical view of Schleiermacher: Emil G. Kraeling,
The Old Testament since the Reformation, Lutterworth Library, no. 47 (London:
Lutterworth, 1955), 5967, and Rudolf Smend, Schleiermachers Kritik am
Alten Testament, in Epochen der Bibelkritik: Gesammelte Studien, iii, Beitrge
zur evangelischen Theologie, no. 109 (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1991), 12844.
theology, exegetical theology, and systematic theology in his
Brief Outline of Theology as a Field of Study. In the rst section,
I explain the philosophical-theological concept of canon as the
originating point for a discussion of the canons unity. Canon is a
formally determined unity denoting a religions essential features
as transhistorical ideas expressed in language. In the second sec-
tion, I determine the task of exegetical theology to study those
transhistorical ideas as they are originally expressed in the New
Testament canon. The canons unity is constituted by the experi-
ence of a subject behind the text that is subjectively construed
by individual authors of the New Testament. Furthermore, the
canons unity as a collection of texts is related both objectively
and subjectively to the tradition of its interpreters. In the third
section, I determine the task of systematic theology to be a sub-
jective construal of the canons unity, based on the impact of the
transhistorical unifying experience that itself is constituted by a
principle of coherence in relation to the contemporary context in
which the canon is received.
UNITY OF THE CANON FROM A
PHILOSOPHICAL-THEOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVE
Since the Greeks, the search for a stable unity amid seething
plurality has been the prerogative of philosophical enquiry.
While Plato sought to nd the unity of virtue, the state, and meta-
physics in which plurality participated, Kant sought in reason
(Vernunft) the function unifying the sensible manifold into a co-
herent whole. Human reason itself is systematic by nature; the
purpose of any member can be derived only from the complete
concept of the whole. It was, however, Schleiermacher who
For Plato, the Protagoras concerns the unity of virtue, the Republic con-
cerns the unity of the state, and the Parmenides concerns the metaphysical unity
of being.
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, ed. and trans. Paul Guyer and
Allen W. Wood, The Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), : 77 = n 103 (210). (Page
numbers are given in parentheses.)
Immanuel Kant, Preface to Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics,
With Selections from the Critique of Pure Reason, ed. and trans. Gary Hateld,
18 Christine Helmer
applied the sense of the whole to religion. He showed how the
positive religions are historical phenomena that are to be studied
as unities in order to grasp a religions distinctive characteris-
tics in relation to other religions. In this section, I will describe
the role that Schleiermacher assigns to philosophical theology to
discern the transhistorical essence of a religion through the use
of speculative reason. I will show how philosophical theology
then is applied to the canon as a concept accounting for the trans-
historical unity of a positive religion, such as Christianity.
The conceptual designation of a positive religions historical
features sets the parameters for further determining a particular
religions idiosyncratic features. For Schleiermacher, any his-
torical religion is constituted by two factors, each with its own
starting-point and historical trajectory. The unity of a religion
consists of an outer characteristic that can be detected historical-
ly and an inner self-same essence. The essence of every historical
religion is constituted by both an outward unity, as a xed fact
of history with a denite commencement, and an inward unity,
as a peculiar modication of that general character which is com-
mon to all developed faiths of the same kind and level. The
outer unity has an original starting-point historically anchoring
a feature recognizable as a central perspective to that particu-
lar religion. The inner unity is determined in the psychological
terms common to all adherents of the respective religion as the
relation between immediate self-consciousness and sensible self-
consciousness. In view of Christianity as a positive religion,
the outer unity is conceptually designated for the entire histori-
cal trajectory as the essential relation between the founder, Jesus
of Nazareth, and the eect of redemption emanating from him.
Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2001), 13 (= 4. 263).
Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Christian Faith (1830/31), eds. H. R.
MacKintosh and J. S. Stewart, trans. D. M. Baillie et al., of 7th edn. by Martin
Redeker (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1999), 10, proposition (44). (Hereafter
referred to as CF. References to CF include paragraph and corollary number, or
proposition, or postscript, while page numbers are given in parentheses.)
CF 710 (3152).
The essence of Christianity is a monotheistic faith, belonging to the teleo-
logical type of religion, and is essentially distinguished from other such faiths by
the fact that in it everything is related to the redemption accomplished by Jesus
of Nazareth. CF 11, proposition (52).
The inner unity of Christianity, as is the case with two other
monotheistic religions, Judaism and Islam, is characterized by
the feeling of absolute dependence in relation to an ultimate
Whence. Christianity, like Judaism, is also a teleo logical reli-
gion, which orients states of passivity to activity in the world.
And by virtue of a particular construal of monotheism and teleo-
logy, Christian self-consciousness is constituted by both the
consciousness of sin and the consciousness of grace, the latter
attributed to an external source. This inner unity together with
the outer unity forms the unity of Christianitys essence, or the
conceptual determination of Christianitys distinctive features
retained through historical change.
The inner and outer unities unite to constitute a religions
essence. This unity is the key to what Schleiermacher means by
religion. Religion is historical. Religion necessarily takes his-
torical shape because its inner unity cannot appear anywhere
but intentionally in history. The unity between inner and outer
unity, however, cannot be characterized as a one-way external
expression of an inner state. Rather, the historical environment
in which a religion is embedded is a realm of the relative free-
dom and relative dependence characterizing all of inter-human
and inner-worldly interactions. By virtue of its historical em-
beddedness, a religions inner unity is expressed in the external
coecients of its environment, yet conversely, externalized ex-
pressions are circulated in the environment in such a way as to
impact the inner psychological states of individuals. A religions
external expressions are the same coecients shared by language,
culture, politics, and philosophy. These coecients are consti-
tutive of the psychological level of sensible self-consciousness
that is necessarily related to that psychological domain reserved
as religions peculiar province: immediate self- consciousness.
The constitutive relation between inner and outer unities guaran-
tees the identity of an identiable shape through history dis-
tinct from other externalizations of the human spirit, such as
CF 9, 1 (402). CF 9, 1 (412).
Part II of Schleiermachers The Christian Faith is structured by these two
aspects of Christian self-consciousness. The rst aspect or the Explication of
the Consciousness of Sin precedes the lengthy second aspect or the Explication
of the Consciousness of Grace. See the table of contents in CF, xvixviii.
See CF 4, 2 (1315). CF 3, 4 (9).
20 Christine Helmer
politics and the academy. Yet the two dimensions of inner and
outer explain how a religion remains the same while changing
with historys ebb and ow. In Schleiermachers thought, the
relation between a self-same essence and its external manifesta-
tions explains how a religion is intentionally based on external
co ecients, but cannot be reduced to any one of them. Any ex-
ternal aspect of the religion must be deemed an appearance of the
inner unity in its entirety; no metaphysically occult reality hides
behind the appearance. Yet a religions empirical manifestation
does not exhaust the possibilities of a religion to change through
time because it is its inner unity that holds constant throughout.
The metaphysical features of a religions unity determine
epistemological access to that religions essence. It is to the eld
of philosophical theology that Schleiermacher assigns the more
or less a priori construction of a religions unifying parameters.
This a priori construal borrows from the Leibnizian distinc-
tion between power (Kraft) as the unity holding together and
underlying the manifold of appearances, and the appearances
(Erschein ungen) of the inner unity that themselves as a whole
exhibit the religions outer unity. In Schleiermachers system,
the relation of power (or essence) to appearance operates as the
metaphysical key to understanding the transhistorical unity
of any historical religion, and that of the Christian religion in
particular. The speculative construction of a religions essence
is the task of philo sophical theology; philosophical-theological
reason is speculative, rather than empirical, and it is oriented to
conceptually xing a minimal description of a religions essence
in relation to other religions. By this speculative activity, philo-
sophical theology assigns a conceptual site to a particular reli-
gion within a system composed of concepts that bifurcate into
their divisions on their lower side and concepts that are unied
into higher concepts on their higher side. This constructive
task cannot be entirely accomplished without a minimum of em-
Therein lies the truth that in spite of all change, Christianity can be com-
prehended as a historical appearance. Friedrich Schleiermacher, Theologische
Enzyklopdie (1831/32): Nachschrift David Friedrich Strau, ed. Walter Sachs,
Schleiermacher-Archiv, no. 4 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1987), 35 (to BO
32). (Hereafter referred to as ThE. Any German text for which no published
English translation is available is translated into English by the author.)
This is my summary of CF 2, 2 (24).
pirical contribution. Although Schleiermacher distinguishes
between the speculative task determining the concept and the
empirical historical task determining the historical predicates,
the minimum/maximum continuum uniting speculative and
historical poles relates minimal empirical content to the specula-
tive xing of the essence.
This is evident in the Introduction to The Christian Faith
( 131). In contrast to the properly dogmatic-theological parts
I and II ( 32172), Schleiermacher sets up the Introduction
as a set of epistemological steps constructing the location of the
individual essence of Christianity within a system of concepts.
First, the general sphere of ethics, as the activities of human
Geist providing the rules for historical agency, claims necessity
for the appearance of the church as the manifestation of a com-
mon essence of piety ( 36). Next, the sphere of philosophy
of religion classies the various manifestations of the essence
of religion as the positive religions according to kind and type
( 710). Finally, the eld of apologetics ( 1114) minimally
xes the concept of the essence of Christianity as the redemp-
tion accomplished by Jesus of Nazareth. The delineation of the
Philosophical theology, it is true, presupposes the material of historical
theology as already known; its own prior task, however, is to lay a foundation for
the properly historical perspective on Christianity. BO 65 (37).
The distinction is taken from the Dialektik in which Schleiermacher
assigns the work of speculative reason to one type of thinking, concept forma-
tion, and empirical reason to the second type of thinking, judgement formation.
Borrowing from the Leibnizian gure of a minimum/maximum continuum,
Schleiermacher places speculative and empirical reason in relation to each other
as the two poles of reason, and connects them with a principle of identity allow-
ing for the transition from one pole to the other. Friedrich Schleiermacher,
Dialektik: Im Auftrage der Preuischen Akademie der Wissenschaften auf Grund
bisher unverentlichten Materials, ed. Rudolf Odebrecht (Leipzig: J. C.
Hinrichs, 1942; reprint, Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1976),
255. (Hereafter referred to as DialO.) On the principle of identity in Leibniz and
post-Kantian philosophy see Manfred Frank, Identitt, Korrespondenz und
Urteil: Fragen an Schleiermachers Dialektik, in Christine Helmer, Christiane
Kranich, and Birgit Rehme-Iert, eds., Schleiermachers Dialektik: Die Liebe
zum Wissen in Philosophie und Theologie, Religion in Philosophy and Theology,
no. 6 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 322.
CF 11, proposition (52). In the CF and along with ethics and the philoso-
phy of religion, apologetics is ordered to the Introduction ( 1114 (5276) ).
In the BO, apologetics is ordered to philosophical theology as one of its two con-
stitutive elements; the ip-side of apologetics is polemics ( 4362 (2636) ).
22 Christine Helmer
essence of Christianity in terms of the redemptionRedeemer
relationship presupposes a purview of historical theology. From
a survey of the history of Christianity is gleaned that which is
perspectivally deemed to be the constant factor throughout the
trajectory.
As a theological sub-discipline, philosophical theology is
assigned the important task of setting up the concepts to be
discussed by exegetical and systematic theology. Although
philosophical theology, with its two constitutive areas of apolo-
getics and polemics, was not yet part of the nineteenth-century
theological repertoire, Schleiermacher invented this eld for the
purpose of delineating the minimal conceptual requirements
for academic dialogue. Schleiermachers particular need for
philosophical theology as the discipline that establishes the con-
ceptual conditions of agreement concerning the subject matter
of theology can be understood against the backdrop of the inter-
confessional controversies of Protestant Orthodoxy. Rather
than begin a discussion with disagreement concerning concepts,
Schleiermacher opts for minimal agreement at the onset, there-
by setting the stage for subsequent disagreement concerning
the predicates of the concept as well as the possibility of resolu-
tion. The formal character of Schleiermachers philosophical
theology serves to lay out the conceptual agreement concerning
the purely logical dimension of the subject matter in order
But for the interests of Apologetics as well as of Dogmatics it seems advis-
able rather to be content with a scanty result at the beginning and to hope for its
completion in the course of further procedure, than to begin with a narrow and
exclusive formula, which is of necessity confronted by one or more opposing
formulae, with which there must be a conict sooner or later. CF 11, 1 (54).
The purpose of the Dialektik as the art of conducting conversation (DialO
47) is to prescribe rules governing the resolution of an intersubjective contro-
versy (Streit) in the realm of pure thinking (reines Denken). On this intersub-
jective procedural approach for doing philosophy see the 1833 Introduction
to the Dialektik in DialO 15 (544).
In Schleiermacher scholarship, there is controversy regarding Schleier-
machers use of the term above Christianity in the BO ( 33 (19) ) to describe
the starting-point for a philosophical-theological treatment of the conceptual
relation of Christianity to a general theory of religion. In the BO, Schleiermacher
explicitly uses the term above in the logical sense ( 33 (19) ), rather than in an
empirical or a generic sense in order to assign to philosophical theology the task
of setting up a conceptual grid making an empirical analysis possible.
that the predicates gleaned from the historically given material
can be added and evaluated. The concept xes the unity of the
subject matter at the speculative level, and empirical observation
later lls in the predicates of that concept through the process of
judgement formation. By creating agreement concerning the
basic concept, philosophical theology provides the opportunity
for subsequent exegetical and systematic-theological reection
on a religions historical predicates.
A signicant responsibility of philosophical theology is the
selection of distinct concepts for historical investigation. The
careful choosing of concepts is a crucial step determining sub-
sequent reection of those concepts. For Schleiermacher, the
choice of which concepts to study follows from the conceptual
grid relating a particular religion to its proximate kinds. Once a
particular religion has been situated in relation to other religions
manifesting similar features, such as the monotheistic teleology
of Judaism and Christianity, these relations can be more precise-
ly determined by specic concepts in such a way as to facilitate
both further comparison by philosophy of religion and further
specication of the particular religions essence by theology.
The formal features of religion as inner and outer unity play
a role in determining philosophical-theological concepts. In
the Brief Outline, Schleiermacher assigns to the apolo getics
sub division of philosophical theology the task of selecting the
concepts. In contrast with polemics, which determines a
religions internal state of sickness or health, apologetics claries
key concepts used to describe a religions necessary historical
existence. For apologetics, concepts relevant to this task must
I am applying here the insights of the Dialektik to determine the epistemo-
logical character of the CFs Introduction and main body. The Introduction
makes primary use of speculative reason to set up a conceptual grid relating
Christianity to other positive religions as historical manifestations of piety, and
the CFs main body makes use of historical reason to esh out the ways in which
Christian doctrines have historically been and, in Schleiermachers case, are
currently being, articulated.
By this denition, Schleiermacher changes the common use of the term
polemics to mean philosophical theologys internal orientation promoting the
particular religions health. In its common usage, polemics is directed outwards,
to attack aberrations in confessions and denominations not ones own. See ThE
447 (to BO 41). For its counterpart apologetics, Schleiermacher retains
the terms original usage as a defence directed outwards (see ThE 425 (to BO
24 Christine Helmer
show religion to be a necessary manifestation of human spirit
in history, and in view of a particular religion, distinguish it
from other historical religions by dierences in inner and outer
unity. Apologetics isolates the distinctive features of a religion in
terms of its origins, characteristics accounting for that religions
historical continuity, and the unique unity between its inner and
outer unities. In view of the particular religion of Christianity,
Schleiermacher assigns the concepts of revelation, miracle, and
inspiration to distinguish Christianity at its origins from other
religions, and the concepts of prophecy, type, and pattern to
tease out Christianitys continuity in time as distinct from other
historical religions. In terms of its outer unity, a religions
origin marks it o from a preceding historical series as well as
being decisive for its subsequent development. Furthermore, a
particular religions historical continuity is an individuation of
formal features, for example, pattern characterizes the outer
unity of any historical religion. Questions concerning a religions
outer unity are inevitably bound together with its inner unity. In
view of inner unity, concepts are chosen to tease out features of
a religions essence that remain the same despite changes occur-
ring through time. It is precisely the canon that Schleiermacher
desig nates to be one of two such concepts (the other is sacra-
ment) preserving the religions inner unity.
Canon is a concept yielded by the determination of a positive
religions conceptual features. Although he appeals to the concept
of canon in view of any historical religion, Schleiermacher denes
the distinct Christian concept as that which demonstrate[s]
how the unity of its [the Christian Churchs] essence is never-
3941) ). As a defence, however, apologetics oers neither a proof nor a demon-
stration of Christianitys truth, but rather derives the necessity of Christianitys
historical existence from the necessity of human Geist to manifest piety in the
historical religions.
This is my brief summary of BO 457 (278). The two religions that
Schleiermacher distinguishes from Christianity in view of these features of
outer unity are Judaism and Heathenism (das Heidentum). Cf. CF 12 (602).
In the ThE, Schleiermacher contrasts the distinctiveness of the Christian
canon of the New Testament with the Old Testament canon. See ThE 54 (to BO
47). According to Schleiermacher, the crucial dierence lies in the common
referent of all New Testament texts. In Schleiermachers opinion (and on this
point criticism is necessary), the Old Testament canon is a literary aggregate
with no such unifying feature.
theless not endangered by such [historical] modications as it
undergoes, or in other words, that which is conceptually re-
lated to the continuity of what is essential in Christianity. The
feature of inner unity establishing the historical continuity of the
religions essence is the psychological component. An identity of
feeling constitutes the self-same Christian essence throughout
the historical life of the tradition. For Schleiermacher, this self-
same feeling characterizing the Christian religion can only be
described in soteriological terms because the distinctive Christian
essence is by denition related to the redemption accomplished
by Jesus of Nazareth. The distinctive Christian feeling (or self-
consciousness) is constituted by the redemptive impact of Jesus
Christ that moves the soul from a state of the need for redemp-
tion to the state of redemption. Although the state of redemption
for all believers other than Jesus Christ is not a constant one, the
identity of feeling is a function of the psychological realignment
between sensible and immediate self-consciousness. The con-
sciousness of sin and the consciousness of grace are due to the
inverse ways in which the two aspects of self-consciousness are
related to each other. Grace is the souls state characterized by
the permeation and elevation of the feeling of absolute depend-
ence into all temporally constituted moments of thinking and
doing; sin is the state inhibiting this permeation. With recourse
to a soteriologically determined understanding of the distinctive
Christian self-consciousness, Schleiermachers understanding
of the concept of canon circumscribes the distinct psychological
BO 47 (28).
For the soteriological determination of Christianitys essence, I am in
agreement with Brian Gerrish who claims against Brunner (Emil Brunner, Die
Mystik und das Wort, 2nd edn. (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1928) )
that Schleiermacher denes the distinctively Christian essence in soteriologi-
cal terms, and not in terms of a generic religious essence. See Brian Gerrish,
Tradition and the Modern World: Reformed Theology in the Nineteenth Century
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 2245. By conceiving the essence
of Christianity on its own terms, rather than as an accidental manifestation
of a deeper and more generic essence, the fundamental relation between the
Introduction to the CF ( 131) and the dogmatic body of the work ( 32
172) can be claried. The Introduction sets up the conceptual parameters for
the dogmatic determination that follows, yet itself presupposes the historical
data in conceiving these parameters.
I am reading CF 11 (5260) together with the paragraphs devoted to
soteriology ( 1001 (42538) ).
26 Christine Helmer
feature of Christianity as its inner unity consistent throughout
the tradition and generations of believers.
Yet the psychologically conceived inner unity is inevitably
related to the particular religions outer unity. A second distinc-
tive feature of Schleiermachers understanding of the canon is this
relation between inner and outer unity. Canon is so related [to
the continuity of what is essential in Christianity] insofar as this
continuity nds expression in the production of ideas. By this
concept of canon, Schleiermacher is not at all identifying canon
with text. Rather, he denes this concept against the backdrop of
his understanding regarding the relations between psychology,
thought, and language. Because sensible self- consciousness is
the temporal dimension to consciousness, feelings are inevitably
externalized as gestures, and eventually xed with greater preci-
sion in thought, and ultimately in language as the completion of
thought. As an authorial intention, a thought expresses feeling
in the feelings relation to sensible self-consciousness. Authorial
intention is at the same time intentional in its capacity to refer
to reality. In precise soteriological terms, the intentionality of
self-consciousness is the redemp tive impact of Jesus Christ that
is expressed together with the consciousness of grace. Through
genres ranging from the less precise but more evocative poetic
and rhetorical genres to the didactic-descriptive genre that
suits the purpose of scientic investigation, thinking xes
ideas con cern ing soteriological intentionality. It is the relation
of the plurality of ideas to Christianitys self-same essence that
Schleier macher has in mind with his concept of canon. As such,
canon is the concept relating the unity of Christianitys essence
to the plurality of expressions that can either be circulated in the
com munity for pious edication or be studied as the object of
theology.
With his determination, Schleiermacher makes a decisive shift
BO 47 (28).
In the Dialektik, Schleiermacher presupposes the claim of his Hermeneutik,
that thought is rendered complete and xed in language. Thought is prepared
by inner discourse, and to this extent discourse is only the thought itself which
has come into existence. Friedrich Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics and Criticism
And Other Writings, ed. and trans. Andrew Bowie, Cambridge Texts in the
History of Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 7.
For a description of these three genres see CF 15, 2 (78) and 16, 1 (789).
in the concept of canon. Canon is neither to be identied with a
text as such nor is its unity to be circumscribed by literary bound-
aries, as is the case with seventeenth- and eighteenth- century
Protestant Orthodoxy. Rather, canon is a philosophical-
theological concept derived from a theory of religion in order
to account for the transhistorical essence of a religion. The
essence accounting for the unity of the tradition is less tied to a
literary text than to the living principle of a historical religion.
Furthermore in view of the particular religion of Christianity,
canon is determined in (minimal) soteriological terms. Canon
is the inner unity of a psychological consciousness of grace that
is attributed to the transhistorical reality of Christ behind the
text as it redemp tively impacts individuals in the church.
The production of ideas eventually xed in the text presupposes
the experience of a modication of self-consciousness under the
impact of Christ. And this experience is a perpetual one, open
to a plurality of future possibilities. The minimal xing of this
plurality in a conceptual unity is the task of philosophical theology.
The material plurality, however, that is given in the literary x-
ing of the New Testament is the object of exegetical-theological
investigation. The experience determining the unity of a reli-
gion makes the formation of the canon possible in the rst place.
And this experience, as we shall see in the next section, makes
exegetical theology as the search for the canon possible.
UNITY OF THE CANON FROM AN
EXEGETICAL-THEOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVE
Although the canon as concept presupposes both a textual x-
ing as the Bible and a philosophical-theological xing as the
essence of Christianity, it is as a concept that it requires material
For the Protestant Orthodox doctrine of scripture see Heinrich Schmid,
ed., Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, trans. Charles A.
Hay and Henry E. Jacobs, 3rd edn. (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1961), 3891
(= 612), and Heinrich Heppe, ed., Reformed Dogmatics: Set Out and Illustrated
from the Sources, rev. edn. Ernst Bizer, trans. G. T. Thomson (London: Allen &
Unwin, 1950; reprint, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker House, 1978), loci IIIII.
For Schleiermacher, the redemptive encounter with the person of Christ
shapes ecclesial identity. The communitys identity is conceived in soteriologi-
cal, not in sociological terms.
28 Christine Helmer
determination. In Schleiermachers system of theology, this role
is given to historical theology and its three sub-disciplines. To
the rst of these sub-disciplines, exegetical theology, is assigned
the task of determining the canon in its relation to a text. I begin
this section by studying Schleiermachers understanding of the
relation between text and the subject matter presupposed by his
understanding of exegetical theology. For Schleiermacher, the
transparency of New Testament texts to the subject matter holds
both for its individual authors and for the collection as a whole.
I conclude this section by summarizing what Schleier macher
means by open canon. The entire section aims to show how the
unity of the subject matter behind the text is determinative for
the canon as text and how the text is open to a diversity of subjec-
tively constituted unities.
Given philosophical theologys initial determination of the
canon as concept, the concepts relation to the literary text
needs to be considered. It must be stressed from the onset that
Schleiermacher does not identify the canon with the Bible. The
Christian Bible is understood in pragmatic-ecclesial terms as the
literary text composed of both Old and New Testaments and
used by the church since its early history. The canon, however,
is an idea concerned with the unity of the Christian tradition as
the identity of an experience that is expressed in a variety of ways
and subsequently xed in literature. For Schleiermacher, the
experiential identity of the Christian tradition is related to the
historical appearance of Jesus of Nazareth. The New Testament
and other early Christian texts were written under the impact of
this person; experience is related to text.
An experience establishes the identity between the dierent
ideas xed in the literary canon. Schleiermacher summarizes
this canonical experience as the action and eect of Christ both
on and with his disciples and also those which concern the com-
BO 115 (63).
In the rst edition of the BO (1811), Schleiermacher refers to the canon
as idea (BO, 1st edn., vol. i, 2 (58 n. 43) ). In the subsequent edition of 1831,
Schleiermacher dispenses with the term idea, preferring instead a termino-
logy that more closely relates the concept of canon to the New Testament text.
The collection of those writings which contain the normative presentation of
Christianity forms the New Testament canon of the Christian Church. BO
104 (58).
mon action and eect of his disciples toward the establishing
of Christianity. This denition of the canon represents an
import ant conation between a literary observation and a theo-
logical claim. As a literary observation, Schleiermacher agrees
with the early churchs canonical distinction between the New
Testament gospels and the apostolic letters. He then relates
this literary distinction to a theological claim regarding the co-
constitution of redemption and the creation of the church. This
move is signicant because it implies that the redemptive experi-
ence is communicational at its very essence; Christs impact on
his disciples is conveyed through them and this communica-
tion constitutes the church. The idea of canon is precisely this
experience that gives the explanation for why the experience is
necessarily communicable in the rst place. When interpreta-
tions of this experience are eventually xed in literary form, the
literary canon perpetuates the communicational structure that
it xes. By communicating redemption, the community of faith
is formed. At the origin of this communication, the purest
expressions of the canon are textually xed where pure means
the most immediate expressions at a site historically proximate to
Christ with as little intervening material as possible. Pure does
not mean canonical in the sense of the texts dignity. Rather, it
refers to the texts transparency to the experience behind it that
motivates the texts production.
BO 105 (58). By this distinction, Schleiermacher indicates his agreement
with the ancient practice of dividing the canon into evangellion and apostolos.
BO 105 (59). (Italics in the original text.) In his Introduction to the New
Testament canon, Schleiermacher gives a historical survey of the early churchs
development of the distinction between gospels and apostles. See his Einleitung
ins neue Testament, ed. G. Wolde, in Friedrich Schleiermachers Smmtliche
Werke, vol. I/8 (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1845), 5562. (Hereafter referred to as SW.)
BO 83 (47).
According to Schleiermacher, there is no strict boundary between canoni-
cal and extra-canonical material because the boundary that separates them is
unclear in terms both of historical limits and of the apostolicity of its authors.
Both factors contribute to an uncertain outer boundary of the canon. BO 106
(59). In my view, Schleiermachers position on the unclear limits is due to his
privileging of the experience behind the text, rather than the texts dignity itself,
that holds for non-canonical material as well. On this basis, material criteria
need then to be dened in order to distinguish between a canonical record of the
experience and a non-canonical one.
30 Christine Helmer
The dierentiation between text and subject matter represents
a crucial shift in understanding the relation of text to its critical
investigation. In the early nineteenth century, Schleier macher
saw the challenge posed by historical and natural-scientic
theories against a supernaturalistic view of biblical inspiration
and an inspired canonical text. To salvage an aspect of Chris-
tianity against its cultured despisers, Schleiermacher takes its
inner re to be both the subject matter of theology as well
as the referent of scripture (see John 5: 39). The inner power
of Christianity is the experiential factor funding the unity of
the Christian tradition as a whole, and urging its communication
in speech and text. As a result, all communication is an inter-
pretation of that experience. The literary canon does not stand
as revealed fact over and against the tradition of its interpreta-
tion, as is the case with Protestant Orthodoxy. Rather, the New
Testament presupposes [f]aith in Gods revelation in Christ
before a peculiar authority can be granted to Holy Scripture.
As such, the New Testament is the rst member in the series
whose normativity rests on its capacity to contribut[e] to the
Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Second Letter to Dr Lcke, in On
the Glaubenslehre, trans. James Duke and Francis Fiorenza, AAR Texts and
Translations Series, no. 3 (Chico, Calif.: Scholars Press, 1988), 608. On her-
meneutical grounds, Schleiermacher criticizes Protestant Orthodoxys super-
naturalistic claims of a holy text inspired by the Holy Spirit for all time. See
Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics and Criticism, 53, 57, 59, 81, 86, 1301, 149.
The evocative term is taken from the Speeches. Friedrich Schleiermacher,
On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers, ed. and trans. Richard Crouter,
Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, 2000), 99 (Fifth Speech).
You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal
life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. The New Oxford Annotated Bible:
New Revised Standard Version, ed. Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).
Schleiermacher, The Second Letter to Dr Lcke, 66.
On biblical texts as interpretation see Kristin De Troyer, The Letter of
the King and the Letter of Mordecai, Textus 21 (2002): 1878; ead., Septuagint
and Gender Studies: The Very Beginning of a Promising Liaison, in Athalya
Brenner and Carole Fontaine, eds., A Feminist Companion to Reading the Bible:
Approaches, Methods and Strategies (Sheeld: Sheeld Academic Press, 1997),
3347.
Schleiermacher, The Second Letter to Dr Lcke, 65.
CF 128, proposition (591).
CF 129, proposition (594).
original, and therefore for all times normative, presentation
of Christianity. The given literary canon establishes the par-
ameters of the churchs original apprehensions of Christ without
which no Christian community can exist. The text xes these
parameters, not by identity with experience or revelation, but
in view of its reference to an experience identical for the entire
tradition. On the basis of this textsubject matter dierentiation,
the text can be the object of critical investigation, the study of the
subjective construals of an experience that critical methods can-
not falsify.
Although this relation between text and subject matter circum-
vents the diculties associated with supernaturalist doctrines,
it presents its own exegetical-theological diculty. With the
distinction, the problem of a historical gap arises. It was Her-
mann Samuel Reimarus (16941768) who problematized the
gap between Jesus and the New Testament record, and it was
his research, that although naive, provided a clear impetus for
an entire generation of nineteenth-century scholarly attempts to
solve the synoptic problem. In the Fragments, published post-
humously by the librarian at Wolfenbttel, Gotthold Ephraim
Lessing (172981), Reimarus attempted to falsify Christianity
by exposing the contradictions in the New Testament gospels to
be a record of deception by Jesus disciples. Although Reimarus
understood Jesus own message to be an ethical one, his disciples
falsied it by adding supernaturalistic claims. For the next
genera tion of New Testament scholarship, Reimarus succeeded
in posing the distinct problem of gospel harmony in the con-
text of the possibility of historical research to falsify theological
claims concerning the necessary connection between Christ and
his disciples.
BO 103 (58).
For no Christian communion will admit that any such body can exist apart
from witness to Christ. CF 127, 1 (586).
John S. Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the
Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000), 275.
Lessing published the Fragmente des Wolfenbttelschen Ungennanten
between 1774 and 1778 (Berlin: In der Sanderschen Buchhandlung (C. M.
Eichho) ). In English: Fragments, ed. Charles H. Talbert, trans. Ralph S.
Fraser, Lives of Jesus Series (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970). For a detailed sum-
mary of Reimaruss position and the ensuing discussion of the synoptic prob-
lem, see Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q, 275328.
32 Christine Helmer
The possibility of historical falsication also motivated
Schleier machers own research into the synoptic problem. If the
canon, on Schleiermachers terms, refers to a transhistorically
common Christian experience, then the continuity between
Jesus appearance in history, the disciples eorts in founding
the church, and the New Testament record of these activities re-
quires historical justication. Along with other New Testament
scholars of the time, Johann Gottfried Eichhorn (17521827),
Heinrich Eberhard Gottlob Paulus (17611851), Johann Jakob
Griesbach (17451812), and Johann Leonhard Hug (17651846),
Schleiermacher attempted to ll the lag time between Christ and
the New Testament with a history of gospel sources and their
relations of dependence. With such a study, Schleiermacher
aimed to prove that nothing essential to Christianity had been
lost, and that no signicant distorting element had been added
in the process of text xation. As apostles of the church, the dis-
ciples founded it in obedience to and in continuity with Christs
injunctions. And in spite of their less than sophisti cated liter-
ary talents, the disciples were not so ignorant as to plunge all of
Christianity into error. Thus exegetical theologys search for
the original links between Christ and text is intended to guaran-
tee that the earliest production of Christianitys ideas was not
tainted by deception.
Schleiermacher presents his theory of gospel dependence in his Com-
mentary on Luke (1817) and in his commentary of the Papias-Fragment (1832).
Schleiermacher proposes a collection of Jesus sayings (Matt. 57; 10; 13: 152;
18; 23) together with a narrative source proto-Mark behind Matthew. In view
of dating, Matthew is the rst gospel, and Mark is the nal gospel that borrows
from both Matthew and Luke. See Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q, 2957,
and Christine Helmer, Schleiermachers Exegetical Theology and the New
Testament, in Cambridge Companion to Schleiermacher, ed. Jacqueline Maria
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming).
Friedrich Schleiermacher, The Life of Jesus, ed. and intro. Jack C.
Verheyden, trans. S. MacLean Gilmour, Lives of Jesus Series (Philadelphia:
Augsburg Fortress, 1975; reprint, Miintown: Sigler, 1997), 224. (Hereafter
referred to as LJ.)
If these writers belong to the class of the rst preachers of the Gospel
they were penetrated by its principles in an important way; it is precisely they
who made it possible for Christianity to take its particular place in the world, so
one should assume better of them. Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics and Criticism,
153.
Although it was Reimaruss challenge that propelled
nineteenth-century gospels research, it was Johann Salomo
Semler (172591) who rst undertook a historical study of the
canons formation. Professor at the University of Halle during
Schleiermachers studies there, Semler wrote a controversial
Abhandlung von freier Untersuchung des Canon (17715), a his-
tory of the canon that paved the way for dismantling Protestant
Orthodoxys supernaturalistic doctrine of the canon as verbally
inspired. Arguing from historical evidence, Semler showed that
neither was the Christian canon accepted uniformly by all early
churches, nor were all books included in the canon received as
such by the early Christian communities. Rather, a variety of
canons were circulated in the early church, and only through a
complex process of selection and sifting was the collection that
came to be regarded as canonical put together.
If Semler used historical arguments to falsify doctrinal claims
of the canons catholicity, then he also placed its twin, aposto-
licity, in jeopardy. Semler left this task to Schleiermacher who
hammered out his own ground-breaking work on deuteropauline
scholarship, criticizing the apostolic authorship of 1 Timothy in
a detailed philological analysis of this book, which had until then
been regarded as the work of the Apostle Paul. By comparing
the letter with Pauls speeches in Acts, as well as with two other
letters attributed to Paul, Titus, and 2 Timothy, Schleiermacher
concluded that 1 Timothy could not have Paul as its author, but
was a compilation of Titus (chapters 13) and 2 Timothy from
chapter four, dated to the end of the rst century i. With this
An abridged edition is: Johann Salomo Semler, Abhandlung von freier
Untersuchung des Canon, ed. Heinz Scheible, Texte zur Kirchen- und Theo-
logiegeschichte, no. 5 (Gtersloh: Gtersloher Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, 1967).
Ibid., esp. 7181.
For a study of Schleiermachers contribution to deuteropauline schol-
arship see Hermann Patsch, Die Angst vor dem Deuteropaulinismus: Die
Rezeption des kritischen Sendschreibens Friedrich Schleiermachers ber
den 1. Timotheusbrief im ersten Jahrfnft, Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche
88 (1991): 45177.
Friedrich Schleiermacher, Ueber den sogenannten ersten Brief des Paulos
an den Timotheos (1807), ed. Hermann Patsch, in Kritische Gesamtausgabe, vol.
I/5 (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1995), 153242. (Hereafter referred
to as KGA.)
34 Christine Helmer
critical work, Schleiermacher contributed his own insights to
the history of canon research.
Although he demonstrates the historical shakiness of the
canons apostolicity, Schleiermacher considers the New Testa-
ment authors to be essential for determining the canon. Exegeti-
cal theologys task is to study an authors grasp of an experience
held in common with other writers that is communicated accord-
ing to the writers respective principle of individuality. Coun-
tering Reimaruss criticism against the texts lack of veracity,
Schleier macher claims that the New Testament documents
contain the purest record of Christianitys essence at its origins
and hence are to be considered more or less reliable texts, even
though some, like Matthew or Luke, are redacted at consider-
able distance from Christ. By studying individual expressions
of authors through an analysis of genreof which there are two
in the New Testament, historical and didacticand language,
Schleier macher aims to gain a clearer understanding of an iden-
tical experience compelling manifold expressions. This task is
accom plished by applying the hermeneutical method that has
as its goal the correct understanding of the authorial intention
under lying a work as its unity. In his Hermeneutics and Criti -
cism, Schleier macher uses the psychological interpretation (which
must not in any way be privileged over the grammatical interpre-
tation either as a transcendental unity in Diltheys sense or as a
fusion of horizons in Gadamers sense) to tease out the authors
tend ency (Tendenz), the unity of a work that reects the authors
apprehension of the manifestation of Christianitys essence at
its original site of appearance: in the person and work of Jesus.
See Schleiermachers LJ 3644, and Hermeneutics and Criticism, 1456.
Ibid., 74.
In the opening denition of his Hermeneutics and Criticism, Schleiermacher
makes clear that the hermeneutical goal is not just understanding but correct
understanding. The former (hermeneutics) is generally the art of understanding
particularly the written discourse of another person correctly. Schleiermacher,
Hermeneutics and Criticism, 3.
Timothy Clancy, SJ, Introduction to Schleiermachers Hermeneutics,
unpublished paper, 28.
In part the individuality of the N.T. writers is initially a product of
their relationship to Christ, in part, as far as Paul and John, who are the more
individual by nature, are concerned, one of them completely changed . . . the
In light of the whole, the parts of the work are investigated in
order to distinguish the canonical from the non- canonical. The
search for the canon at the origins of Christianity is precisely the
hermeneutical determination of the New Testament authors
own subjective construal of Christs redemptive work that
resides as an original intention driving the resulting literary
expression. This is a task that, although never entirely exhausted,
can succeed in grasp[ing] ever more completely the life they [the
authors] have in common, the being and the spirit of Christ.
Once the many individual construals of identical experience are
gleaned from the New Testament text, they can then be used as
a source base for reconstructing one aspect to the canons unity
behind the text: the life of Jesus.
If one aspect of the search for the canon is to study the New
Testament authors apprehensions of an object, then another
aspect is to establish an objective unity for those subjective con-
struals. It is such a project that Schleiermacher realizes in his
reconstruction of the Life of Jesus. Schleiermacher was the rst
theologian to oer public lectures on the life of Jesus, lectures
which were unfortunately published in 1864, right before David
Friedrich Strausss (180874) devastating critique the following
year. Although Schleiermachers own endeavour stands in the
line of critical re with such Straussian criticisms as an ahistori-
cal psychologically portrayed Jesus who has remarkable anities
with Schleiermachers own dogmatically reconstructed Christ,
the Life of Jesus lectures are a key piece in Schleiermachers
understanding of the canons unity as its common referent. The
lectures aim is to glean a coherent biography of Christ from the
diverse apprehensions of him. Such a biography would consist
other obviously came young to Christ and only developed his individuality as a
Christian. Ibid., 52.
For this interpretation, I am reading BO 10613 (5963) in light of more
explicit remarks in the Hermeneutics and Criticism on the identity of the referent
in the New Testament.
Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics and Criticism, 157.
Verheyden, Introduction to Schleiermachers Life of Jesus, xi. Strausss
criticism from 1865 is, in English: David Friedrich Strauss, The Christ of
Faith and the Jesus of History: A Critique of Schleiermachers The Life of Jesus,
ed., trans., and intro. by Leander E. Keck, Lives of Jesus Series (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1977).
The task (of biography) is to grasp what is inward in the man with such
36 Christine Helmer
of a calculus of Christs personal existence as the unity consti-
tuting his individuality as it is manifest throughout his dierent
life moments. Christs person behind the gospel texts is the ob-
ject of hermeneuticalboth grammatical and psychological
operation. On the basis of Jesus biography, Schleier macher
trusts that he can draw out the soteriological implications of the
Redeemers person in history. It is after all Christs person and
particularly his potent God-consciousness that Schleiermacher
considers to be the transhistorical means of redemption. If the
transhistorical unity of the canon is related to the person of Jesus,
then a reconstruction of the person behind the New Testa-
ment would isolate features of that person that have shaped and
continue to shape the Christian consciousness of redemption.
Accord ing to Schleiermachers own analysis, these features are
most powerfully exhibited in Johns gospel. The coherence of
Johns text reveals the immediate impact of Christs person that
Schleiermacher deems to be most relevant when reconstructing
an experience common to the history of Christianity.
The question of how the diversity of sometimes opposing
certainty that it can be said: I can say with a measure of assurance how what is
outward with respect to the man would have been if what aected him and also
what he aected had been dierent than was actually the case. LJ 8.
I am deliberately applying Schleiermachers hermeneutical strategy to
his understanding of the person of Jesus in order to make the claim that, for
Schleiermacher, hermeneutics has not the text as such but its author as the sub-
ject of enquiry.
According to Schleiermacher, the literary coherence of a biblical work is
a function of the immediacy by which an author experiences an event. Based
on this rule, Schleiermacher regards John to be the New Testament author
most proximate to Christ. Deemed an immediate eyewitness (LJ 171), John
writes a unied literary composition (LJ 37, 43, 171) in clear view of a precise
tendency: the tension between the catastrophic outcome of Jesus life and the
nature of his activity (LJ 159). The question as to why biblical books tend to
carry the name of an alleged authorMoses as the author of the Pentateuch
notwithstandingis a fruitful one for the study of the canon. Although actually
assigned authorship is historically debatable, alleged authorship could be read
in Schleiermachers sense of attributing coherence to an individuals experience
behind the text. Trobischs book explores the signicance of alleged author-
ship as a function of redaction in view of the New Testament canons formation.
See David Trobisch, The First Edition of the New Testament (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2000), 4566.
voices in the New Testament can be reconciled with unity is
the question regarding the collection as a whole. As one work, the
New Testament reects yet another dimension to the question
of the canons unity. In view of its referent, the New Testa ment
presupposes relative identity, as Schleiermachers reconstruc-
tive harmonization of the gospels in the life of Jesus shows. The
collection as a whole, however, points to the added hermeneuti-
cal task of determining the unity of the text in view of under-
standing its parts. Schleiermachers hermeneutical method of
understanding the part in view of the whole and conversely, the
whole in view of the part, aims to tease out the texture, con-
tours, and emphases of canonically signicant as well as mar-
ginal ideas. In his own work, Schleiermacher privileges Johns
relevance for the biographical component by (erroneous) histor-
ical argument and argues for Pauls primacy among the didactic
writings. The collection has its own topography of a dierenti-
ated unity that is to be critically investigated.
This exercise in understanding has its theological rationale.
The exegetical task is justied by a theological claim hooking
the canon to the transhistorical experience of the church. At
this juncture, Schleiermacher articulates a position that appears
surprising in the face of his repeated rejection of a supernatural-
istic text understanding. To explain how canon and tradition
are continuous in view of identity, Schleiermacher refers to the
Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the unifying principle behind the
canon as a collection. And not only the canon, but the entire
tradition is gathered under the aegis of the Spirit. The Holy
On two very dierent soteriological conceptions in the New Testament, one
by Paul, another by the author of Matthews gospel, see the section Dierences
between New Testament Texts of Landmessers chapter, Interpretative Unity
of the New Testament, in this volume. Even Schleiermacher acknowledges
that the diversity in the New Testament poses a diculty for grasping its unity.
See his Hermeneutics and Criticism, 80.
Ibid., 149, 152. On the wholepart hermeneutical method in Gadamer and
Schleiermacher see Nicholas Wolterstors chapter, The Unity Behind the
Canon, in this volume.
Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics and Criticism, 49.
It is the Spirit to whom Schleiermacher ascribes the writing of the original
documents and their compilation into a collection. Scripture, however, as we
actually have iteach single book and the whole collection as a treasure pre-
served for all later generations of the Churchis invariably a work of the Holy
38 Christine Helmer
Spirits activity to lead in all truth, as Schleiermacher fondly
cites John 16: 13, is to be taken as the principle that connects
the New Testament with the canons openness to the living
tradition of Christianity. It is the same principle that enlivens
the New Testament authors and all subsequent believers in
the churchs history. When considered in light of the canon
tradition continuity, Schleiermachers pneumatological argu-
ment is not surprising but exhibitive of his understanding that
the unity of the whole must be attributed to a unity-shaping
power that continues to render Christ to every generation of
believers. In consequence, it is trust, not anxiety, that charac-
terizes Schleier machers position on the canons capacity to
com municate an experience that remains the same through trans-
historical plurality.
By distinguishing text from, yet also relating it to subject
matter, the biblical canon is opened up to exegetical- theological
investigation. Although open, it is still understood to have a
unity. On the one hand, unity is imposed upon the text and upon
the tradition that the text shapes by a referent behind the text.
On the other hand, this referent is accessible through the text that
is the literary product of individual subjective apprehensions of
Spirit as the common spirit of the Church . . . Scripture now stands by itself, for
its preservation unchanged guarantees in a special manner the identity of our
witness to Christ with that originally given. CF 127, 2 (588). In his detailed
historical-theological study of the canon as seen through the churchs history,
William Abraham makes a compelling argument for a theological understand-
ing of canon as a challenge to the stagnation of the discussion in epistemological
questions. On this analysis, the canonical heritage should be seen as a network
of means of grace given by God to be received through the working of the Holy
Spirit . . . Furthermore, it is one element in a rich tapestry of materials, per-
sons, and practices which are to function together in harmony for the welfare
of the Church and for the salvation of the world. William J. Abraham, Canon
and Criterion in Christian Theology: From the Fathers to Feminism (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1998), 4778.
CF 149, 1 (678).
Schleiermacher agrees with Benjamin D. Sommers remarks regarding the
similarity between a Jewish and a Roman Catholic understanding of the unity
between scripture and tradition. See the Introduction to Sommers chapter,
Unity and Plurality in Jewish Canons: The Case of the Oral and Written
Torahs, in this volume.
Landmesser uses the terminology of unity-shaping potential, aspect, or
eect in his chapter Interpretative Unity of the New Testament in this volume.
that referent. Finally, the unity of the entire collection is open
to construal by exegetical theology for the purpose of determin-
ing features of Christianitys self-same essence. These features
continue to play a role in the systematic-theological view of the
canons unity to which I now turn.
UNITY OF THE CANON FROM A
SYSTEMATIC-THEOLOGICAL
PERSPECTIVE
If the search for the canon determines the predicates of the
Christian essence accounting for the production of ideas through-
out church history, then systematic theology too has a role in this
endeavour. While exegetical theology looks for the canons predi-
cates at the churchs origins, systematic theologys search for
the canon works in synchrony with exegetical study and focuses
its view from the perspective of the contemporary church. In
this section, I study how a systematic-theological perspective
appeals to the unity of the canon through the process of verifying
theological claims. I conclude by suggesting how the unity of the
canon can help diverse theologies coexist in a state of a mutual
correction of each others inevitably one-sided positions.
The systematic-theological perspective shapes answers to
questions concerning the canons unity in ways that dier from
its exegetical-theological counterpart. If exegetical theology aims
to get at the subject matter of the New Testament texts in order
to account for the production of ideas at the origins of Christian-
ity, then systematic theology justies the doctrinal xing of ideas
for the contemporary context. Schleiermacher assigns the tem-
poral distinction for the two tasks of exegetical and systematic
theology by virtue of the historicity characterizing a positive reli-
gion. In order to determine a religions canon, its manifestations
through time must be empirically investigated in relation to a
speculative determination of the religions essence. That essence
is historically manifest in three general time-frames, each the
distinct object of a historical-theological sub-discipline. The
Schleiermacher organizes the three sub-disciplines of historical theology
in view of church leadership as the external organizing principle for theology as
a positive science. Although he orders the historical-theological sub- disciplines
chronologically, Schleiermacher privileges the dogmatic-theological task of
40 Christine Helmer
original manifestation is exegetical theologys purview; church
history has the grand view of the time between origins and
present; while systematic theologys subject is the knowledge
of doctrine that now has currency in the evangelical Church.
The historical range of the Christian religion presupposes the
continuity of the essence throughout its diverse appearances.
For Schleiermacher, continuity is guaranteed by the person and
work of Christ to whom no one, not even the biblical authors,
has privileged access. It is the same Christ who, as a historical
person according to either his bodily or his spiritual mode of
existence, is present through the literary or oral apprehensions
of him that are circulated in the church. With this paradigm
that stresses access to the same subject matter at dierent tem-
poral sites, questions regarding the relation between systematic
theology and exegetical theology are posed. This relation is not
one of constructing a hermeneutical bridge from past to present.
This would be the case if the subject matter available in the past
needed to be transmitted in some form to the present. Rather,
the systematic-theological privileging of a contemporary access
to the subject matter is related to exegetical-theological results
in a process of verication.
Verication (Bewhrung) characterizes Schleiermachers
systematic-theological use of the canon. It is a procedure of
relating systematic theology to exegetical theology that Schleier-
macher develops in order to counteract the proof-texting method
(dicta probantia) of Protestant Orthodoxy. The Protestant Ortho-
dox presupposition concerning semantic equality between
simi lar terms uttered in dierent historical locations could no
longer be held true in a historical-critical age that acknowledged
knowing the present-day church for the purpose of church leadership. It is
from the present-tense perspective that he situates knowledge of the origins of
Christianity and the past history of the church as the knowledge concerning how
the present church has actually come to be. See BO 26 (16).
BO 195 (97). While I use the term systematic theology to denote the
con temporary discipline, Schleiermacher prefers the term dogmatic theology
because it connotes a historical rather than a speculative meaning. For Schleier-
machers discussion of his choice see BO 195 (989).
According to Schleiermacher, the bodily presence of Christ has the same
redemptive ecacy as his spiritual presence. See CF 105, 1 (467), and CF
108, 5 (4902).
semantic dierence as a function of historical dierence. Bib-
lical authority could not be justied by semantic equivocation
because linguistic similarity did not necessarily reect similarity
in meaning. In light of arising consensus on this point, Schleier-
macher proposes another way of connecting contemporary doc-
trinal statements to biblical passages that moves beyond literary
proof to semantic verication.
If verication amid semantic dierence is to proceed, then it
requires accounting for the identity between dierent linguistic
construals of a subject matter. In Schleiermachers thought, dif-
ference and identity are related to the continuum between lan-
guage and thought on the one hand, and language and subject
matter on the other hand. Hermeneutical study aims to capture
authorial intention by retracing the steps of how thought is com-
pleted in language. Yet each linguistic xing of a thought also re-
ects an intentional grasping of a subject matter. Language itself
concretizes authorial intention through its intentional relation
to reality. The complex of language, authorial intention, and in-
tentionality to reality is already exhibited in the New Testament
text. Each author articulates a distinct apprehension of Christs
person and work of redemption in language. Furthermore, this
complex can be used to describe any communication of a reli-
gious experience, whether it is transhistorical or contempora-
neous in a community. A transhistorical experience establishes
the intentional identication of apprehensions, while distinc-
tiveness is a function of the unique authorial intention of each
communicator. For exegetical-theological study and systematic-
theological appropriation of exegetical study, testing compares
literary xings in view of dierence and identity to determine
For one example of Schleiermachers polemic against the dicta probantia
method see his Hermeneutics and Criticism, 86, 1301.
This is my summary of what I consider to be the essential points in
Schleiermachers Hermeneutics and Criticism. A theological claim, such as the
one articulated by John Webster, that the Christian canon as an element in the
triuneand especially Christological-pneumatologicalreality of Gods saving
self-communication, requires a philosophical explanation regarding the rela-
tion between the canon as a product of authorial intention and the canons role in
the dispensation of grace in order to facilitate a fruitful discussion between bib-
lical scholars and theologians. See John Webster, The Dogmatic Location of
the Canon, Neue Zeitschrift fr systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie
43/1 (2001): 40.
42 Christine Helmer
whether the articulated apprehension is genuine or false. By
testing a religious experience against others, one determines if
that experience is either an accidental aberration or a genuine
variant of the possibilities set in the respective religions founda-
tional documents. Rather than comparing linguistic similarity,
the authors grasp of the subject matter is veried with other
apprehensions of the same event in order to see if it is a variant
of those made possible on the grounds of the New Testament.
By this approach, Schleiermacher guarantees the identity of the
tradition at the level of experience through opening up language
to many individual ways of xing that experience. Verication
is an inevitability of communication that looks for identity amid
diversity. And in order for verication to occur, the canon must
itself be grasped as a unity.
A contemporary grasp of the canon presupposes subjective
access to the same transhistorical subject matter reected in the
canon. A biblical authors grasp of the subject matter is simi-
lar to one of a contemporary theological system, yet the latter
must exhibit a more explicit principle of coherence. In the Brief
Outline, Schleiermacher indicates that a coherent presentation
of doctrine requires that its author have a personal conviction
of the truth, or in other words, an existential immediacy to the
subject matter. This inward certainty is the personal grasp
of the religions subject matter that underlies any discursive
reection on its content. For Christians, personal conviction,
according to Schleiermacher, is faith in Christ, elicited
through feeling under the inuence of Christs perfect God-
consciousness. Christs redeeming impact is one that re-
fashions individuality at the level of its integrity. Redemption
is a process of re-creating the new person by intensifying God-
consciousness as it is manifest in temporal moments of thinking
and doing. The selfs coherence that is soteriologically supplied
by an encounter with Christ is common to both contemporary
authors of Christian systematic theology and the New Testa-
BO 196 (99). This dovetails with the denition of faith provided in CF
14, 1 (689).
We . . . presuppose . . . that every Christian . . . has already the inward
certainty that his religion cannot take any other form than this. CF 11, 5 (60).
CF 14, 1 (68). See the christology section of CF 968 (391417).
For a detailed discussion of the selfs psychological coherence as soterio-
ment authors. Nevertheless, a systematic-theological perspec-
tive diers from a New Testament outlook because its principle
of coherence is informed by a grasp of the spirit of its own age.
For systematic-theological coherence, the selfs coherence to-
gether with an insight into the contemporary spirit constitute
the principle of coherence that endows a discursive systematic-
theological presentation with its unique individual stamp. It is
such a presentation that is related to the canon as a unity.
In order for verication of a systematic-theological proposal
to proceed, individual access to the subject matter must also be
related to a subjective grasp of the canon. It is in his lectures on
Practical Theology that Schleiermacher hints at the signicance
of this relation. He writes that scripture is given as a system
of inter-relations [das Zusammenhngende] and the living use of
scripture is given only in these inter-relations [im Zusammen-
hang]. For Schleiermacher, the isolated use of individual pas-
sages detracts from their meaning, which is available only within
the whole canonical milieu. It seems that this claim reects more
than a hermeneutical strategy of understanding the part through
knowledge of the whole. What Schleiermacher seems to be
suggesting is that the meaning of the text is contained in and
revealed through the diversity of these accounts of religious ex-
perience. These experiences are kept alive by being communi-
cated. A grasp of the canonical whole is access to the livingness of
its referent, which itself is comprehended according to the same
principle of coherence as a systematic-theological proposal. It is
a process of dialogue with a living tradition that facilitates a com-
prehension of the whole through the experience of the present.
This idea of Schleiermachers can be concretized with the
example of his own intention to use John 1: 14 as the coherence
logical eect see Christine Helmer, Systematic Theology: Beautifully True,
in Christine Helmer and Kristin De Troyer, with Katie Goetz, eds., Truth:
Interdisciplinary Dialogues in a Pluralist Age, Studies in Philosophical Theology,
no. 22 (Leuven: Peeters, 2003), 2746.
Schleiermacher uses the terminology of dominant principle of the period
in BO 200 (101). The individual grasp of this dominant principle establishes
the contemporary relevance of a system of theology.
Friedrich Schleiermacher, Die praktische Theologie nach den Grundstzen
der evangelischen Kirche, in SW I/13 (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1850), 393. (Hereafter
referred to as PTh.)
44 Christine Helmer
principle structuring The Christian Faith. According to
Schleier machers aim, his understanding of the whole is crystal-
lized in the one Johannine passage of John 1: 14, a claim that
dovetails with Schleiermachers own canonical privileging of
John as Jesus most proximate disciple on the basis of the gos-
pels literary coherence. Although his appeal to John is hardly
supported by historical-critical consensus, Schleiermacher bases
his own systematic-theological coherence principle on his evalu-
ation of Johns primacy in the New Testament to capture the
life of the Christian spirit. The unity of Schleiermachers system
of theology dovetails with the unity of his construal of the New
Testament canon. The subjective unity of the theological sys-
tem can be veried by a construal of the canons unity because
both refer to an identical transhistorical subject matter.
So far it might seem that verication is more like a systematic-
theological conrmation of the same principle in the canons
unity. In order to truly verify systematic theology by the canon,
however, there must then be some appeal to a more objectively
derived unity of the canon that would show up agreement or dis-
agreement. What is meant by objective unity is, rst of all, the
unity of the text resulting from exegetical- theological study.
I would have wished to construct the work (CF) so that at every point
the reader would be made aware that the verse John 1: 14 is the basic text for
all dogmatics, just as it should be for the conduct of the ministry as a whole.
Schleiermacher, The Second Letter to Dr Lcke, 59. For a detailed essay
describing Schleiermachers system of theology in view of John 1: 14 see Eugene
F. Rogers, Jr., Schleiermacher as an Anselmian Theologian: Aesthetics,
Dogmatics, Apologetics and Proof , Scottish Journal of Theology 51/3 (1998):
34279. See footnote 75.
Jenson mentions the correlation between a system of theology and scrip-
ture as a whole in view of verication. Finally, a system of theology, such as
will here be presented, is tested against Scripture by its success or failure as a
hermeneutical principle for Scripture taken as a whole, as one great text with a
very complex internal structure. Robert W. Jenson, Systematic Theology, i: The
Triune God (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 33. (Italics in original text.)
In his Hermeneutics and Criticism, Schleiermacher writes of objective and
subjective unity in the context of understanding a text. The objective unity lies
in the relationship between object and form (114) while subjective unity as a
unity which goes beyond that unity [the objective unity] is the intention of the
will of the author, through which material and form come together (115). In the
PTh, Schleiermacher also writes of objective and subjective unity. Objective
unity is that through which every individual part of the unity is connected just
Here, an exegetically derived unity based on a controlled study
of the text serves as the rod against which the subjectively de-
rived unity of a systematic-theological proposal is tested. A case
in point is Schleiermachers understanding of Johns function
for the whole of the New Testament, which did not agree with
the exegetical consensus of his time. Another objective unity
is the ecclesially determined unity of the textual canon. When
Luther rejects James among the chief books of the canon on
the apostolic criterion of conveying Christ, he does not prevent
anyone from including or extolling him [ James] as he pleases,
for the reason that the book contains many good sayings.
Luthers argument amounts precisely to an acknowledgement
of some reason for retaining James according to traditions con-
sensus.
If the objective unity of exegetical theology safeguards against
systematic-theological imposition, then another aspect of this
unity is implied by any systematic-theological grasp of unity.
The canon itself generates ideas through the tradition. Although
the textually xed canon has led to the predominance of some
ideas over others and has privileged some ideas at the expense
of others, it has also served as the source of common principles
objectively uniting the plural voices of the tradition. This objec-
tive unity is reected in the comprehensiveness that is required
for systematic theology in a way that it is not for exegetical theo-
logy. Complexity is introduced into Christianitys historical
trajectory after its New Testament origins and this fact must be
evident in a system of theology that seeks to propose one posi-
tion in view of others. Although Schleiermacher did not deepen
this insight into how the evolving tradition contributes to the
whole of a historical series, he claims comprehensiveness to
be a signicant criterion for systematic theology. The com-
prehensiveness criterion informs the verication procedure by
to this whole and that which is put together in this and in no other way while
subjective unity is the innermost germ of self-active productivity from which
it becomes a whole (222).
On the historical priority of John, Schleiermacher disagreed with Karl
Bretschneider, who in 1820 published a book, Probabilia, which assigned a late
date to John. See Verheyden, Introduction, xxxi.
Luther, Preface to the Epistles of St James and St Jude, in LW 33: 397.
BO 201 (102).
46 Christine Helmer
indicating how church history is the drama behind which the
divine agent holds together its unity. The identity between
an exegetical-theological construal of the whole of its referent
and the systematic-theological subjective whole construing the
traditions comprehensiveness is veried by the New Testament
canon, which is itself related to the principle behind the tradi-
tion. As comparison, verication shows that the original canon
contains the parameters that are open to ongoing experiences of
the guiding principle behind the text. The canon is not a life-
less possession but is the ground of the church that renews it-
self in the same spirit of agreement with the original witness to
Christ.
As both a subjective and objective unity, the canon is used
for systematic-theological verication. Systematic theology re-
quires the whole of the canon, its textures, its diverse positions,
and its important dierences. As a whole, it veries whether the
contemporary subjective grasp of the whole is produced by the
same essence. This verication points to an objective dimension
regarding the continuity of the referent of authorial intention.
Yet the sameness is understood as open to a manifold of indi-
viduality introduced by each subjective grasp of the unity on the
basis of its own principles of coherence and comprehensiveness.
From present to past, rather than from past to present, the veri-
cation procedure establishes the novelty of the present to be in
a unity with the past while noting the uniqueness of both. And
through this process, it establishes the continued relevance of
the religions foundational texts. By accounting for unity among
a diversity of perspectives, the ongoing process of verication
places the canon at the intersection of biblical interpretation and
the articulation of Christian doctrine. It is the verication pro-
cedure itself that contributes liveliness to the tradition.
There is, however, one perspective that Schleiermacher re-
jected, one that has rightly elicited much criticism. In view
of Christian faith and morals, Schleiermacher dismissed the
canoni cal status of the Old Testament. He argues that with the
novel experience introduced into world history that is tied to
For a detailed description of the canons unity established by the triune
God behind the text and history see Eilert Herms, Was haben wir an der
Bibel? Versuch einer Theologie des christlichen Kanons, Jahrbuch fr Biblische
Theologie 12 (1997): 99152. CF 127, 2 (588).
the total impression of Jesus of Nazareth, the Old Testament
is rendered obsolete. Rather than containing any canonical
content for the verication of Christian doctrine, the sole use
for the Old Testament in Christian theology is as a hermeneuti-
cal aid in understanding the new against the backdrop of the
Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew languages as well as the religious
concepts of ancient Judaism. The problem with Schleier-
machers position has to do with the way he determines the cen-
tral perspectives of both Christianity and Judaism that he then
templates onto the two testaments of the Christian Bible. Accord-
ing to Schleiermacher, Christianitys essence is tied to the
historical appearance of Christ that is to be conceptually distin-
guished from Judaism. Schleiermachers conceptual distinc-
tion, however, seems to overrule any historical argument for the
continuity between Judaism and Christianity. It seems that
for Schleiermacher, a privileging of the conceptual novelty of
Christianity precludes any historical explanation from the prior
series of Judaism and it is this novelty that is then turned into the
argument for the close relation between Christ and the produc-
tion of the New Testament text.
There is justiable scholarly consensus regarding the unten-
ability of Schleiermachers position on the Old Testament for
Christian theology. It is, however, possible to argue that Schleier-
machers idea of the canon can be extended to include the Old
Testament for a determination of the transhistorical essence of
By emphasizing that the image is the conveyer of Christ rather than a
discursive concept, Schleiermacher points out the soteriological ecacy in
immediate self-consciousness of the total impression of Christ. The term total
impression is found in CF 14, postscript (76) and CF 99, postscript (423).
Schleiermacher believes that with the immediate experience of Christ, the
Old Testament can no longer function as a source of faith (CF 132, 3 (611) ), and
as a warrant for the more speculative doctrines of the inner-trinitarian relations
and Christs pre-existence (CF 170, 3 (741) ). Schleiermachers own position
on the Old Testament and on Judaism must be dierentiated according to the
argumentative strands (political, philosophical, ecclesial, biblical, theological).
A reconstruction of his position would help to clarify the multiple issues and
oer criticism against those aspects which are not acceptable in contemporary
scholarship on this subject.
BO 12831 (6870) and 1404 (735).
Schleiermacher, On Religion, 11315 (Fifth Speech).
See the famous remark in ibid., 114 (Fifth Speech): I hate that type of
historical reference in religion.
48 Christine Helmer
Christianity. The notion of a transhistorical subject matter be-
hind the text can be used to account for the continuity between
the two testaments that is established in dierent dispensations
by the same divine referent. It was Calvin who, by emphasiz-
ing typological exegesis, and Luther who, by using a nominal-
ist semantics, argued for the relation between a self-same divine
referent and dierent historical dispensations of the same eter-
nal benets. In contemporary biblical theology, both Childs
and Janowski show that the one God, identical for both religious
traditions of Judaism and Christianity, is represented dierently
according to the two possible outcomes of the Hebrew Bible: in
the rabbinic tradition for Judaism and in the New Testament for
Christianity. The notion of a transhistorical subject can func-
tion to open up the range of experiences of the divine to a diver-
sity of apprehensions. Subjective construals reect the creativity
of Gods activity that continues to surprise with the new while
remaining faithful to the constancy of the divine way of being.
The systematic-theological account of the canons unity pre-
sented here is designed to appreciate a multiplicity of ways in
engaging the canon on the same transhistorical ground. On the
ground of agreement, room is made for individual construals of
the subject matter, for dierent linguistic articulations of those
apprehensions, and even for a variety of systems of theology.
From a systematic-theological perspective, the unity of the
canon does not push for uniformity but invites plurality.
A gesture towards such plurality is already signalled in the
Bible itself. The early churchs decision to include two testa-
ments in its one Bible, the major and minor prophets with their
distinct messages, the four gospels, and the many didactic letters,
exhibits a privileging of plurality within the collection itself. In
the history of the church, it is precisely a truncated canon that has
elicited vitriolic reactions; Marcions canonical torso of parts of
Luke and Paul, and Schleiermachers reduction of the Christian
canon to the New Testament, are two examples. The polemic
This is Freis argument in: Hans W. Frei, The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative:
A Study in Eighteenth Century Hermeneutics (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1974), 323. On the identity of the semantic referent in Luther see Helmer, The
Trinity and Martin Luther, 768.
See footnote 8.
against these views reveals the theological and philosophical
point that any one-sided position reduces the possibilities of the
truth of the whole that is kept alive by the diversity contained
in the whole. The livingness of the whole requires maintaining
multiple positions to correct the one-sidedness in isolating one
of the parts.
It is precisely the integration of unity and diversity that sys-
tematic theology must seek to preserve in the contemporary theo-
logical and religious context. Systematic theology has as its task
to keep the canon open for its own work that is extending beyond
its European connes to other cultures incorporating Christi-
anity into their own traditional religions. With the increased
fragmentation of theological discourses from each other, it is
precisely the question of the canons unity that can play a role in
providing a common foundation for plural visions. As a common
focal-point to the many traditions of Christianity, the canons
material unity is open to determination by dierent cultures. By
this living engagement with the subject matter, condent trust
can characterize the conviction that the authors, compilers, and
tradents are communicating a subject matter that has transhis-
torical reality and relevance. The idea of the canon guides the
practical goal of actualizing Christianity in new contexts because
it oers the overarching vision of how unique ecclesial mani-
festations are related to its self-identical core. Only by integrat-
ing biblical insights into ones vision of the canonical whole can
scripture be quoted responsibly and imaginatively in a context
diering from its original inception. Schleiermacher stresses the
open-ended quality of the search in order to permit a dialogue
with the authors and theologians of the past that is open to both
revision and development in the future. His position is not motiv-
ated by a fear that reaches back into the mausoleums of the past
in order to prescribe once-used norms for present legitimation.
Rather, the question of canon ultimately anchors the individual
grasp of the whole in the divine author who continues to guide
the church in its truth, inscribing it with a love that drives out
all fear (cf. 1 John 4: 18). The canons unity is transparent to the
See for example Clara Sue Kidwell, Homer Noley, and George E. Tink
Tinker, A Native American Theology (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 2001) and a
review by Christine Helmer in Pro Ecclesia 12/2 (Spring 2003): 2402.
50 Christine Helmer
one who transcends human reason, yet whose union with Christ
guarantees that the theological work that has begun in you will
be brought to its perfect end (Phil. 1: 6).
CONCLUSION
Schleiermachers concept of canon signicantly challenges the
position identifying canon with text by relating text to experi-
ence. Canon represents the transhistorically stable experience
of a religion that produces ideas and creates language. Canon is
essentially communicative; as a concept, it is the explanation of
how an identical experience is circulated among those partici-
pating in the living whole of a historical religion. The nature of
the transhistorical communication of a religions ideas through
language and the maintenance of a common experience across
history and across cultures are aspects to the canon that steer
it towards the question of unity. The unity of the canon is both
a transhistorical reality behind the text and a transhistorical
reality of individuals and communities in front of the text. This
understanding of canon is presented in Schleiermachers system
as an important proposal for interdisciplinary theological work.
The question of the canons unity is addressed by establishing
the formal basis of interdisciplinary communication and by leav-
ing the canons material underdetermination open to exegetical
investigation and systematic-theological verication. Such an
interdisciplinary cooperation is required of a biblical theology
that takes seriously historical investigation on the one hand and,
on the other hand, explores those philosophical and theological
questions inscribed in the biblical texts and posed by subsequent
generations of its interpreters. Such a biblical theology would
make use of philosophical theology to clarify issues of the nature
of religion, its constancy amid historical change, and the justi-
cation of concepts, such as the canon. An exegetical theology
would contribute historical answers to questions relating experi-
ence to text production and show how these historical results
can be evaluated in light of theological questions concerning the
nature of that experience. And systematic theology would verify
that contemporary systematic articulations of experience are
indeed parts alive in the whole of a transhistorical religions
communication.
3
From Literature to Scripture
The Unity and Plurality of the Hebrew
Scriptures in Light of the Qumran Library
Av:I L:ci
When compared to the cultural achievements of Antiquity, the
collections of literature that later became the Hebrew Bible and
the Greek Old Testament were exceptional phenomena only
paralleled by the New Testament. In the following intro ductory
remarks, I will discuss the views of canon in ancient Egypt,
Meso potamia, ancient Greece, and post-Second Temple Juda-
ism before turning to the subject at hand: canon in Judaism dur-
ing Hellenistic times.
PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON CANONICAL
PHENOMENA IN ANTIQUITY
In ancient Egypt, during the time of the two Ramesside dyn-
asties (12951069 ni; nineteenthtwentieth dynasties), pa pyrus
Chester Beatty IV (verso 2: 513; 3: 310; 6: 1114) attests to a
didactic canon of sapiential authors (namely Djedefhor, Imhotep,
Neferti, Kheti, Ptah-emdjehuti, Khakheperre-sonb, Ptahhotep,
I was privileged to lecture on earlier versions of this chapter at the Univer-
sity of Tbingen, the Seminar for Biblical Theology at the 2001 International
Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Rome, the cole Suprieure
in Paris, and Duke University. I have beneted greatly from the comments
and suggestions of my audiences and would like to express my gratitude. This
is especially true for the discussions I had with Christine Helmer before and
during the Rome meeting. Furthermore I am also indebted to my colleagues
Christine Helmer and Lance Lazar for improving the English of this article.
52 Armin Lange
and Kaires) whose works were widely copied. The Egyptian
canon . . . is a select collection of works belonging to a single
genre, namely wisdom, which served as the teaching corpus of
the Ramesside school. Narrative, legal, and prophetic texts, as
well as non-sapiential poetry never became part of this list as
was the case with the Hebrew Bible. Also in contrast to the later
Hebrew and Greek Bibles, this list of authors was not perceived
as a collection of works belonging to one corpus.
In Mesopotamian studies, since 1866, the terms canon and
canonical were applied to several texts. Terminology found in
the cuneiform literature seems to suggest dierent assess ments
of dierent texts. In a study of the astral compendium Enu ma-
Anu-Enlil, it became apparent to scholars that ancient scribes
made a distinction between dierent versions of the tablet series
in question, i.e. a damqu (good) one and an ah (foreign, out-
side) one. When compared to an appendix or excursus, how-
ever, the ah texts were not considered to have lesser authority.
I. L. Finkel has conrmed this valuation by looking at the phrase
SUR.GIBIL (= za-ra-a) s
.
abatu found in a medical text that
identies the text as an authorized edition. As the phrase
For the Egyptian list and the scholarly discussion of canon and canonical
history in ancient Egypt see S. Nili Shupak, Canon and Canonization in
Ancient Egypt, Bibliotheca Orientalis 58 (2001): 53547, esp. 546. For pa pyrus
Chester Beatty IV see Alan Henderson Gardiner, Hieratic Papyri in the British
Museum Third Series: Chester Beatty Gift (London: British Museum, 1935),
389 pl. 1819; Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, ii: The New
Kingdom (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1976), 1758; Helmut
Brunner, Altgyptische Weisheit (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesell-
schaft, 1988), 21830.
See Henry Creswick Rawlinson, The Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western
Asia, ii (London: R. E. Bowler, 1866), nos. 689.
An instructive summary of the scholarly discussion is provided by Victor
A. Hurowitz, Canon and Canonization in Mesopotamia, in Ron Margolin, ed.,
Proceedings of the Twelfth World Congress of Jewish Studies Jerusalem, July 29
August 5, 1997: Division A: The Bible and Its World (Jerusalem: World Union
of Jewish Studies, 1999), 1*12*.
See Hurowitz, Canon and Canonization, 34; Francesca Rochberg-Halton,
Canonicity in Cuneiform Texts, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 36 (1984): 127
44; Stephen J. Lieberman, Canonical and Ocial Cuneiform Texts: Towards
an Understanding of Assurbanipals Personal Tablet Collection, in I. Tzvi
Abusch et al., eds., Lingering Over Words: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern
Literature in Honor of William L. Moran (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990), 30536.
See Irving L. Finkel, Adad-apla-iddina, Esagil-kin-apli, and the Series
Hebrew Scriptures in Light of the Qumran Library 53
suggests, these standardized texts were considered authoritative
in ancient Mesopotamia. Furthermore, textual standardization
applied not only to religious literature but to such diverse genres
as lexicographies, medical texts, and lamentations. Here the
emergence of a recognized corpus of classical literature can be
observed. Surprisingly, one of the most important and promin-
ent compositions in the Mesopotamian cultures, the Gilgamesh
epic, seems to lack a standardized text in the above sense. In
addi tion to textual standardization, in Mesopotamia, at least one
category of lists specifying texts having a special status is known.
In the fourth century ni, Berossus relates that a corpus of litera-
ture dating back to times before the deluge (and consisting of
works authored by divine and semi-divine antediluvian sages)
was buried before the ood, and thus preserved. Although this
seems to be a ctitious idealization, Berossus report neverthe-
less reects a developing canonical consciousness in Mesopota-
mian cultures. Similarly to ancient Egypt and ancient Greece
(see below), a developing literary canon emerged in Mesopota-
mia, although it seems this canon never achieved the exclusivity
SA.GIG, in Erle Leichty et al., eds., A Scientic Humanist: Studies in Memory
of Abraham Sachs, Occasional publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund,
no. 9 (Philadelphia: The Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 1988), 14359, esp. 148
50; see also William W. Hallo, The Concept of Canonicity in Cuneiform and
Biblical Literature: A Comparative Appraisal, in K. Lawson Younger et al.,
eds., The Biblical Canon in Comparative Perspective, Scripture in Context, 4
Ancient Near Eastern Texts and Studies, no. 11 (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen
Press, 1991), 119, esp. 9. The medical text mentioned above was published by
G. Beckman and B. R. Foster, Assyrian Scholarly Texts in the Yale Babylonian
Collection, in Erle Leichty et al., eds., A Scientic Humanist: Studies in Memory
of Abraham Sachs, Occasional publications of the Samuel Noah Kramer Fund,
no. 9 (Philadelphia: The Samuel Noah Kramer Fund, 1988), 126, esp. 34, 11
rev. 1 and 5.
Hallo, The Concept of Canonicity, 8.
See . 2. 2 in the translation of Stanley Mayer Burstein, The Babyloniaca
of Berossus, Sources and Monographs Sources From the Ancient Near East,
no. 1.5 (Malibu, Calif.: Undena Publications, 1978). The story conspicuously
reects the later myth that Cainan discovered inscriptions that survived the
deluge and contained the accursed astrological knowledge taught by the fallen
Heavenly Watchers (Jubilees 8: 24).
Hurowitz, Canon and Canonization, 5*.
On the signicance of Berossus report for the canonical process in Meso-
potamia see Wilfred G. Lambert, Ancestors, Authors, and Canonicity, Journal
of Cuneiform Studies 11 (1957): 114.
54 Armin Lange
and popularity enjoyed by the Alexandrian canon of ancient
Greece.
In ancient Greece, Homer and his epics quickly gained an
outstanding authority. In addition to Homer, in the fth century
ni, there is evidence for oracle collections of famous Greek seers
like Sibyl, Bakis, and Musaeos which were held in high esteem.
In Hellenistic times, Aristophanes of Byzantium, the librarian
of the library in Alexandria, as well as his predecessors and suc-
cessors, compiled a list of distinct authors which was structured
according to the genres of ancient Greek literature. These liter-
ary heroes were designated gkriqvnte (selected ones). Evidence
from the fourth century ni demonstrates that the Alexandrian
canon was the culmination of a canonical process that began
much earlier. Already in the fourth century ni, Herakleides
Pontikos described the three tragedians Aeschylos, Sophocles,
and Euripides as authoritative (Per t0n tri0n trag8dopoi0n,
On the Three Tragic Poets). We also know that an ocial
copy of the works of these tragedians existed at the same time
Pontikos issued his remarks. Surprisingly, the Alexandrian list
of literary authorities was compiled in Egypt. One cannot but
wonder whether this Alexandrian endeavour was inspired by the
Egyptian didactic canon of sapiential literature. At the time this
list of gkriqvnte was compiled, a conscious eort was made to
produce critical editions for the authors in question, and thus
See Hurowitz, Canon and Canonization, 10*.
See Herodotus 5. 90; 8. 6, 20, 77, 96; 9. 43; Aristophanes, Equites 11530,
100250; Aves 95960; Plato, Res Publica 364e; Suda, entry bari.
For the Alexandrian canonical lists and the authority of Homers writ-
ings see Edward A. Parsons, The Alexandrian Library: Glory of the Hellenic
World: Its Rise, Antiquities, and Destruction (New York: Elsevier, 1952), 2238;
Rudolph Pfeier, History of Classical Scholarship: From the Beginnings to the
End of the Hellenistic Age (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968), 2038; Uvo Hlscher,
ber die Kanonizitt Homers, in Aleida Assmann and Jan Assmann, eds.,
Kanon und Zensur: Archologie der literarischen Kommunikation II (Munich:
Wilhelm Fink, 1987), 23745; Ernst A. Schmidt, Historische Typologie der
Orientierungsfunktionen von Kanon in der griechischen und rmischen Litera-
tur, in Aleida Assmann and Jan Assmann, eds., Kanon und Zensur: Archologie
der literarischen Kommunikation II (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1987), 24658;
Franco Montanari, Kanon, III. Griechische Literatur, in Hubert Cancik and
Helmuth Schneider, eds., Der Neue Pauly 6. 250.
See Elias J. Bickerman, The Colophon of the Greek Book of Esther,
Journal of Biblical Literature 63 (1944): 33962, esp. 342.
achieve a standardized text. This textual standardization can
be compared to the Mesopotamian distinction between damqu
(good) and ah (foreign, outside). Nevertheless, nothing like
the Hebrew or Greek Bible ever existed in ancient Greece or the
Hellenistic world.
THE CANONICAL HISTORY OF THE
HEBREW BIBLE IN ROMAN TIMES
In contrast to ancient Mesopotamia, classical Greece, and the
Hellenistic world, Judaism began to standardize the textual form
of its scriptures only in the rst century i. The same is true for
the discussion of which books should be recognized as miqra (for
the latter see below). Thus, in the rst century i, the Jewish
historian Josephus Flavius argues that his people adhere to 22
texts of religiously binding authority (Against Apion 1. 3743).
Furthermore, Josephus emphasizes the textual stability of these
compositions (Against Apion 1. 29, 42). This evidence from
Josephus agrees with the eorts of textual standardization as de-
scribed in Talmud Babli Nedarim 37b. It is also conrmed by
biblical manuscripts from the rst and early second cen tury i
found at Masada, Wadi Murabbaat, and Nah
.
al H
.
ever, which are
all protomasoretic in character. Common to these texts is their
concept of a collection of religiously authoritative holy scrip-
tures. As such, they communicate Gods will and history with
his people. Hence the Hebrew and the Greek Bibles are distinct
from any other canon developed in the ancient Medi terra nean
See Parsons, Alexandrian Library, 21923; Pfeier, Classical Scholarship,
10522, 17392.
These 22 texts consisted of 5 books of Moses, 13 prophetic texts (Joshua,
Judges, Ruth, 1 Samuel2 Kings, 12 Chronicles, EzraNehemiah, Job, Esther,
Isaiah, Jeremiah and Lamentations, Ezekiel, Minor Prophets, Daniel), and 4
other books (Psalms, Proverbs, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes).
On the textual character of these manuscripts see Emanuel Tov, The
Biblical Texts From the Judaean Desert: An Overview and Analysis of the Pub-
lished Texts, in Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov, eds., The Text of the
Hebrew Bible in Light of the Discoveries of the Judaean Desert (London: British
Library, forthcoming). I am grateful to Professor Tov for allowing me to read
his article before its publication.
To my knowledge the rst occurrences of the word holy in connection
with literary compositions are 1 Maccabees 12: 9 and Alexander Polyhistor
(summarized in Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 9. 24).
56 Armin Lange
and Near Eastern cultures. Already in the rst century i, in his
apology Against Apion (1. 38), Josephus docu ments a conscious-
ness of this uniqueness, we do not possess myriads of inconsist-
ent books, conicting with each other.
Nevertheless (as Benjamin Sommer argues in his contribution
to this volume), time and again, the rabbinic tradition and later
Halakha developed new halakhic treatises having binding reli-
gious authority and addressing new halakhic issues. Already
in rabbinic times, the famous story in Talmud Babli Menakhot
29b describing Moses encounter with God on Mount Sinai
demon strates a consciousness for the multiplicity of meanings
con nected with scriptural references:
When Moses ascended on high he found the Holy One, blessed be He,
engaged in axing coronets to the letters. Said Moses, Lord of the
Universe, Who stays in Thy hand (i.e. is there anything wanting in the
Torah that these additions are necessary)? He answered, There will
arise a man, at the end of many generations, Akiba b. Joseph by name,
who will expound upon each tittle heaps and heaps of laws. Lord of
the Universe, said Moses; permit me to see him. He replied, Turn
thee round. Moses went and sat down behind eight rows [and listened
to the discourses upon the law]. Not being able to follow their argu-
ments he was ill at ease, but when they came to a certain subject and
the disciples said to the master Whence do you know it? and the latter
replied It is a law given unto Moses at Sinai he was comforted.
This anecdote illustrates nicely the idea of scripture as a holy
text having an identity of its own. It also shows how scripture
can have a meaning not necessarily understood or even intended
by the putative author of a given biblical book.
Judaism is distinct from the ancient Mediterranean and
ancient Near Eastern cultures in its concept of a canon of holy
scriptures having binding religious authority. In view of this
observa tion, several questions can be posed. For what reason
and when did the concept of scripture evolve? Is the establishing
of scripture a result of Jewish and Christian monotheism? What
Translation according to Henry St John Thackeray, Josephus with an
English Translation, i: The Life, Against Apion, Loeb Classical Library (London
and New York: William Heinemann and G. P. Putnams Sons, 1926), 179.
See Benjamin D. Sommers chapter in this volume.
Eli Cashdan, Menah
.
oth: Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and
Indices (London: Socino Press, 1948), 190.
are the decisive characteristics of scripture? In other words, what
distinguishes scripture from literature? And how does literature
develop into scripture? To answer these questions, the library
of Qumran is of vital importance. Its collection of about 1,000
manuscripts written between the third century ni and the rst
century i provides new insights into the literary and religious
history of Judaism during a period crucial for the development
of the Hebrew Bible. For this reason, the questions posed above
should be addressed in light of the Qumran library. Before this
can be done, it is necessary to begin with some remarks on the
history of research on the canonical process of the Hebrew Bible
and the terminology connected with it. In addition, I will pro-
vide an introductory description of the Qumran library.
INTRODUCTION TO TERMINOLOGY,
CANONICAL PROCESS, AND THE QUMRAN
LIBRARY
Canon and Terminology
My rst remarks concern the terminology used in this chapter.
A clarication of terminology is crucial since every ancient
culture seems to have had diering concepts of canon and used
dierent terms to express these concepts. The oldest preserved
reference to the Greek word kan*n is in Athanasius thirty-ninth
Easter letter dated to 367 i. In this letter, the term designates a
list of books that are of binding religious authority. It is a unique
desig nation because neither the Hebrew Bible, the pre-rabbinic
and rabbinic literature, nor any other ancient Mediterranean or
Ancient Near Eastern culture uses a comparable term. If, there-
fore, the term canon is used in modern scholarship, it might
import a cross-cultural misconception or apply an anachronism
of a Christian concept into the subject matter. In order to avoid
such an in appropri ate use, I suggest the nuanced terminology
as introduced into the discussion by Eugene Ulrich. Ulrich
distinguishes between an authoritative text, that a community,
Eugene Ulrich, The Canonical Process, Textual Criticism, and Latter
Stages in the Composition of the Bible, in Michael Fishbane et al., eds., Sha}arei
Talmon: Studies in the Bible, Qumran, and the Ancient Near East Presented to
Shemaryahu Talmon (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1992), 26791, esp.
58 Armin Lange
secular or religious, acknowledges to hold authority and a book
of scripture as a sacred authoritative text which, in the Jew-
ish or Christian context, the community acknowledges as having
authority over the faith and practice of its members. The term
canon refers to the established and exclusive list of books that
hold supreme authoritative status for a community. Finally, the
term canonical process designates the process beginning with
the recognition of authoritative texts and ending in an exclusive
canonical list of books having binding authority. Another well
established name for this process is canonical history. If this
termino logical conceptuality is applied to ancient Egypt, ancient
Mesopotamian cultures, and the Greek-Hellenistic culture, it is
only appropriate to apply the term authoritative literature.
Research on the Canonical History of the Hebrew Bible
The canonical history of the Hebrew Bible is one of the more
intensely discussed areas in biblical studies. In 1538 and basing
his scholarship on Talmud Babli Baba Bathra 14b15a, Elijah
Levita proposed that Ezra and his assistants had collected a tri-
partite canon consisting of 24 books. This Ezran concept of the
Hebrew Bibles canonical history dominated scholarship until
the end of the nineteenth century.
At this time, Heinrich Graetz, Frants Buhl, Gerrit Wilde-
boer, and Herbert Edward Ryle developed the thesis of a
26976; id., Canon, in Lawrence H. Schiman and James C. VanderKam,
eds., Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls 1: 11720, esp. 117.
See Ulrich, The Canonical Process, 117.
Christian D. Ginsburg, ed., The Massoreth ha-massoreth of Elias Levita:
Being an Exposition of the Massoretic Notes on the Hebrew Bible, or, the Ancient
Critical Apparatus of the Old Testament: in Hebrew, with an English transla-
tion and critical and explanatory notes (London: Longmans, Green, Reader, and
Dyer, 1867).
Heinrich Graetz, Kohelet " oder der Salomonische Prediger: bersetzt
und kritisch erlutert (Leipzig: C. F. Wintersche Verlagshandlung, 1871), 147
73; id., Der Abschluss des Kanons des Alten Testaments, Monatsschrift fr
Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 35 (1886): 28198.
Frants Buhl, Kanon und Text des Alten Testamentes (Leipzig: Akademische
Buchhandlung (W. Faber), 1891).
Gerrit Wildeboer, The Origin of the Canon of the Old Testament: An
Historico-Critical Enquiry (London: Luzac, 1895).
Herbert Edward Ryle, The Canon of the Old Testament: An Essay on the
council at Jabneh/Jamnia that took place at the end of the rst
century i. According to these scholars, it was this council,
directed by Eleazar ben Azariah, that determined the shape and
size of the Ketubim collection. The Torah, on the other hand,
would have been canonized at the time of Ezra (cf. Nehemiah
8), while Ben Sira 4450 attests to a canonization of the Nebiim
collection at the end of the third century ni.
It was not until the 1970s that the three-step model proposed
by Graetz et al. was called into question. Jack P. Lewis, Peter
Schfer, and Gnther Stemberger demonstrated that rabbinic
texts do not even speak of an authoritative council at Jabneh/
Jamnia. In addition, according to Mishnah Yadayim 3: 5, only
the authoritative status of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs
was discussed at the time of the academy of Jabneh/Jamnia, and
the canonical authority of these books was also questioned in
later references.
Gradual Growth and Formation of the Hebrew Canon of Scripture (London:
Macmillan, 1892).
For example, in the third edition of his famous introduction to the Old
Testament, Otto Eissfeldt still argued for the idea of the Jabneh/Jamnia
council. See Otto Eissfeldt, Einleitung in das Alte Testament unter Einschlu
der Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen sowie der apokryphen und pseudepigraphen-
artigen Qumran-Schriften: Entstehungsgeschichte des Alten Testaments, 3rd edn.,
Neue Theologische Grundrisse (Tbingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck),
1964), 76970. For a more cautious representation of the three-step model, in
this case with a Deuteronomic prototype, see Frank Crsemann, Das porta-
tive Vaterland: Struktur und Genese des alttestamentlichen Kanons, in Aleida
Assmann and Jan Assmann, eds., Kanon und Zensur: Archologie der literar ischen
Kommunikation II (Munich: Wilhelm Fink, 1987), 6379. Flint still argues for
the three-step model yet without the idea of a council at Jabneh/Jamnia. See
Peter W. Flint, The Shape of the Bible at Qumran, in Alan J. Avery-Peck et
al., eds., Judaism in Late Antiquity, Part 5: The Judaism of Qumran: A Systematic
Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ii: World View, Comparing Judaism, Handbook
of Oriental Studies, no. 57 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2001), 45103, esp. 7781.
Jack P. Lewis, What Do We Mean By Jabneh?, Journal of Bible and
Religion 32 (1964): 12532; Peter Schfer, Die sogenannte Synode von Jabne:
Zur Trennung von Juden und Christen im ersten/zweiten Jh. n. Chr., Judaica
31 (1975): 5461, 11624; Sid Z. Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture:
The Talmudic and Midrashic Evidence, Transactions of the Connecticut
Academy of Arts and Sciences, no. 47 (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1976),
51124; Gnter Stemberger, Die sogenannte Synode von Jabne und das
frhe Christentum, Kairs 19 (1977): 1421; id., Jabne und Kanon, Jahrbuch
fr Biblische Theologie 3 (1988): 16374.
See Lewis, What Do We Mean By Jabneh?, 260, esp. notes 7686.
60 Armin Lange
The thesis of Lewis, Schfer, and Stemberger was disputed
by Sid Z. Leiman, Roger Beckwith, and Arie van der Kooij
(who argued this point more moderately), who considered the
collection of Ketubim to have been closed during Maccabean
times. To make this claim, they argued primarily on the basis of
the biblical manuscripts from the Qumran library and 2 Mac-
cabees 2: 1314. The passage in 2 Maccabees reports how, like
Nehe miah, Judas the Maccabean collected books concerning
kings, prophets, and David as well as royal letters about sacred
oerings. For Leiman, Beckwith, and van der Kooij, this refer-
ence suggests a terminal point to the Ketubims canonization.
Another and more recently discussed approach to the canon-
ical history of the Hebrew Bible concerns the idea of group
specic canons. This thesis has been proposed by Odil Hannes
Steck, David M. Carr, Heinz-Josef Fabry, and Jan Assmann.
Leiman, The Canonization of Hebrew Scripture, passim.
Roger Beckwith, The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church
and its Background in Early Judaism (London: SPCK, 1985).
Arie van der Kooij, The Canonization of Ancient Books Kept in the
Temple of Jerusalem, in Arie van der Kooij and Karel van der Toorn, eds.,
Canonization and Decanonization: Papers Presented to the International
Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of Religions (LISOR), Held at
Leiden, January 910, 1997, Studies in the History of Religions, no. 82 (Leiden:
E. J. Brill, 1998), 1740. Compare also with Johan L. Lusts claim that the
Qumran community assigned canonical status to all books that became part of
the Hebrew Bible. Johan L. Lust, Quotation Formulae and Canon in Qumran,
in Arie van der Kooij and Karel van der Toorn, eds., Canon and Decanonization:
Papers Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the
Study of Religions (LISOR), Held at Leiden, January 910, 1997, Studies in the
History of Religions, no. 82 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998), 6777.
Odil Hannes Steck, Der Kanon des hebrischen Alten Testaments:
Historische Materialien fr eine kumenische Perspektive, in Jan Rohls and
Gunther Wenz, eds., Vernunft des Glaubens: Wissenschaftliche Theologie und
kirchliche Lehre (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1988), 23152; David
M. Carr, Canonization in the Context of Community: An Outline of the
Formation of the Tanakh and the Christian Bible, in Richard D. Weis and David
M. Carr, eds., A Gift of God in Due Season: Essays on Scripture and Community
in Honor of James A. Sanders, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
Supplement Series, no. 225 (Sheeld: Sheeld Academic Press, 1996), 2264;
Heinz-Joseph Fabry, Die Qumrantexte und das biblische Kanonproblem,
in Stefan Beyerle et al., eds., Recht und Ethos im Alten Testament: Gestalt
und Wirkung (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1999), 25171; Jan
Assmann, Fnf Stufen auf dem Wege zum Kanon: Tradition und Schriftkultur
According to this approach, the Samaritans as well as the
Sadducees (cf. Josephus Flavius, Antiquities 18. 16) favoured
a Torah-only canon while the canonical lists of Ben Sira 39:
13, the prologue to Ben Sira, MMT 10. 17, and 1QS I: 23
advise that the other groups of ancient Judaism adhered to tri-
partite or bipartite canons. Several observations speak against
the idea of group specic canons. The Essene references MMT
10. 17 and 1QS I: 23 demonstrate conclusively that, in ancient
Judaism, a community could simultaneously use dierent canon-
ical lists. In addition, for Hellenistic times, no evidence is pre-
served in which certain texts were regarded as authoritative by
the Samaritans and the Sadducees. In Roman times, the Jewish
historian Josephus Flavius (Antiquities 18. 16) emphasized only
that the Sadducees owed no observance of any sort apart from
the lawsin Greek t0n nmwn in the plural. In this reference,
nothing is said about which texts the Sadducees regarded as laws.
The plural further advises caution against simply inter preting
t0n nmwn as a designation of the Torah. Thus, the evidence for a
Samaritan Torah-only canon is even more recent than Josephus
Antiquities 18. 16.
im alten Israel und frhen Judentum, in Religion und kulturelles Gedchtnis:
Zehn Studien (Munich: C. H. Beck, 2000), 81100.
Compare also Luke 16: 16, Luke 24: 27, and Acts 24: 14 (law and prophets)
with Luke 24: 44 (law, prophets, and psalms).
Josephus merely recounts that the Jews and the Samaritans agreed to
build the temple on Mount Gerizim according to the laws of Moses (kat to
Mwusvo nmou) (Antiquities 13. 74). This is a halakhic statement and says noth-
ing about an exclusive Samaritan Torah-only canon. Even rabbinic references
do not seem to distinguish between a Samaritan and a Jewish canon (see Sifre
to Deuteronomy 56. 1; Talmud Yerushalmi Sota 21c; Talmud Babli Berakot 47b;
Talmud Babli H
.
ullin 4b; Talmud Babli Sot
.
ah 22a, 33b). The earliest references
to canonical diversity between Jews and Samaritans are found in the Christian
literature of the third and fourth centuries i (Origen, Commentary on John 3.
26; id., Contra Celsum 1. 49; Epiphanius of Salamis, Panarion 1. 2. 1; Philastrius
of Brescia, In librum de haeresibus 7). One of these authors (Philastrius of Brescia,
In librum de haeresibus 7) even claims that the Samaritan canon consisted of only
four books of the Pentateuch. This claim hints at the possibility of an unstable
Samaritan canon as late as the fourth century i. On the development of the
Samaritan canon see J. Zsengellr, Canon and the Samaritans, in Arie van der
Kooij and Karel van der Toorn, eds., Canonization and Decanonization: Papers
Presented to the International Conference of the Leiden Institute for the Study of
Religions (LISOR), Held at Leiden, January 910, 1997, Studies in the History
of Religions, no. 82 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998), 16171. Zsengellr claims that
62 Armin Lange
For these reasons, Eugene Ulrich and Shemaryahu Talmon
interpret the heterogeneous evidence of Second Temple Juda-
ism in the line of an ongoing canonical process. According to
them, the growing popularity of a given text would have resulted
in its religious authority. The canonical history of the Hebrew
Bible would have been dominated by the principle of vox populi
vox dei.
At the end of this brief review of scholarly research, I must
mention that even in view of pre-Ezran and Ezran times, the
ideas of Graetz, Buhl, Wildeboer, and Ryle are doubted for other
reasons. For James A. Sanders, the beginning of the canon ical
process is marked by Deuteronomy and the Josianic reform.
Today, inuenced by Sanderss approach, scholars understand
the development of the collections of Torah and Nebiim as a
parallel and interdependent process, which began in pre-exilic
times. For example, Stephen B. Chapman considers the idea of
a sixth-century ni core canon consisting of some early versions
of the law and the prophets. In some of the analyses proposing
a pre-Ezran canonical process, the Ezran Torah is understood
as a special authorization of the Mosaic law which, at the time of
Ezra and by means of Persian imperial authorization, would have
developed into a canon within the canon (thus e.g. Sanders). For
the Samaritan canon was formed as a result of the destruction of the Samaritan
temple on Mount Gerizim by John Hyrkanus I in 128 or 107 ni (see ibid.,
1636). I judge this thesis to be pure speculation because it requires a closed
Jewish canon even before this time in order to be true. It will be shown below
that Zsengellrs thesis is erroneous.
Ulrich, The Canonical Process, passim; id., Canon, passim; id., The
Qumran Biblical Scrolls: The Scriptures of Late Second Temple Judaism,
in Timothy H. Lim et al., eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls in Their Historical
Context (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000), 6787; Shemaryahu Talmon, The
Crystallization of the Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures in the Light of the
Biblical Scrolls from Qumran, in Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov,
eds., The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Discoveries of the Judaean
Desert (London: British Library, forthcoming). I am indebted to Professor
Talmon who allowed me to see his article before its publication. Cf. James
C. VanderKam, Authoritative Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Dead Sea
Discoveries 5 (1998): 382402.
James A. Sanders, Torah and Canon (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972).
Stephen B. Chapman, The Law and the Prophets: A Study in Old Testament
Canon Formation, Forschungen zum Alten Testament, no. 27 (Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2000).
others, the Ezran Torah is regarded as the closure to the rst part
of the canon while its second part continued to be developed (e.g.
Chapman). When revived by Peter Frei in 1984, the idea of a
Persian imperial authorization of the Torah at Ezras time met
widespread approval. More recently, however, this concept
of a Persian imperial authorization as well as its application to
Judah have been severely questioned on a number of grounds.
It is by no means certain at what stage any collection of texts
was initiated or closed and who initiated the process. Further-
more, research on the canonical history of the Hebrew Bible has
yet to take into consideration the quotations of and allusions to
scripture found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is to a description of
the contents of the Qumran library that I now turn.
Peter Frei and Klaus Koch, Zentralgewalt und Lokalautonomie im
Achmeniden reich, in Reichsidee und Reichsorganisation im Perserreich,
Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, no. 55 (Fribourg: Universittsverlag; Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984; second extensively revised and expanded edn.
1996). See also Eduard Meyer, Die Entstehung des Judentums: Eine histor ische
Untersuchung (Halle a/S: Max Niemeyer, 1896), 667; Hans Heinrich Schaeder,
Das persische Weltreich (Breslau: Korn, 1941), 25; on the discussion before
Freis contribution see Ulrich Kellermann, Erwgungen zum Problem der
Esradatierung, Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 80 (1968): 587.
See, for example, Erhard Blum, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch,
Beihefte fr die Zeitschrift zur Alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft, no. 189 (Berlin:
Walter de Gruyter, 1990), 34556; Joseph Blenkinsopp, The Pentateuch: An
Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible, Anchor Bible Reference Library
(New York: Doubleday, 1992), 2342; Frank Crsemann, Die Tora: Theologie
und Sozialgeschichte des alttestamentlichen Gesetzes (Munich: Chr. Kaiser,
1992), 38793; David M. Carr, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and
Literary Approaches (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996), 32733.
See, for example, Josef Wiesehfer, Reichsgesetz oder Einzel fall-
gerechtigkeit? Bemerkungen zu Peter Freis These von der achaimenid ischen
Reichsautorisation, Zeitschrift fr die altorientalische und biblische Rechts-
geschichte 1 (1995): 3646; Udo Rterswrden, Die persische Reichsautorisation
der Thora: fact or ction?, Zeitschrift fr die altorientalische und biblische
Rechtsgeschichte 1 (1995): 4761; James W. Watts, ed., Persia and Torah: The
Theory of Imperial Authorization of the Pentateuch, SBL Symposium Series, no.
17 (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001).
64 Armin Lange
The Qumran Library
About 200 biblical and 700 non-biblical manuscripts were
found in the eleven caves of Qumran. They attest to all books of
the Hebrew Bible, except for Esther and Nehemiah. Based on
palaeography, the biblical manuscripts can be dated from the
third century ni to the rst century i. For this period, they
attest to a broad variety of dierent textual forms. With minor
variations, 52 per cent of the librarys pentateuchal and 44 per
cent of the other biblical manuscripts attest to the consonantal
text of the medieval manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible and are
thus proto-Masoretic in character. Except for its group-specic
readings, 6.5 per cent of the pentateuchal manuscripts attest to
the version of the Pentateuch used by the Samaritans and are thus
pre-Samaritan in character. Furthermore, 4.5 per cent of the
penta teuchal and 3 per cent of the other biblical manuscripts from
Qumran attest to the Hebrew Vorlage from which the Old Greek
translation of the Hebrew Bible was produced. Finally, 37 per cent
of the pentateuchal Qumran manuscripts and 53 per cent of other
biblical manuscripts from Qumran attest to text forms not found
elsewhere. These are designated as non-aligned. In addition
to the Hebrew biblical manuscripts, Greek manuscripts were
found for the books of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deutero-
nomy as well as Aramaic manuscripts for the books of Leviticus
(4QtgLev) and Job (4QtgJob; 11QtgJob). This textual variety
diers remarkably from the standardized texts of Mesopotamia
and the editorial eorts of Hellenistic Greek culture.
The non-biblical texts attested in the Qumran library were
written, roughly speaking, during the time from the late fourth
to the middle of the rst century ni. Their manuscripts are
See, for example, Emanuel Tov, 1. Categorized List of the Biblical
Texts, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 39 (2002): 16583, esp. 167.
For this statistic see Tov, The Biblical Texts, forthcoming; on the textual
plurality attested by the Qumran library see Ulrich, Qumran Biblical Scrolls,
passim.
The so-called Proto-Esther manuscripts from Qumran do not attest to
an older Aramaic version of the Book of Esther (against Jozef Tadeusz Milik,
Les Modles aramens du livre dEsther dans la grotte 4 de Qumrn, Revue de
Qumran 15 (19912): 32199), but to another composition of Persian court tales
(for example, Sidnie White Crawford, Has the Book of Esther been Found at
Qumran, Revue de Qumran, 17 (1996): 30725, and Shemaryahu Talmon, Was
the Book of Esther Known at Qumran?, Dead Sea Discoveries 2 (1995): 24967).
dated from the third century ni to the rst century i. The
non-biblical manuscripts from the Qumran library attest to
Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, known before the discovery of
the Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as to non-Essene and Essene texts
not known before 1947. Thus, the library of Qumran provides a
non-representative medley of the literature of ancient Judaism
in Hellenistic times.
The quotations of and allusions to scripture in those texts
found in the Qumran library as well as those contained in other
Jewish texts provide new evidence for the deadlocked discus-
sion concerning the development of the canon of the Hebrew
Bible. I will argue that the so-called Hellenistic religious re-
forms of 175164 ni are a crucial turning-point in the transition
from understanding religious texts as literature to understand-
ing them as scripture. By comparing the quotations of and allu-
sions to scripture in the period before and after these reforms,
I will discuss the following points concerning the canonization
process. First, the evidence suggests that group-specic canons
do not apply to ancient Judaism. There are no texts exclusively
quoted or alluded to, and conversely not quoted or alluded to,
by specic groups. This evidence implies that the shape of the
canon did not change during or after the reforms. Second, no
specic textual form was preferred by any religious group. And
third, the attitude towards the texts quoted or alluded to changed
signicantly during the reforms. Before the reforms, the quoted
book was of no interest. Rather, the message (word of God) com-
municated by the book in question was of interest. During and
after the reforms, the idea of scripture was born. Authoritative
literature acquired a dignity of its own and became scripture.
I conclude by addressing the issue of canonical unity in light of
literary plurality.
Before analysing the material, I must discuss my selec-
tion of the evidence. If a comprehensive picture of which texts
were quoted or alluded to by Judaism in Hellenistic times is to
be gained, the investigation cannot be limited to the Qumran
library. Hence I will also take into account the quotations and
allusions found in those Jewish texts of that time not attested in
Qumran. For my purposes, I will refer only to texts that quote
or allude to authoritative literature as well as texts that are fully
preserved. Texts that cannot be dated with any certainty will be
66 Armin Lange
ignored. The same applies to the Testament of the Twelve Patri-
archs whose Hellenistic date has been questioned for reasons of
its complicated redactional history. I also restrict the follow ing
analysis to literary compositions, which means that I will ex clude
legal documents and scribal exercises. Because of the specu la tive
nature of literary criticism, redactions will be acknow ledged only
if they can be identied with great certainty. Further more, for
parabiblical compositions, I will consider only quotations and
allusions that are not part of the base text as re written or para-
phrased. In total, the discussion will refer to 1,145 quotations
and allusions found in 145 texts. It is important to emphasize
that these numbers are preliminary and will change with the on-
going investigation into the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient
Jewish literature. Caution must especially be exer cised when
con sidering quotations of or allusions to com positions previ-
ously unknown in the Qumran library.
My study aims to be as comprehensive a survey of the Qum-
ran library as possible. With this intention, it can be compared to
other less comprehensive scholarly publications considering the
importance of quotations and allusions from the Qumran library
for the Hebrew Bibles canonical history. These scholarly works
restrict their focus to quotations found in Essene texts that
are either introduced by quotation formulas, or distinguish
between the use of scripture in midrashic texts, quotations with
introductory formulas, denite allusions, or quotations with-
out introductory formulas and dependence. In the following,
For this reason, from the Qumran library, Historical Text F (4Q468e;
for a suggested Roman dating see Magen Broshi, 4Q468e. 4QHistorical
Text F, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 36 (2000): 40611, esp. 40710) and
Instruction-like Composition B (4Q424; for a Persian dating see Armin Lange,
Die Bedeutung der Weisheitstexte aus Qumran fr die Hebrische Bibel, in
David J. A. Clines et al., eds., Weisheit in Israel, Altes Testament und Moderne,
no. 12 (Mnster: Lit Verlag, forthcoming) ) are not included in my reections.
Thus Lust, Quotation Formulae, 6773; James C. VanderKam, Authori-
ta tive Literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Dead Sea Discoveries 5 (1998): 384402,
esp. 38996. See also the groundbreaking contribution by Joseph A. Fitzmyer,
The Use of Explicit Old Testament Quotations in Qumran Literature and in
the New Testament, in Essays on the Semitic Background of the New Testament,
Sources for Biblical Studies, no. 5 (Missoula, Mont.: Society of Biblical Litera-
ture and Scholars Press, 1974), 358. Fitzmyer does not consider issues of the
canonical history of the Hebrew Bible in his discussion of explicit quotations.
Thus Flint, Shape of the Bible, 7781.
such distinctions will primarily be avoided. In my opinion, the
relative authority of a text alluded to is not simply a function of
whether or not it is quoted and introduced with a quotation for-
mula. This point is demonstrated, for example, by the Damascus
Document. The text quotes Deuteronomy 17: 17 by introduc-
ing it with a quotation formula (and on the prince it is written:
he shall not acquire many wives for himself; CD 5: 2) and, on
the same page (CD 5), it alludes to Deuteronomy 13: 6 with-
out such a formula (because they preached rebellion against the
commands of God; CD 5: 21). Again, if a composition like the
Hodayot is written in scriptural language and often composed
from allusions to authoritative literature, thus demonstrating a
high authority for the component texts, these allusions should
not be neglected as secondary to the authority of those texts for
which quotation formulas are attested.
In order to facilitate analysis of the 1,145 quotations and allu-
sions in question, I have chronologically grouped the 145 texts
in which the quotations and allusions are found. The reason for
a chronological order is the theological turning-point in Hellen-
istic Judaism, the so-called Hellenistic religious reforms of the
years 175-164 ni that I will discuss below. In the following,
I will distinguish between texts written in the period from Alex-
ander the Great to the beginning of the reign of the high priest
Jason in 175 ni, and texts written from 175 ni to the beginning
of Roman rule over Judaea, marked by Pompey the Greats con-
quest of Judaea in 63 ni. Summary List 1 indicates the chrono-
logical grouping of the texts under consideration in view of their
literary characteristics.
Summary List 1: Jewish Literature from Hellenistic Times
Before 175 ni After 175 ni
49 texts 96 texts
32 fragmentary (c.67%) 74 fragmentary (c.77%)
9 of uncertain date (c.19%) 13 of uncertain date (c.14%)
32 parabiblical (c.67%) 34 parabiblical (c.36%)
0 exegetical 35 exegetical (c.36%)
1 redaction (c.2%) 4 redaction (c.4%)
16 others (c.31%) 23 others (c.24%)
3 anthological (c.6%) 16 anthological (c.17%)
These texts either are parabiblical or apply to the category of redactions.
These texts either are parabiblical or apply to the category of redactions.
68 Armin Lange
In the next part of this chapter, the period from Alexander the
Great to Jason will be discussed followed by a discussion of the
period from Jason to Pompey. I will show how the transition
from literature to scripture in the process of canonization implies
an understanding of the canons unity. The essay will conclude
with some theological observations concerning the emergence of
scripture in ancient Judaism.
FROM ALEXANDER THE GREAT TO JASON
Before beginning my analysis of the period from Alexander the
Great to Jason, I will briey describe the texts under consid-
eration. A table of these texts along with their literary charac-
teristics is provided (see Table 1: Literature from Alexander to
Jason). Known from this period are 49 texts attesting to 341 quo-
tations and allusions. Of these texts, 32 exist only as fragments.
In Table 1 these are marked with a tick in the rst column. Nine
of the 49 texts of this period cannot be dated with certainty; these
are marked in the second column. Of the 49 texts preserved from
the time of Alexander the Great to Jason, 32 or 67 per cent are
parabiblical in nature, meaning that they were written closely
related to texts or themes of the Hebrew Bible. Only Zechariah
914; 12 Chronicles, and the Temple Scroll were written in an
anthological style, noted in the third column. Texts in which no
quotations or allusions have been identied thus far are marked
in the fourth column.
T:nii 1: Literature from Alexander to Jason
Exists Cannot be Written in an No identied
only as dated with anthological quotations
fragments certainty style or allusions

Parabiblical literature
Praise of the
Fathers
Sir. *449;
Gen.Neh.
Emanuel Tov, Foreword, in Harold Attridge et al., eds., Qumran Cave 4
VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), ixx.

12 Chronicles
Gen.2 Kgs.
Demetrios
Gen.2 Kgs.
Narrative and
Poetic
Composition
2Q22, 4Q371
373; preserved:
Gen., Num.,
1 Sam.
Artapanos
Gen.Exod.
Philo the Epic
Poet
Abraham
Joseph
Theodotus
Gen. 17; 27
34 + ???
Astronomical
Enoch
1 Enoch 7282
Gen. 5: 224
Book of Watchers
1 Enoch 136
Gen. 5: 224;
6: 14
Book of Giants
1Q2324,
2Q26, 4Q203,
4Q206 23,
4Q530533;
Gen. 6: 14
Book of the
Words of Noah
1QapGen
(1Q20) v 29
xvIII 23;
Gen. 6: 59: 28
70 Armin Lange

Admonition of
the Flood
4Q370;
Gen. 6: 59: 28
Pseudo-
Eupolemos
(preserved:
Abraham)
The Matriarch
in Danger
1QapGen *xIx
10xx 32;
Gen 12: 1029)
Aramaic Levi
Document
1Q21?, 4Q213
214b, CLev
Bodl.Cam
,
Koutloumousiou
39; Levi)
Text concerning
Rachel and Joseph
4Q474; Joseph
Testament of
Qahat
4Q542; Qahat
Visions of Amram
4Q543549;
Amram
Temple Scroll
4Q524, 11Q19
21; Exod.Deut.
On 1QapGen xIx 10xx 32 as an independent composition incorporated
into the Abraham story of the Genesis Apocryphon see Armin Lange, 1QGenAp
xIx 10xx 32 as Paradigm of the Wisdom Didactive Narrative, in Heinz-Joseph
Fabry et al., eds., Qumranstudien: Vortrge und Beitrge der Teilnehmer des
Qumranseminars auf dem internationalen Treen der Society of Biblical Literature,
Mnster, 25.26. Juli 1993, Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum,
no. 4 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996), 191204.

Exodus/Conquest
Tradition
4Q374;
Exod. + Josh.
Apocryphron of
Moses
1Q22, 1Q29,
4Q375376,
4Q408; Deut.
Apocryphon of
Moses?
2Q21; preserved:
parts of Exod.
Apocryphal
Pentateuch A
4Q368;
preserved:
Exod. 334
Apocryphal
Pentateuch B
4Q377;
preserved:
parts of Exod.
Apocryphon of
Joshua
4Q378379,
4Q522, 5Q9,
Mas11
Vision of Samuel
4Q160; Samuel
paraKings et al.
4Q382
Jonah
2 Kgs. 14: 25
Letter of Jeremiah
Jeremiah; 7Q2
New Jerusalem
1Q32?, 2Q24,
4Q554555,
5Q15, 11Q18;
Ezek. 408
72 Armin Lange

Daniel 26
Ezek. 14: 14;
28: 3
4QNarrativeWork
and Prayer
4Q460; ???
Parabiblical books not preserved
Book/Vision Hago
(Enosh)
Redactions
Zechariah 914
Other literature
Joel
Song of Songs
Ecclesiastes
Esther
Ezra/Nehemiah
Ecclesiasticus
Tobit
Instruction
1Q26, 4Q415
418a, 4Q418c,
4Q423
Wiles of a Wicked
Woman (4Q184)
Sapiential Work
(4Q185)
Zodiology and
Brontology
4Q318
Non-Canonical
Psalms AB
4Q380381
Songs of the
Sabbath Sacrice
4Q400407,
11Q17, Mas1k
Narrative B
4Q461
ProtoEsther
4Q550 :i
Parts of 4QPs
f
and
11QPs
a

The high percentage of parabiblical literature demonstrates
that, at the time in question, Judaism was basically oriented
towards authoritative literature. At least for books belonging
to the later collections of Torah and Prophets, parabiblical lit-
erature is attested to from the end of the fourth century ni on-
wards. Interest ingly enough, this is true not only for what later
would be named the Later Prophets, but also for the histori-
cal books that were later designated the Former Prophets. Para-
biblical compositions on poetic or sapiential texts, however, are
not known. Due to this absence, one can ask whether, for the
time before Jason, only books of the later collections of Torah
and Prophets were regarded as authoritative or whether there is
a dierent reason for the non-existence of parabiblical literature
on the texts of the later Ketubim.
In the following, I will use the quotations and allusions
found in the 49 texts from the time of Alexander the Great to
Jason to nuance my analysis of the ancient Jewish orientation to
authoritative literature. My study will focus on four questions:
(1) Which texts are quoted or alluded to? (2) Are there any group-
specic collections of authoritative texts? (3) Was one textual
form of a given biblical book preferred over any other textual
form? and (4) Does the way of quoting or alluding to authorita-
tive texts provide any insights into how Jewish people regarded
them?
For a discussion of this phenomenon see Armin Lange, The Parabiblical
Literature of the Qumran Library from the Fourth and Third Century ni and
the Canonical History of the Hebrew Bible, in Shalom M. Paul, Robert A.
Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiman, and Weston W. Fields, eds., Emanuel: Studies
in the Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honor of Emanuel Tov,
Vetus Testamentum Supplementum, no. 94 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 2003), 30521.
74 Armin Lange
Concerning question (1), of the 341 quotations and allu-
sions, most are derived from the Pentateuch (156 references, i.e.
c.46%), prophetic texts (82 references, i.e. c.24%), and dierent
Psalms (52 references, i.e. c.15%). More seldom, quotations and
allusions are taken from the Deuteronomistic History (23 ref-
erences, i.e. c.7%), Job (7 references), Proverbs (12 references),
Lamentations (1 reference), and 12 Chronicles (1 reference).
In addition, there are allusions and references to a collection of
exorcistic songs attested by 11Q11 (11QPs
a
xxvII: 10), to a sa-
piential text attested by 4Q185 (4Q185 12 i 13ii 3 alluded to
in 4Q370 ii 59), to the Book of Noah found in the Genesis Apo-
cryphon (see Aramaic Levi Document 57; referred to as a source
of cultic halakha), and the Apocryphon of Joshua (4Q379 22 ii
1313a alluded to in 4Q460 9 i 3 (Narrative Work and Prayer) ).
The following list (Summary List 2) summarizes these 341 quo-
tations and allusions.
Summary List 2: Quotations and Allusions before 175 ni (number of
occurrences)
Pentateuch: 156 (c.46%)
Deuteronomistic History: 23 (c.7%)
Prophets: 82 (c.24%)
Psalms: 52 (c.15%)
Job: 7 (c.2%)
Proverbs: 12 (c.3.5%)
Lamentations: 1
1 Chronicles: 1
Book of Noah (1QapGen v 29xvIII 23): 1
Apocryphon of Joshua: 1
Sapiential Work (4Q185): 1
Apocryphal Psalms: 1
In total 341 quotations and allusions
The book of Tobit refers four times to the Assyrian sage Ah
.
iqar (Tobit 1:
212; 2: 10; 11: 19; 14: 10). But these references allude neither to the non-Jewish
version of the Book of Ah
.
iqar found on the Nile island Elephantine (the palaeo-
graphic date of the manuscript is the fth century ni) nor to its later recensions
attested to in Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Karshuni, Old Slavonic, and in frag-
ments preserved in the Ethiopic language. The reference to the Assyrian sage
Ah
.
iqar helps establish the historical credibility of Tobit. Ah
.
iqar lived at the time
during which the events reported in the Book of Tobit were alleged to have taken
place. Compare with Carey A. Moore, Tobit: A New Translation with Intro-
duction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1996), 1213.
Contrary to common scholarly opinion, the statistical evidence
shown above proves that a selection of literature extending
beyond the Torah and the Prophets was regarded as authorita-
tive for the time before Jason. This is made especially clear by
the large number of allusions to and quotations from dierent
Psalms found in the protomasoretic Psalter and other Psalm col-
lections, and by the relatively large number of quotations of and
allusions to Job and Proverbs. Furthermore, as already assumed
in the above discussion of parabiblical literature, the books of the
Deuteronomistic History were also considered authoritative. In
addition to books collected in the later Hebrew Bible, several
literary compositionssuch as the Apocryphon of Joshuawere
quoted or alluded to, but never became part of any canon of the
Hebrew Bible or the Greek Old Testament. Still further, one can
also observe a certain focus on the Torah, the Later Prophets,
and the Psalms by the frequency of quotations and allusions
(45%, 24%, and 15%). Due, however, to the elements of chance
involved in the preservation and textual tradition of the analysed
texts, caution must be exercised when interpreting the statistics
on textual foci. A slight focus on the Torah, the Later Prophets,
and the Psalms does not necessarily imply a higher authority for
these texts.
The evidence dovetails with Ben Sira 38: 34b39: 3. This text
advises its reader to study the law of the Most High, the wisdom
of all the ancients, the prophecies, the discourses of the famous,
involved sayings, proverbs, and parables. Apparently, Ben Sira
recommends the study of authoritative literature as such, rather
than specifying a list of authoritative texts.
The statistical evidence helps to shed light on the question why
no parabiblical literature on the Psalms or on any other poetic
literature is attested to before the time of Jason. Formulated in
another way, the question concerns both whether poetic litera-
ture had gained authoritative status before the time of Jason, and
whether the lack of parabiblical literature was due to its genre as
poetry. In my view, the allusions to dierent Psalms, Job, Prov-
erbs, and Lamentations, as well as to Sapiential Work (4Q185)
and Apocryphal Psalms (11QapPs) also suggest an authorita-
tive status for poetic literature. The reason why no parabiblical
literature on Israelite or Jewish poetic compositions is known
from the time before Jason is its genre as poetry. For example, it
76 Armin Lange
would be impossible to retell Proverbs in the same way that the
Book of Jubilees reworks Genesis and Exodus.
The second question that arises concerns group-specic
proto-canons. It is very dicult to determine whether group-
specic proto-canons ever existed because only a few texts are
preserved for most groups of ancient Judaism. An answer is
possible only for prophetic, priestly, and sapiential literature.
Table 2, Quotes and Allusions before 175 ni according to
Jewish Groups, categorizes material quoted or alluded to, for
different Jewish groups.
T:nii 2: Quotes and Allusions before 175 ni according to Jewish Groups
(number of occurrences)
Prophetic Apocalyptic Priestly Sapiential Eastern
literature literature Levitical literature diaspora
literature
Pentateuch 13 4 77 31 15
Deuteronom-
istic History 4 2 11 1
Prophets 32 4 23 13 3
Psalms 9 1 12 9 1
Job 1 2 12
Proverbs 4
12 Chronicles 1
Book of Noah 1
As seen in Table 2, the groups mentioned do not seem to have
adhered exclusively to particular collections of authoritative lit-
erature from which they quoted or to which they alluded. Hav-
ing said this, it must be admitted that we know only of a certain
type of parabiblical composition from the Hellenizing Judaism
of the time before Jason. In what is preserved of them, these
compositions deal with texts and persons from Genesis and
Exodus. Signicantly, only 25 fragments (more or less exten-
sive) of 5 literary compositions are extant (Artapanos, Demetrios,
Philo the Epic Poet, Pseudo-Eupolemos, Theodotus). Two of these
compositions cannot be dated with any certainty (Artapanos
and Pseudo-Eupolemos). Due to these uncertainties, there is a
large element of chance in what is preserved of the Hellenizing
Jewish literature of this period. This element of chance denies
almost any statistical signicance to what is retold parabiblically
by the texts in question. Furthermore, what is preserved from
the ve Hellenizing Jewish compositions in question has been
transmitted by way of quotation in two church fathers, Clement
of Alexandria (2 fragments) and Eusebius. Eusebius takes his
quotations from the work of Alexander Polyhistor, a text lost to
posterity. This means that, for topological reasons, all passages
quoted were consciously selected by both the church fathers and
Alexander Polyhistor out of a potentially much larger range of
parabiblical literature. With regard to the question of a group-
specic Alexandrian or Hellenizing Jewish canon, this conscious
selection further blurs any remaining statistical relevance to
insignicance.
Concerning the third question, it would be tempting to deter-
mine the textual character of all 341 biblical quotations and allu-
sions from the time before Jason. But here, for reasons of space,
I can only discuss the pentateuchal passage referred to in Nehe-
miah 10: 35(34) and incorporated into the Temple Scroll (11QT
b
vI 1115), as well as the textual character of the quotations and
allusions to Jeremiah. These examples are sucient to show
that neither a given Jewish group nor Judaism in general has
preferred any textual form of a given biblical book as especially
authoritative.
Nehemiah 10: 35 relates that priests, Levites, and the people
should use the oracle of the lot to determine the sequence in which
they should bring the wood oering to the house of God (cf. also
Neh. 13: 31). The precise phrase used to describe the sequence
is `.`2N`2" (according to the house of our fathers). Nehe-
miah 10: 35 claims that this is a prescription written in the Torah
(`2 2`33, as it is written in the Torah). But such a pre-
scription is attested neither in the Masoretic, nor in the Samari-
tan Pentateuch, nor even in the Pentateuchs other versions.
For this reason, with regard to Nehemiah 10: 35, D. J. A. Clines
speaks of the creation of facilitating law. Joseph Blenkinsopp
In the Vulgate and in English translations, this verse is numbered
Nehemiah 10: 34.
David J. A. Clines, Nehemiah 10 as an Example of Early Jewish Biblical
Exegesis, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 21 (1981): 11117, esp. 112;
78 Armin Lange
argues that Nehemiah 10: 35 is implicit in the requirement that
the priests keep the re for the morning and even ing sacrice
burning continuously, for which fuel was required (Lev. 6: 2,
56 (9, 1213) ). In spite of the lack of an explicit quotation, a
prescription similar to Nehemiah 10: 35 is found in the so-called
Reworked Pentateuch from the Qumran library, in 4QRP
c

(4Q365) 23 911:
(9) ] the [fe]stival of fresh oil, they shall bring wood two [
(10) ] the ones who bring on the r[st] day, Levi [
(11) Reu]ben and Simon [and on t]he fourth day [
The so-called Reworked Pentateuch is a textual version of the
Pentateuch related to the pre-Samaritan Pentateuch. The Re-
worked Pentateuch attests to a considerable number of minor
textual and orthographic variants, as well as a few textual
pluses. Diering from Nehemiah 10: 35, 4QRP
c
(4Q365) 23
911 mentions neither the oracle of the lot nor families. Instead,
a sequence is given for the tribes of Israel in which they should
provide wood for the wood oering. Although this is not an exact
parallel, in my opinion, Nehemiah 10: 35 attests to an interpreta-
tive use of the Reworked Pentateuchs prescription as Torah.
see also Hugh Godfrey Maturin Williamson, Ezra, Nehemiah, Word Biblical
Commentary, no. 16 (Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1985), 336.
Joseph Blenkinsopp, EzraNehemiah: A Commentary, Old Testament
Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988), 317.
On the Reworked Pentateuch as a biblical text see Eugene Ulrich, The
Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Text, in Peter W. Flint and James C.
VanderKam, eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls after Fifty Years: A Comprehensive
Assessment, vol. i (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1998), 79100, esp. 889. On its rela-
tion to the pre-Samaritan Pentateuch see Emanuel Tov, The Textual Status of
4Q364367 (4QPP), in Julio Trebolle Barrera and Luis Vegas Montaner, eds.,
The Madrid Qumran Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the
Dead Sea Scrolls Madrid, March 1821, 1991, Studies on the Text of the Desert
of Judah, no. 11 (Leiden: E. J. Brill and Editorial Complutense, 1992), 4382,
esp. 5380; Michael Segal, 4QReworked Pentateuch or 4QPentateuch?, in
Lawrence H. Schiman et al., eds., The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their
Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 2025, 1997 (Jerusalem:
Israel Exploration Society and The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000),
3919, esp. 3935 and 398. See also the discussion in Emanuel Tov and Sidnie
White, Reworked Pentateuch, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 13 (1994):
187351, esp. 1926.
Against Tov and White, Reworked Pentateuch, 295.
Therefore, for Nehemiah, the so-called Reworked Pentateuch
had the same authority as, for example, the proto-Masoretic
Pentateuch used elsewhere in this book.
A closer parallel to 4QRP
c
(4Q365) 23 911 can be found in the
Temple Scroll (11QT
b
vI 1115 (lines 1617 overlap with 11QT
a

xxIII 34) ):
(11) [And after the festival of fresh oil, they shall bring,] (12) to the
alta[r the woo]d, [namely the twelve tribes of the people of Israel, and
they shall oer: on the rst day] (13) the tribes[ of Levi ]and Judah, on
the [second ]d[ay Benjamin and the sons of Joseph, on the third day,
Reuben and Simon] (14) on the fourth day Issachar [and Ze]bulon, [on
the fth day Gad and Asher, on the sixth day Dan] (15) and Naphtali.
(11QT
b
vI 1115)
The Temple Scroll (4Q524; 11Q1921) is a Rewritten Bible text
combining parts of the Pentateuch with formerly unknown pas-
sages. It claims to have been revealed to Moses on Mount Sinai.
It has been argued that in their passages on the feast of the wood
oering, both the Reworked Pentateuch and the Temple Scroll
echo Nehemiah 10: 35. But in light of the Temple Scrolls de-
pendence on other passages attested in the manuscript 4Q365,
Milgrom interprets 4QRP
c
as an Essene polemic against a priestly privi-
lege to provide wood for the festival of the wood oering. See Jacob Milgrom,
Qumrans Biblical Hermeneutics: The Case of the Wood Oering, Revue de
Qumran 16 (19945): 44956, esp. 4524. Milgrom argues for an Essene ori-
gin of the Reworked Pentateuch. However, I disagree with his claim based on
the following historical observation. The Temple Scroll seems to depend on the
so-called Reworked Pentateuch. Palaeographically, the oldest manuscript of
the Temple Scroll, 4Q524, can be dated to approximately 150 ni. If this is the
case, then the Temple Scroll must itself be dated before 150 ni and thus before
the Essene community was founded. Consequently, the Reworked Pentateuch
must also have existed before the Essene movement had developed.
For the reconstruction of 11QT
b
vI 1115 see Florentino Garca Martnez
et al., 20. 11QTemple
b
, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 23 (1998): 357409,
esp. 3813. The reconstruction is based on 11QT
a
and 4QRP
c
.
Yigael Yadin, The Temple Scroll, i: Introduction (Jerusalem: Israel Explora-
tion Society et al., 1983), 1234, 128.
For 4Q365a as part of 4Q365 see John Strugnells reconstruction men-
tioned by Tov and White, Reworked Pentateuch, 31920. For the Temple
Scrolls dependence on these texts see Hartmut Stegemann, The Origins of
the Temple Scroll, in John A. Emerton, ed., Congress Volume: Jerusalem 1986,
Vetus Testamentum Supplementum, no. 40 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1988), 23556,
esp. 237.
80 Armin Lange
it seems more likely that the Temple Scroll depends on the Re-
worked Pentateuch. For the Temple Scroll, the Reworked Penta-
teuch thus had the same authority as any other textual version
of the Pentateuch. For both Nehemiah and the Temple Scroll,
the textual character of authoritative texts was not related to the
religious authority of a given composition.
With regard to Jeremiah, the same indierence to questions
regarding the textual character of an authoritative text can be
observed (see Table 3: Quoted Text Forms of Jeremiah be-
fore Jason). Ben Sira and the Praise of the Fathers (Sir. 449)
both belong to Temple circles and allude to the protomasoretic
text form of Jeremiah. In contrast, however, the Hymn to the
Creator (11QPs
a
xxvI 9-15) and Nehemiahboth coming from a
Temple backgroundallude to the Hebrew Vorlage of the Sep-
tuagint and a non-aligned text form.
T:nii 3: Quoted Text Forms of Jeremiah before Jason
Proto-MT LXX-Vorlage Non-aligned
Jer. 1: 10 Sir. 49: 7
Jer. 1: 18 Sir. 36: 24
Jer. 10: 12 f. 11QPs
a
xxvI 1315
Jer. 10: 13 11QPs
a
xxvI 15
Jer. 18: 23 Neh. 3: 37
Jer. 27: 12 Sir. 51: 26
Question (3) regarding whether or not one textual form of a
given biblical book was preferred over any other textual form
can now be answered for the time from Alexander to Jason. The
In my opinion, Ben Sira appealed to an older composition in Sirach 4450.
In chapter 50, this composition was enlarged to include the praise of the high
priest Simon II. The hypothesis of a redactional enlargement of the Praise of
Fathers is supported by the disproportionate emphasis on Simon II, who was
only of minor importance in the history of Israel. In addition, Enoch is praised a
second time in Sirach 49: 14 (cf. Sir. 44: 16). Furthermore the praises of Joseph,
Sem, Seth, and Enosh in Sirach 49: 1516 seem to be added because they are not
mentioned in the Praise of the Fathers proper. The best explanation for these
phenomena is that Ben Sira incorporated an older composition into Sirach 449
and enlarged it for his purposes.
data considered was the use of the Reworked Pentateuch and
the protomasoretic Pentateuch in Nehemiah and the Temple
Scroll, as well as the use of dierent textual versions of Jeremiah
by Temple circles. These texts demonstrate that, unlike Meso-
potamia or Hellenistic Greece, ancient Judaism knew no rela-
tion between the textual standardization of a given text and its
religious authority.
The next step concerns the fourth question, regarding the way
authoritative texts were alluded to or quoted. In the Jewish liter-
ature from the time of Alexander to Jason, it can be observed that
96 per cent of the quotations and allusions are not introduced by
a quotation formula. Eleven of the 14 quotations introduced by
such formulas are found in Ezra/Nehemiah and 12 Chronicles
(see Summary List 3: Quotation Formulas before Jason (14 out
of 341 quotes) below). Quotation formulas, which use the pas-
sive participle of the root 2`3 (it is written), are attested to in
Nehemiah and 12 Chronicles only.
Summary List 3: Quotation Formulas before Jason (14 out of 341
quotes)
CN (he said) 3 times: Obadiah, Tobit
2`3 (it is written) 10 times: Nehemiah, 12 Chronicles
`S Pi (he commanded) 1 time: Ezra
Normally, a text alluded to or quoted was not introduced by a
quotation formula. A given reference was only of interest be-
cause it communicated Gods revelation to and Gods history
with Gods people. It was the message or the event itself that
communicated the transcendent, not the text. By itself, authori-
tative literature had no dignity. It was not the literary work being
quoted or alluded to that mattered, but what was communicated
by it. Thus, the literary work did not need to be mentioned as an
authoritative source. The authority did not belong to the com-
position in question, but to God; examples include the Temple
Scroll and Tobit.
The Temple Scroll does not refer to the prescriptions of the
Mosaic law in the form of a running commentary. On the con-
trary, it rephrases and rearranges the Pentateuch. In cases where,
in the Pentateuch, God speaks in the third person, the Temple
82 Armin Lange
Scroll rewrites the text into the direct speech of God in the rst
person. For example, Deuteronomy 13: 19 reads:
when you follow the voice of the Lord, your God, by way of observing all
his commands, which I have commanded you today, that you may do
the right in the eyes of the Lord your God. (Deut. 13: 19)
The Temple Scroll rephrases the text to:
if you follow my voice, by way of observing my commands, which I
have commanded you today, that you may do the right and good before
the Lord your God. (11QT
a
iv 1314)
The same attitude is attested to in Tobit 14: 34. Tobit advises
his son Tobias, Child, lead your children away and escape to
Media, because I believe in the word of God against Nineveh,
spoken by Nahum. The text does not use a quotation formula
like N`2. 2`". 72 2`33 (as it is written in the book of
Nahum, the prophet). Instead of a quotation formula, Tobit
refers directly to the word of God revealed to Nahum.
For the period before Jason, usually the texts alluded to or
quoted seem to have been of interest only in so far as they com-
municated Gods revelation to Gods people and Gods history
with Gods people. Authoritative literature had not yet acquired
a dignity of its own as scripture. Its only purpose was to serve as
a literary means that communicated the events and revelation of
the past.
How does the more frequent use of quotation formulas in Nehe-
miah and 12 Chronicles relate to this claim? Which atti tude to
authoritative literature is reected by these quotation formulas?
To answer these questions, the use of Deuteronomy 24: 16 in
2 Chronicles 25: 4 is helpful. In this verse, like in its Vorlage 2
Kings 14: 6, the citation of Deuteronomy 24: 16 is introduced
by `` `S LN LC ` 72 2`33 (as it is written
Dierences between the Temple Scroll and Deuteronomy are marked by
italics.
On rst glance, the phrase kaq gvgraptai pant t Israhl n prost3gmati
aj8nw (Tobit 1: 6) seems to attest to the use of a 3`2-formula. But in this
case, gvgraptai means prescribed and not written. The phrase should thus
be translated as it is prescribed in all of Israel as an eternal command. See the
translations of Moore, Tobit, 104, 108, and Beate Ego, Buch Tobit, Jdische
Schriften aus hellenistisch-rmischer Zeit, no. 2.6 (Gtersloh: Gtersloher
Verlagshaus, 1999), 919.
in the Torah, the book of Moses, that the Lord commanded as
follows). The quotation formula ends with the statement the
Lord commanded as follows. Again, authoritative literature is
important because it communicates what God has said. In view
of its attitude, it could be argued that 2 Chronicles 25: 4 reects
its Vorlage while elsewhere, in the Chroniclers history and in
EzraNehemiah, a dierent approach is taken. But in Nehemiah
8: 14, a similar formula introduces a quotation from Leviticus
23: 42: LC`2 `` `S LN `2 2`3 `NSC`` (and
they found written in the Torah, what the Lord has commanded
through Moses). Again, what is important and what is noted is
the command God gave through Moses; the literature quoted
has no importance of its own. Authority is given to the content
communicated by Moses.
To summarize: Contrary to common scholarly opinion, for the
time before Jason, a selection of literature broader than that of
the Torah and Prophets was regarded as authoritative. The quo-
tations of and allusions to authoritative literature do not attest
to group-specic preferences for particular collections of litera-
ture. This means that in contrast to ancient Egypt and Hellen-
istic Greek culture, no canonical lists of authoritative authors
existed in Hellenistic Judaism before Jason. And in contrast to
the ancient Mesopotamian cultures and the Hellenistic Greek
culture, textual standardization of authoritative literature was
not an issue in ancient Judaism before Jason. Plurality character-
ized the textual form of the texts alluded to or quoted. A single
author as well as a whole group could quote several versions of a
given text at the same time. Unlike Mesopotamia or Hellenistic
Greece, ancient Judaism before Jason did not relate questions of
textual standardization to the issue of the religious authority of
a given text. Furthermore, for this time, authoritative literature
possessed no dignity of its own. It was only authoritative in so
far as it communicated Israels encounter with God. The closest
parallel to what can be observed in ancient Judaism before 175
ni is the pre-Hellenistic Greek culture with its admiration for
the epics of Homer and its oracle collections.
84 Armin Lange
FROM JASON TO POMPEY
My study now shifts focus to the period from Jason to Pompey
the Great. In this section, I will show that evidence from Qum-
ran and other Jewish texts suggests a new view of literature as
scripture. I begin with a description of the text material con-
sulted before I turn to the analysis.
Table 4, Literature from Jason to Pompey, categorizes the
texts dated later than 175 ni. According to the criteria men-
tioned at the beginning of this chapter, 96 of the 145 texts ana-
lysed came from the time after 175 ni. From this same period,
even more texts are preserved only in fragments (marked in the
rst column of Table 4), while the deterioration of the Qumran
manuscripts is more pronounced. Furthermore, 13 texts can-
not be dated with certainty to the time from Jason to Pompey
(column 2), and 17 per cent of the literature was written in an
anthological style (column 3). Texts in which no quotations or
allusions have been identied thus far are marked in column 4.
T:nii 4: Literature from Jason to Pompey
Parabiblical literature
Jubilees
Gen.Exod. 19 ff.
Paraphrase of Gen.
and Exod.
4Q422;
Gen.Exod.
Book of Dreams
1 Enoch 8391
Enoch
Letter of Enoch
1 Enoch 92108
Enoch
Noah
1Q19, 1Q19bis;
Noah
Birthstory of Noah
1QapGen (1Q20)
Iv 27; Lamech
Birth of Noah
4Q534536; Noah
Text Mentioning
the Flood
4Q577; Gen. 69
Story of Abraham
1QapGen
(1Q20) xvIII 25
xxII; preserved
Gen. 1215
Exposition on the
Patriarchs
4Q464; Gen. ???
Cleodemus Malchus
(History of the Jews)
preserved Gen.
25: 16
Testament of Jacob?
4Q537; Jacob
Testament of
Naphtali
4Q215; Naphtali
Testament of
Joseph
4Q539; Joseph
Testament of
Judah
4Q538;
Benjamin
Eupolemos
Exod.2 Kgs.
Some compositions are clearly parabiblical in character. Due to their
fragmentary state of preservation, however, the text (or person) to which (or to
whom) they parabiblically relate can no longer be identied. In this table, these
unidentied passages or persons are marked by three question marks.
86 Armin Lange
Pseudo Jubilees
4Q2254Q227;
Moses/
Pentateuch
paraExodus gr
4Q127; Moses/
Pentateuch
Ezekiel the
Tragedian
Exod. 115
Orphica
Exod. 19 ff.
Apocryphon of
SamuelKings
6Q9;
1 Sam.2 Kgs.
Baruch 15
Jer. 33: 12;
36: 410
Apocryphon of
Jeremiah
4Q383384,
4Q385a, 4Q387,
4Q388a,
4Q389390,
4Q387a;
Jer.
Pseudo-Ezekiel
4Q385386,
4Q385b, 4Q388,
4Q391,
4Q385c?;
Ezek.
Aristeas the
Exegete
only Job is
preserved
On Baruch 15 as a unied composition see Odil Hannes Steck, Das
apokryphe Baruchbuch: Studien zu Rezeption und Konzentration kanonischer
berlieferung, Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen
Testaments, no. 160 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993).
Pseudo-Daniel
4Q243244;
Dan.
Pseudo-Daniel
4Q245; Dan.
Apocryphon of
Daniel
4Q246;
Dan 7: 9 ff.?
Four Kingdoms
4Q552553;
Daniel
Historical Text A
4Q248; ???
Narrative D
4Q463; ???
Messianic
Apocalypse
4Q521; ???
Prayer of Enosh
4Q369,
4Q499; ???
Apocryphon of
Levi
4Q540541; ???
Exegetical literature
Aristobulos
Texts from
Gen.Exod.
Commentary on
Genesis A + C
4Q252, 4Q254;
Gen.
Commentary on
Genesis B
4Q253; Gen.
Commentary on
Genesis D
4Q254a; Gen.
88 Armin Lange
Pesher Isaiah A
4Q163,
4Q165 + 515;
Isa.
Pesher Isaiah B
4Q161162,
4Q164; Isa.
3QpIsa
3Q4; Isa.
Tanhumim
4Q176;
Isa. 40 ff.
Pesher Hosea A
4Q166;
Hos.
Pesher Hosea B
4Q167; Hos.
Pesher Micah
1Q14;
Mic.
Pesher Nahum
4Q169; Nahum
Pesher Habakkuk
1QpHab;
Hab. 12
Pesher Zephaniah
1Q15, 4Q170;
Zeph.
Commentary on
Malachi
4Q253a; Mal.
Pesher Psalms
1Q16, 4Q171,
4Q173; Pss.
In a material reconstruction of 4Q166 and 4Q167, Roman Vielhauer has
recently demonstrated that the two manuscripts attest to two dierent Hosea-
Pesharim. See Roman Vielhauer, Materielle Rekonstruktion und historische
Einordnung der beiden Pescharim zum Hoseabuch (4QpHos
a
und 4QpHos
b
),
Revue de Qumran 20 (2001): 3991.
Pesher on the
Apocalypse of
Weeks
4Q247;
1 Enoch 93;
91: 1217
Midrash on
Eschatology
4Q174 + 4Q177,
4Q182
Ages of
Creation A
4Q180
Ages of Creation B
4Q181
Melchizedek
11Q13
Midrash Sepher
Moshe
4Q249
Damascus
Document
CD A + B,
4Q266273,
5Q12, 6Q15
Serekh Ha Yah
.
ad
1QS I 1III 12,
4Q255 12,
4Q256 IIII,
4Q257 IvI, 4
Serekh leanshej
Ha Yah
.
ad
1QS vxI,
4Q256 IxxxIII,
4Q258 IxIII,
4Q259 IIv,
4Q260 Iv,
4Q261 16,
4Q263264, 11Q29
Serekh haEdah
1QSa, 4Q249ai
90 Armin Lange
Ordinances
4Q159,
4Q513514
Miscellaneous
Rules
4Q265
Halakha A
4Q251
Halakha B
4Q264a,
4Q420421
Testimonia
4Q175
Biblical
Chronology
4Q559
Pesher
Unidentied
4Q172
4QMidrash on
Eschatology
e
?
4Q183
Narrative C
4Q462
Redactions and Additions
Daniel
Tobit (LXX) I
Additions to
Daniel
Additions to
Esther
Other Literature
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
3 Maccabees
Judith
Letter of Aristeas
3 Sibylline Oracles
97259. 489802
Teaching of the
Two Spirits
1QS III 13Iv 26,
4Q257 vvI
Dibre Berakhah
1QSb
Hodayot
1QH
a.b
,
4Q427432
War Scroll
1Q33, 4Q285,
4Q471,
4Q491497,
11Q14
Mysteries
1Q27,
4Q299301
Crypt A Words
of the Maskil
4Q298
Beatitudes
4Q525
papHodayot-like
Text B
4Q433a
Barki Nafshi
4Q434438
Berakhot
4Q286290
MMT
4Q394399,
4Q313
Apocryphal Psalm
and Prayer
4Q448
Tohorot A
4Q274
Polemical Text
4Q471a
4QNarrative A
4Q458
92 Armin Lange
Works of God
+ Communal
Confession
4Q392 + 393
Dibre Ha-Meorot
4Q504, 4Q506
In contrast to the time from Alexander to Jason, only 34 of the
later texts, or 36 per cent (instead of 67 per cent) are parabiblical
in nature (see Summary List 1). Furthermore, with 35 exegetical
texts (36 per cent of the texts preserved), a new type of literature
is found that was previously unknown in ancient Judaism. In ad-
dition to continuous commentaries on authoritative texts, other
commentaries select the lemmata to be interpreted for thematic
reasons. Furthermore, in antiquity, the Damascus Document
was named |`"N ` LC (the nal interpretation of the
Torah; 4Q266 11 20 par 4Q270 7 II 15). Another community rule
(1QS v .) carries the heading "`3LC" LC (inter pretation
for the instructor) in two of its witnesses (4Q256 Ix 1 and 4Q258
I 1). These subscriptions and superscriptions recom mend that,
in ancient times, at least a part of the Qumran librarys halakhic
literature was understood to be exegetical in character. For this
reason, they are listed as exegetical in Table 4.
The dominance of parabiblical and exegetical literature from
Jason to Pompeytogether two-thirds of all texts preserved
demonstrates the central role of authoritative texts at this time.
As before, the subject of parabiblical writing is restricted to non-
poetic texts. For example, for the time from Jason to Pompey,
parabiblical literature deals with texts and persons from the
For the dierent types of commentaries found in the Qumran library
and elsewhere see Johann Maier, Early Jewish Biblical Interpretation in the
Qumran Literature, in Magne Sb et al., eds., Hebrew Bible/Old Testament:
The History of Its Interpretation, i: From the Beginnings to the Middle Ages
(Until 1300), part 1: Antiquity (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996),
10829; Folker Siegert, Early Jewish Interpretation in a Hellenistic Style, in
ibid. 13098. For the distinction between thematic and continuous pesharim see
Jean Carmignac, Le document de Qumrn sur Melkisdeq, Revue de Qumran
7 (196971): 34278, esp. 3603.
Penta teuch, the Deuteronomistic History, as well as Jeremiah,
Ezekiel, Job, and Daniel. As argued above, for the time before
175 ni, this eclectic approach is genre-related, and thus does
not suggest that poetic texts were not considered authorita-
tive. Indeed, evidence for the fact that poetic literature was con-
sidered as authoritative as Mosaic or prophetic texts is given by
the Psalms commentary from the Qumran library (1Q16, 4Q171,
4Q173), to name one example. Furthermore, with 4Q247, a
commentary on the Enochic Apocalypse of Weeks (1 Enoch 93;
91: 1217) is preserved. This means that after 175 ni, texts
that never became part of the later canons of the Hebrew Bible
and the Greek Old Testament were regarded as authoritative as
well. The fact that, in the Qumran library, continuous pesharim
are preserved only for prophetic books and Psalms is due to the
divina tory hermeneutic applied to these commentaries. This
divinatory hermeneutic was restricted to the interpretation of
texts that were regarded as prophetic.
The evolution of exegetical literature after 175 ni hints at
a new orientation in Judaisms approach to authoritative texts.
This is conrmed by the fact that for the time from Jason on-
wards, we nd four times more texts written anthologically than
before: namely, 17 per cent instead of 4 per cent. For the time
from Jason to Pompey, the increase of quotations and allusions
to authoritative literature also conrms that a new orientation
took place. Taking into consideration the more fragmentary
state of preservation of the texts in question, an increase of about
30 per cent in quotations and allusions can be ascertained.
In the following, I will analyse the quotations and allusions in
the Jewish literature from Jason to Pompey with regard to the
The only passages preserved of Aristeas the Exegetes book Concerning the
Jews deal with the narrative parts of the Book of Job and Job 32: 2.
On the divinatory hermeneutic of the Pesharim and its restriction to texts
of divinatory and prophetic character in the Ancient Mediterranean and ancient
Near Eastern cultures see Armin Lange, Interpretation als Oenbarung. Zum
Verhltnis von Schriftauslegung und Oenbarung in apokalyptischer und nicht-
apokalyptischer Literatur, in Florentino Garca Martnez, ed., Wisdom and
Apocalypticism in the Dead Sea Scrolls and in the Biblical Tradition, Bibliotheca
Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium (Leuven: Peeters, forthcoming).
For the recognition of psalms as prophetic texts see the remark in 11QPs
a
xxvII
11 that David composed psalm N`2.2 (through prophecy).
94 Armin Lange
new orientation just mentioned. I will again ask the same four
chief questions as before.
Concerning question (1), when compared with the time before
175 ni, the later period registers even more texts that are alluded
to or quoted that are not part of the Torah, the Prophets, or the
Psalms. This conrms the suspicion raised by the Pesher on the
Apocalypse of Weeks, that for the time from Jason to Pompey, no
closed collections of authoritative literature existed. Especially
striking is the increased amount of texts quoted or alluded to
that do not subsequently become part of the Hebrew Bible or the
Greek Old Testament. Evidence of a palaeo- Hebrew Job manu-
script found in Qumran (4QpaleoJob
c
) suggests that the Moses
collection was not restricted to the Pentateuch. Since all other
palaeo-Hebrew manuscripts from the Qumran library attest to
books regarded as Mosaic, it stands to reason that at this time,
Job was also understood as having been written by Moses. This
agrees well with Talmud Babli Baba Batra 14b15a. Similarly,
the Temple Scroll or the Book of Jubilees might have been recog-
nized as being of Mosaic origin. Quotations of and allusions to
prophetic texts increased by 9 per cent, and 69 per cent of all run-
ning commentaries were dedicated to proph etic texts. Further-
more, the broad variety of texts quoted or alluded to does not
disagree with the so-called canonical lists in the Prologue to Ben
Sira (law, prophets, and other books of our ancestors), MMT
( 1011: the book of Moses, the books of the prophets, David,
(and the events of ) ages past), and 1QS (I 23: Moses and his
servants the prophets). None of these lists gives any clue as to
which books were regarded either as Mosaic or as prophetic texts.
The only possible exception might be the desig nation David in
MMT 10 that could refer to a collection of Psalms. Table 5
Quotations and Allusions from Jason to Pompey summarizes
See Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Minneapolis:
Fortress and van Gorcum, 1992), 87; Patrick William Skehan, Eugene Ulrich,
and Judith E. Sanderson, Qumran Cave 4, iv: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical
Manuscripts, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, no. 9 (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1992), 155.
Compare also the tripartite structure of the Midrash on Eschatology as a
pesher on Deuteronomy 33; 2 Samuel 7: 1014, and selected passages of the
Psalter. See Annette Steudel, Der Midrasch zur Eschatologie aus der Qumran-
gemeinde (4QMidrEschat
a.b
), Studies on the Text of the Desert of Judah, no. 13
(Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), 1313.
T:nii 5: Quotations and Allusions from Jason to Pompey
Quotations and Running lemmata in
allusions commentaries
No. % No. %
Total 687 (804) 117
Pentateuch 227 33
Genesis 21 18
Deuteronomistic History 39 6
Prophetic texts 227 33 81 69
Psalms 88 13 14 12
Job 15 2
Proverbs 7 1
Ecclesiastes 2
Lamentations 3
Esther 1
Daniel 22 3
Nehemiah 3
12 Chronicles 8 1
Tobit 1
Letter of Jeremiah 1
2 Maccabees 2
Additions to Esther 2
Additions to Daniel 2
Book of Watchers
1 Enoch 136 4
Astronomical Enoch
1 Enoch 7282 1
Apocalypse of Weeks
1 Enoch 93; 91: 1217 1
Book of Dreams
1 Enoch 8390 1
Jubilees 6 1
Aramaic Levi Document 3
Book of Noah
1QapGen v 29xvIII 23 2
Apocryphon of Joshua 1
Apocryphon of Jeremiah 1
Instruction (MLM) 3
Historical Text A 1
Temple Scroll 2
Beatitudes 1
Book of Hago 4
96 Armin Lange
the quotations and allusions for the time period under investiga-
tion.
The textual evidence does not help in answering question (2)
regarding group-specic proto-canons of the Asideans, sapien-
tial circles, pro-Hasmonean circles, and the Pharisees. Appar-
ently, however, in addition to the Torah, these groups regarded
prophetic texts and Psalms as authoritative. The fact that, in the
middle of the second century ni, the Book of Mysteries alludes
twice and with a critical attitude to Daniel (Dan. 2 in 4Q300 1a
iib 1; Dan. 9: 24 in 4Q300 1a iib 2), allows for speculation
whether Daniel was rejected by sapiential circles at an early
stage. Table 6 Quotes and Allusions after 175 ni according to
Jewish Groups summarizes the textual evidence for groups.
The priestly-levitical literature focused on the Torah and
proph etic texts. It also alluded to a broad spectrum of other texts
including the Psalms. Compared to what is preserved of the
Essene literature, quotations or allusions to prophetic texts or
Psalms in the priestly-levitical literature are sparse.
In Hellenizing Judaism, one can observe a sustained focus on
the Pentateuch. In addition, references to books of the Deuter-
onomistic History and prophetic texts occur, while references to
the Psalms and other poetic or narrative texts are more sparse.
In light of the existing allusions to and quotations of prophetic
texts, Psalms, Daniel, Additions to Daniel, and other now extra-
canonical texts, the idea of an Alexandrian Torah-only canon,
recently proposed by David M. Carr and Heinz-Josef Fabry (see
above), should be rejected.
On the dating of the Book of Mysteries and its polemic against the Book of
Daniel see Armin Lange, Die Weisheitstexte aus Qumran: Eine Einleitung,
in Charlotte Hempel et al., eds., The Wisdom Texts from Qumran and the
Development of Sapiential Thought: Studies in Wisdom at Qumran and Its
Relationship to Sapiential Thought in the Ancient Near East, the Hebrew Bible,
Ancient Judaism, and the New Testament, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theo-
logicarum Lovaniensium, no. 159 (Leuven: Peeters, 2002), 330, esp. 1213.
The following texts written by Egyptian Hellenizing Judaism (in
Alexandria?) during the time from Jason to Pompey are preserved: 3 Maccabees,
3 Sibylline Oracle, Aristobul, Orphica, and Ezekiel the Tragedian. These texts
quote or allude to: Pentateuch (38 occurrences), Deuteronomistic History (2
occurrences), Prophets (11 occurrences), Psalms (2 occurrences), Daniel (4
occurrences), Proverbs (1 occurrence), 2 Maccabees (2 occurrences), Additions
to Esther (2 occurrences), Additions to Daniel (2 occurrences), Book of Watchers
(1 occurrence), Jubilees (1 occurrence).
T:nii 6: Quotes and Allusions after 175 ni according to Jewish Groups

Pentateuch 91 3 3 10 6 163 50
Deuteronom-
istic History 4 2 1 6 16 14
Prophets 30 4 2 4 1 157 13
Psalms 4 3 2 2 58 3
Job 2 4 7
Proverbs 1 1 3 1
Ecclesiastes 1 1
Lamentations 3
Esther 1
Daniel 9 2 2 1 2 5
Nehemiah 1
12 Chronicles 3 1 1 2
Tobit 1
2 Maccabees 2
Additions to Esther 2
Additions to Daniel 2
Astronomical Enoch 1
Book of Watchers 2 1
Book of Dreams 1
Jubilees 2 1
Aramaic Levi
Document 2 1 1
Book of Noah 1 1
Temple Scroll 2
Apocryphon of Joshua 1
Apocryphon of Jeremiah 1
Historical Text A 1
Instruction (MLM) 3
Beatitudes 1
Plea for Deliverance 1
Book of Hago 4
In addition to the Torah and prophetic texts, the Essene liter-
H
e
l
l
e
n
i
s
t
i
c
J
u
d
a
i
s
m
E
s
s
e
n
e
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
P
h
a
r
i
s
a
i
c
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
P
r
o
h
a
s
m
o
n
e
a
n
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
S
a
p
i
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
A
s
i
d
e
a
n
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
P
r
i
e
s
t
l
y
-
L
e
v
i
t
i
c
a
l
l
i
t
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
98 Armin Lange
ature also focused on Psalms. Prophetic texts were quoted more
often in this literature than in the literature of any other group of
ancient Judaism. Furthermore, a large group of other texts were
regarded as authoritative by the Essenes.
Therefore, for the time from Jason to Pompey, no evidence
exists that argues for group specic canons. On the contrary, the
evidence suggests a gradual growth of heterogeneous collections
of authoritative writings common to all groups of ancient Juda-
ism. The boundaries of the collection that were later called writ-
ings and the boundaries of the collections designated as Moses
and prophets were still uid.
For question (3) regarding the textual form of authoritative
literature, nothing suggests that a given Jewish group or Juda-
ism in general preferred a specic text type. A text from Qum-
ran, 4QTestimonia, as well as the quotations of and allusions
to Jeremiah are good sample cases. In lines 18, 4QTestimonia
quotes Exodus 21: 21b according to its pre-Samaritan text type.
Then in lines 913, for Numbers 24: 1517, this collection of
messianic references uses a proto-Masoretic text. This proto-
masoretic quotation is followed by a quote from Deuteronomy
33: 811 according to a non-aligned text type also attested by
4QDeut
h
. Finally, at its end, in lines 2130, 4QTestimonia
quotes the Apocryphon of Joshua (cf. 4Q175 2130 par 4Q379
22 ii 715), a parabiblical text on the biblical book of Joshua that
never became part of any canonical collection.
See Julie A. Duncan, 35. 4QDeut
h
, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 14
(1995): 6170, esp. 69; Tov, The Biblical Texts, forthcoming.
This text was originally named Psalms of Joshua. For the inter-textual
relationship between 4QTestimonia and the Apocryphon of Joshua see Carol
A. Newsom, The Psalms of Joshua from Qumran Cave 4, Journal of Jewish
Studies 39 (1988): 5673, esp. 56, 5960, 6973; ead., 4Q378 and 4Q379: An
Apocryphon of Joshua, in Heinz-Josef Fabry et al., eds., Qumranstudien:
Vortrge und Beitrge der Teilnehmer des Qumranseminars auf dem internationalen
Treen der Society of Biblical Literature, Mnster, 25.26. Juli 1993, Schriften
des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum, no. 4 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1996), 3585, esp. 356, 748. According to Lust, the way in which
the Apocryphon of Joshua is cited in 4QTestimonia is unlike other references
quoted in this text (Quotation Formulae, 70). For Lust, the Apocryphon of
Joshua in 4QTestimonia is not regarded as an authoritative text because it is
not introduced by a quotation formula. In my opinion, Lusts claim is not valid
because none of the quotations in 4QTestimonia is introduced by a quotation
The book of Jeremiah is another good example. Both Dibre
Ha-Meorot and the book of Baruch were written in priestly or
levitical circles. Dibre Ha-Meorot alludes to the protomasoretic
text of Jeremiah while Baruch uses the Hebrew Vorlage of the
Septuagint. The same is true for the Essene texts Hodayot and
Ordinances. While the former refers to a protomasoretic text,
the latter uses the Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint. Table 7,
Quoted Text Forms of Jeremiah from Jason to Pompey, shows
which passages from Jeremiah are cited in either the proto-MT
or the LXX-Vorlage.
T:nii 7: Quoted Text Forms of Jeremiah from Jason to Pompey
Proto-MT LXXVorlage
Jer. 4: 31 1QH
a
III 7
Jer. 6: 19 4QDibHam
a
6 2
Jer. 7: 34 Baruch 2: 23
Jer. 20: 9 1QH
a
vIII 30
Jer. 25: 11 Dan. 9: 2
3rd Sibylline Oracle 280
Jer. 27: 1214 Baruch 2: 21
Jer. 29: 1314 Jubilees 1: 15
4Q392 1 6
Jer. 30: 8 4QOrd
a
24 2
In contrast to ancient Mesopotamia and Hellenistic Greek cul-
ture, textual standardization was not an issue related to the ca-
nonical history of the Hebrew Bible for the time from Jason to
Pompey. Thus, with regard to textual standardization, no change
can be observed when compared to the time before Jason. In
addition, Eugene Ulrichs analysis has shown that no group-
specic or sectarian variants can be found in the biblical manu-
scripts from Qumran.
formula. Nevertheless, the text is clearly a collection of authoritative messianic
references.
Eugene Ulrich, The Absence of Sectarian Variants in the Jewish
Scriptural Scrolls Found at Qumran, in Edward D. Herbert and Emanuel Tov,
eds., The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Discoveries of the Judaean Desert
(London: British Library, forthcoming). I am indebted to Professor Ulrich who
graciously allowed me to read his article before its publication.
100 Armin Lange
So far, it can be concluded that the new orientation in the
approach to authoritative texts is not connected to any group-
specic preferences. What later became known as the Tanakh,
increased and developed gradually. For the time from Jason to
Pompey, this collection had neither a xed textual form nor a
xed size. In contrast to ancient Egypt and Hellenistic Greek
cultures, ancient Judaism from Jason to Pompey knew no list of
authoritative authors. Rather, only vague descriptions of uid
text corpora can be found. Also in contrast to ancient Mesopo-
tamian and Hellenistic Greek cultures, a standardized text of
books regarded as authoritative did not yet exist. Hence a signi-
cant dierence between ancient Judaism from Jason to Pompey
and its surrounding cultures can be detected, evident in ancient
Juda isms use of quotation formulas.
With respect to question (4), the way in which texts quote or
allude to other texts provides more information about the new
orientation mentioned above. On the one hand, for the time be-
fore Jason, quotation formulas were mainly found in the books
of Ezra/Nehemiah and 12 Chronicles. Formulas using the pas-
sive participle 2`3 (it is written) were used only by Nehemiah
and 12 Chronicles. On the other hand, from Jason onwards,
four times as many quotation formulas were used as before. Sig-
nicantly, the CN- and 2`3-formulas were mostly found in
Essene texts. The use of two lalvw-formulas in Baruch and two
attestations of a gvgraptai formula in 1 Maccabees and in Baruch
advise against the idea of group-specic quotation formulas. See
Summary List 4 for these quotation formulas.
Summary List 4: Quotation Formulas after 175 ni (108 out of 687
quotations and allusions = 16%)
CN (he said): 34 times (Damascus Document, Melchizedek, Midrash
on Eschatology, Exposition on the Patriarchs)
2 Pi (he spoke): 5 times (Damascus Document, War Scroll
( Milh
.
amah), Commentary on Genesis)
lalvw (to speak): 2 times (in translation: Baruch)
2`3 (it is written): 38 times (Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 1QS VXI,
Damascus Document, Miqs
.
at Ma}asèh Hattorah (= MMT), Miscel-
laneous Rules, Midrash on Eschatology, Melchizedek, Midrash
Sepher Moshe)
.. Hi (he declared): 1 time (War Scroll (Milh
.
amah) )
`S Pi (he commanded): 2 times (Baruch, Dibre Ha-Meorot)
2` Hi (he constituted): 1 time (Damascus Document)
.CL Hi (he proclaimed): 1 time (War Scroll (Milh
.
amah) )
As assumed above, the increase in the use of quotation formu-
las suggests an altered attitude towards authoritative literature.
Two examples demonstrate the direction in which this paradigm
shift is turned. In 4QMidrash on Eschatology
a
(4Q174) III 15,
a quotation of Isaiah 8: 11 is introduced as what is written in
the book of Isaiah the Prophet concerning the end of days. In
a similar way, 4QMiscellaneous Rules (4Q265) 1 3 introduces a
quotation of Isaiah 10: 3411: 1 as it is written in the bo[ok ]of
Isaiah the prophet. In contrast to the quotation formulas in 2
Chronicles 25: 4; Nehemiah 8: 14; or Tobit 14: 4; the Midrash on
Eschatology and Miscellaneous Rules do not refer to Isaiah him-
self, but rather to the book of Isaiah. It is the written text and
not the prophet that is of interest. This is conrmed by the fact
that the most popular quotation formulas are always constructed
with the passive participle 2`3 (it is written).
It is apparent that the character of authoritative literature has
changed. This paradigm shift is conrmed by the fact that exe-
getical literature appeared in ancient Judaism only after 175 ni.
Furthermore, after 175 ni, the share of anthological literature
increased by some 400 per cent, and the quotations and allusions
to authoritative literature increased by some 30 per cent. In addi-
tion, only from 175 ni onwards, the designation 7 (book)
is applied to prophetic books (9 times). At this time, the Jewish
people started to regard literature as scripture. Literature was no
longer regarded as a means of communicating what happened or
what had been revealed in the past. Rather, literature acquired a
dignity of its own. It was no longer literature. It was scripture.
This new attitude towards authoritative literature is unpar-
alleled in the ancient Mediterranean and ancient Near Eastern
cultures. Is there a historic condition that caused early Judaism
to go beyond what was practised in its environment? Or is this a
distinct property of Judaism due to its monotheistic character?
The latter suggestion is all the more attractive as the concept of
This seems to be implied by Hurowitzs comparison of Mesopotamian
concepts of canon with those found in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Canon
and Canonization, 8*10*).
102 Armin Lange
scripture seems to exist only in the three monotheistic world reli-
gions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Furthermore, after the
concept of scripture had evolved, neither was the textual shape
of scripture standardized nor was its size dened. How could
the idea of scripture work given this uidity of textual shape and
size? What provided the necessary unity amid the plurality?
Before these questions can be answered concerning the quota-
tions of and allusions to authoritative literature for the time from
Jason to Pompey, one more observation must be made. Although
during this time, a new approach to authoritative literature can be
observed, the huge majority of quotations and allusions were not
introduced by quotation formulas. Some quotation formulas do
not even seem to reect the idea of scripture at all. For example,
4QMidrash on Eschatology
b
(4Q177) xI 7 introduces a quota-
tion of Psalm 6: 2-5 as concerning the end of days, about which
David said. Here, it is not a Book of David in which something is
written about the end of days, but instead David who said some-
thing about the end of days. It might be tempting to argue that,
by the Midrash on Eschatology, David was regarded as being less
authoritative than, for example, Isaiah. But in the Midrash on
Eschatology, the main texts interpreted are Deuteronomy 33,
then 2 Samuel 7: 10-14, and then selected Psalms. This means
that for the Midrash on Eschatology, the Psalms have the same
authority as Deuteronomy and 2 Samuel. This example shows
that in the same text, in this case the Midrash on Eschat ology,
two dierent concepts of authoritative literature can be applied.
Parallel to the evolving new understanding of authoritative lit-
erature as scripture, the old approach still prevailed. Both ideas
existed intertwined with and next to each other.
In this context, it is interesting to note that almost all com-
mentaries preserved were written by Essenes who, for several
reasons, rejected the Jerusalem temple as deled. Further-
See Steudel, Midrasch zur Eschatologie, 133.
See Hartmut Stegemann, The Qumran EssenesLocal Members of the
Main Jewish Union in Late Second Temple Times, in The Madrid Qumrn
Congress: Proceedings of the International Congress on the Dead Sea Scrolls,
Madrid, March 1821, 1991, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah, no.
11 (Leiden: E. J. Brill and Editorial Complutense, 1992), 83166, esp. 122
6; Armin Lange, Weisheit und Prdestination: Weisheitliche Urordnung und
Prdestination in den Textfunden vom Toten Meer, Studies on the Texts of the
Desert of Judah, no. 18 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), 1417.
more, one of the other two exegetical texts known from the time
of Jason to Pompey, the work of Aristobul, was written in the
Egyptian diaspora; the text comes from a community geographi-
cally removed from the Jerusalem temple. This means that one
of the most signicant documentations for the idea of scripture is
found in a group that either voluntarily or for needs of geograph-
ical distance was separated from the temple. If the new concept
of scripture that evolved during the time of the so-called Hellen-
istic religious reforms is related to the non-availability of the
Jeru salem temple, then this relation is cause for investigation.
The following question must be asked. Did the idea of scripture
arise in response to the desecration of the Jerusalem temple dur-
ing these reforms: the erection of an idol of Zeus Olympios in the
Jerusalem temple in 167 ni? An armative answer might also
explain why the old concept of authoritative literature could pre-
vail when the Jerusalem temple was rededicated in 164 ni.
In the last part of this chapter, I will explain why the concept
of scripture evolved, why it existed intertwined with the older
concept of authoritative literature, and what provided unity
amid scriptures uidity in text and size.
FROM LITERATURE TO SCRIPTURE
In this section, I study the relation between the new concept of
scripture and what happened in 167 ni. In that year, an icon
of Zeus Olympioscalled the shiqus
.
shomem, the abomina-
tion of desolation by pious Jewswas erected in the Jerusalem
temple.
Daniel 9 tries to explain this historical event by reinterpret-
ing Jeremiah 25: 1112. On the one hand, 2 Chronicles 36: 22
and Ezra 1: 1 interpret Jeremiahs prophecy of seventy years
of desolation (Jer. 25: 1112) as being fullled by the conquest
of the Neobabylonian empire under Cyrus the Great. On the
other hand, the shiqus
.
shomem demonstrated that the time of
Not enough of the text of Narrative C (4Q462), the other non-Essene
exegetical composition from Hellenistic times, is preserved in order to make
claims about its origin. Nevertheless, a sectarian setting cannot be ruled out. See
Mark Smith, 462. 4QNarrative C, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert 19 (1995):
195209, esp. 208.
104 Armin Lange
Gods wrath had not yet ended and that the prophecies of salva-
tion were misunderstood. In view of this shiqus
.
shomem, Daniel
9 interpreted Jeremiahs prophecy in a dierent way. Accord-
ing to Daniel 9: 2, Daniel sought knowledge in the books (`.`2
2`72). This phrase is signicant because it shows that the
author of Daniel regarded authoritative literature as scripture. It
is not only the word of God to Jeremiah but the book of Jeremiah
itself that is regarded as authoritative. The phrase in question
is even more signicant because it was written shortly after the
shiqus
.
shomem was erected. By means of an angel vision, Daniel
came to the conclusion that Jeremiah 25: 1112 had not referred
to seventy years but to seventy weeks of years, in total 490 years.
By scriptural interpretation, a new revelation was attained. In
Daniel 9 and in other texts, the study of scripture became the
means by which the people were able to perceive their current
reality.
The desecration of the Jerusalem temple poses, furthermore,
the problem as to how one could encounter God without a
temple. This is the question behind Jubilees 1: 27. The Book of
Jubilees was written shortly after the shiqus
.
shomem was erected.
It is a parabiblical text that reports on what happened from cre-
ation to the revelation of the Torah on Mount Sinai. Jubilees 1:
27 claims that the Book of Jubilees had been dictated to Moses by
the angel of the presence. And he told the angel of the] presence
to dictate [to Moses from the beginning of the creation unti]l my
sanctuary is built [among them for all ages of eternity] (Jubilees
1: 27 according to 4QJub
a
Iv 78). In this quotation, the build-
ing of the temple is related to the end of the Book of Jubilees. But
Klaus Koch, Die Bedeutung der Apokalyptik fr die Interpretation der
Schrift, in Die Reiche der Welt und der kommende Menschensohn: Studien zum
Danielbuch (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1995), 1645, esp. 22
31; John J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel, Hermeneia
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993), 34460; Devorah Dimant, The Seventy Weeks
Chronology (Dan 9, 2427) in the Light of New Qumranic Texts, in Adam S.
van der Woude, ed., The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings, Bibliotheca
Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, no. 106 (Leuven: Peeters, 1993),
5776.
On the date and origin of the Book of Jubilees see James C. VanderKam,
The Origins and Purpose of the Book of Jubilees, in Matthias Albani et al.,
eds., Studies in the Book of Jubilees, Texte und Studien zum Antiken Judentum,
in Jubilees 50, only the revelation of the Torah is described and
nothing is said about a temple. It seems that the Torah itself was
regarded as the temple of God according to the opinion of the
Book of Jubilees. This is conrmed by the astonishing references
in Jubilees 4: 26 and 8: 19 to Mount Sinai. In these passages,
Mount Sinai is named next to the garden of Eden, the mountain
of the east, and Mount Zion as a sanctuary of God.
The paradigm shift from literature to scripture is con nected
with the altered function of authoritative literature. For a
short time, scripture replaced the Jerusalem temple that was
dese crated by the shiqus
.
shomem as the residence of God. And
later on, with the Essene movement and in the Egyptian dias-
pora, scripture had a comparable function. Not in the Jerusalem
temple and its cult, but in the study of scripture did the Jewish
people encounter their God. Scripture functioned as a portable
sanctuary. But only three years after the shiqus
.
shomem was
erected, the Jerusalem temple was puried and rededicated. An
alternative place to encounter God was not needed any more. In
this short time, the idea of scripture had not totally replaced the
older approach to authoritative literature. Consequently, both
ideas existed intertwined with and next to each other. Even if
scripture itself became the temple of God for a short time and
the means by which people perceived their own reality, then it
is all the more astonishing that scripture had neither a xed size
nor a xed textual form. What established the unity behind this
plurality?
An answer to this question can be found in the signicant letter
of the Essene movement to the Jerusalem high priest written
Regarding this function of scripture, see for example, Zengers consider-
ations of the Psalter as a sanctuary in which God is to be looked for in Erich
Zenger, Der Psalter als Heiligtum, in Beate Ego et al., eds., Gemeinde ohne
TempelCommunity without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des
Jerusalemer Tempel und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und
frhen Christentum, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament,
no. 118 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 11530, esp. 129; and Karel van der
Toorns reections on elements of iconic ritual in the veneration of the Torah
(The Iconic Book: Analogies between the Babylonian Cult of Images and the
Veneration of the Torah, in Karel van der Toorn, ed., The Image and the Book:
Iconic Cult, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Religion in Israel and the Ancient
Near East, Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, no. 21 (Leuven:
Peeters, 1997), 22948).
106 Armin Lange
in the second half of the second century ni. Called Miqs
.
at
Ma}aseh Ha-Torah (MMT ) today, the letter discusses halakhic
dierences between the Essenes, the Jerusalem high priest, and
the Pharisees by referring to scripture. Therefore, MMT is a
textual witness to a discourse that is based on scriptural inter-
pretation.
The example of MMT n 378 illustrates well how this scrip-
tural discourse proceeded. And concerning] eating (a foetus of
an animal): we are of the opinion that the foetus [found in its
(dead) mothers womb may be eaten (only) after it has been ritu-
ally slaughtered. And you know that it is] so, namely that the
word is written (with concern to) a pregnant animal. Nowhere
in this passage nor in the entire MMT does the author refer to
the size or form of the text discussed. As in the example quoted
above (which refers to Lev. 22: 28), the text referenced in MMT
is not even paraphrased. Apparently what enabled communi-
cation between the Essenes, the Jerusalem high priest, and the
Pharisees depended neither on a closed collection like the later
canon of the Hebrew Bible, nor on a standardized text form.
With regard to the use of scripture as exhibited in the discourse
of MMT, the only thing of importance is that a given argument
was related to it. Amid all the plurality observed, it is the refer-
ence to scripture as such that provided unity. What facilitated
communication and provided unity is to be found on a meta-
level, in the perception of reality by scripture. It was the prin-
ciple of reference to scripture as such that provided unity amid
the plurality of quoted text-types, texts, and interpretations.
CONCLUSION
This chapter has analysed the importance of the quotations of
and allusions to authoritative literature in the Dead Sea Scrolls
and elsewhere in the literature of ancient Judaism from the time
For MMT see Elisha Qimron et al., Qumran Cave 4, v: Miqs
.
at Ma}ase Ha-
Torah, Discoveries in the Judaean Desert, no. 10 (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1994); John Kampen and Moshe Bernstein, eds., Reading 4QMMT: New
Perspectives on Qumran Law and History, SBL Symposium Series, no. 2 (Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1996); Lawrence H. Schiman, Miqs
.
at Maasei Ha-Torah, in
Lawrence H. Schiman and James C. VanderKam, eds., Encyclopedia of the
Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), i: 55860.
of Alexander the Great to Pompey. The 1,145 quotations and
allusions suggest that in ancient Judaism, not only Mosaic and
proph etic texts, but also other literary compositions were re-
garded as authoritative. Before the reign of the high priest Jason,
authoritative literature functioned as a means that communi-
cated Gods words and Gods history with Gods people. The
texts themselves had no authority of their own. Rather, their
authority rested on the word of God communicated through
the texts. In contrast to the ancient Egyptian, ancient Meso-
potamian, and the Hellenistic Greek cultures, furthermore, no
closed collections of authoritative literature and no standard-
ized text forms were acknowledged. But during the so-called
Hellenistic religious reforms, a paradigm shift took place in the
attitude towards authoritative literature. In Maccabean times,
authoritative literature replaced the temple as the place in which
Israel encountered its God. This replacement was historically
related to the desecration of the Jerusalem temple by an idol of
Zeus Olympios erected in 167 ni. For this historical reason,
authoritative literature gained a dignity of its own and became
scripture. The paradigm shift from authoritative literature to
scripture is evident not only in the increased frequency of quota-
tions and allusions, but also in the appearance of exegetical litera-
ture after 167 ni. In addition, a signicant increase in the use of
quota tion formulas and in the use of an anthological style can be
observed. The new concept of scripture had, however, no eect
on the uidity of the textual form of scripture and on the size of
the authoritative collections. On the one hand, there is evidence
neither for dierent group-specic closed canons nor for group-
specic text forms. On the other hand, even ancient Judaism as
a whole seems to have adopted neither a xed collection of scrip-
tures nor a standardized text. What provided unity amid the
plurality of scriptural size and form is the reference to scriptures
as such. The unity in scriptural plurality is thus to be found on
a meta-level. The basic concept of scripture is the perception of
reality by means of scriptural interpretation.
4
Unity and Plurality in Jewish Canons
The Case of the Oral and Written Torahs
Bij::I D. So::iv
For Rabbi Andr Ungar
..`N `S` `NC |2 `3C 2 `C `23"
`3C" "`.` `
INTRODUCTION
Discussions of canon among biblical theologians often focus
on the canons unity, perhaps because the canons boundaries
lend a sense of integration to an anthology that otherwise seems
remarkably diverse. This concern for canon as unifying force
raises several questions that I would like to address from the van-
tage point of Jewish traditions about canon. First, does the unity
of the canon stop at the borders of the canon, or is there a trans-
canonical unity that includes post-biblical Jewish literature? Put
dierently: Are there texts outside the canon that are canoni-
cal? By phrasing the question this way, I deliberately highlight
two uses of the term canon. In the rst part of this question, the
word canon has a narrow meaning: the closed list of books that
make up the Bible. In the second half, the word canoni cal is less
narrow; it refers to texts that are widely accepted within a reli-
It is a pleasure to dedicate this chapter to Rabbi Andr Ungar of Temple
Emanuel in Woodcli Lake, New Jersey, from whose mouth I and my family
learned Torah for many years. My thanks to friends and colleagues whose com-
ments on earlier drafts of this material greatly enhanced the nal version: Michael
Balinsky, Samuel Fleischacker, Christine Helmer, Angela Kim Haskins, Yehu-
dah Mirsky, Daniel Nevins, Norbert Samuelson, Baruch Schwartz, Cristina
Traina, Nicholas Wolterstor, and Azzan Yadin.
The Oral and Written Torahs 109
gious community as sacred, signicant, worthy of study, or re-
quiring obedience. In the following two sections of this essay, we
shall see that for Judaism, canonicity (in the broad sense) is not
limited to the canon (in the narrow sense). This nding prompts
a further question to be addressed in the nal two sections of
this paper: How should biblical theologians regard the unity of
scripture in light of the trans-canonical unity that is central to
Judaism?
We shall see that this trans-canonical unity severely damages
the notion of scriptures unity, at least as it has functioned in
the work of most biblical theologians. In fact trans-canonical
unity may damage the very notion of biblical theology as a eld
of study. If canonicity can thrive outside the canon, then it is
no longer clear to what extent scripture enjoys a special status,
nor is it evident that scripture can claim priority over traditions
based on or independent of scripture. In short, an examination
of trans-canonical unity in classical Judaism casts doubt on the
( essentially Protestant) goal of articulating a distinctly bibli-
cal theology. On the other hand, this examination bolsters the
category of tradition as one that functions alongside scripture, or
even as a category that encompasses scripture. Thus this study
evinces the anity between Catholic and Jewish approaches to
the Bible. Catholic and Jewish scholars face remarkably similar
tools and opportunities as they attempt to relate their scriptures,
respectively, to the teachings of the magisterium and to the appre-
hensions of kelal Yisrael (the community of Israel, or as it has
been felicitously rendered, catholic Israel). For both groups of
interpreters, the tension between scripture and tradition recedes,
because for both groups the boundary separating scripture and
tradition is subordinate to an overarching unity. Problems that
seem vexing from some Protestant points of view (for example,
the relationship between a description of biblical thought and
constructive theology) may turn out to be non- issues for Jewish
On the notion of catholic Israel and its relevance to attempts to synthe-
size a critical method with a modern religious outlook, see Solomon Schechter,
Studies in Judaism, First Series (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society,
1896), xviixix. Schechters discussion there also contains a ne statement on
the centrality of tradition in Judaism as an independent source of authority and
as the medium through which scripture is mediated.
110 Benjamin D. Sommer
thought as also for Catholic (and, in all likelihood, Orthodox)
theology.
To be sure, one ought not overstate the similarities, since
Jewish and Catholic thinkers view the origin of their respective
extra-scriptural traditions in slightly dierent ways. An extra-
scriptural traditions claim to reliability, insight, and authority
can rest on three pillars: the traditions preservation of teachings
not recorded in scripture but nonetheless accurately handed on
over time; the intellectual achievements of scholars whose inter-
pretations of scripture the tradition preserves; and an ongoing
divine presence that inspires and informs the work of human
tradents. Catholic authorities enthusiastically embrace all three
of these pillars, arming that tradition develops with the help
of the Holy Spirit. Jewish thinkers, on the other hand, display
a mixed attitude toward the third of these pillarsthat is, to the
possibility that post-biblical tradition results from pneumatic
exegesis or inspired teaching. Even those rabbinic thinkers who
see new ideas as in some way resulting from a phenomenon not
unlike revelation tend to express this opinion in highly circum-
spect and hesitant language. Nonetheless, the shared empha-
This may be the case, of course, for Protestant thinkers as well, insofar as
they embrace tradition as a central source of religious authority. One thinks of
the Wesleyan quadrilateral, for example. For a recent Protestant (in any event,
Anglican) thinker who embraces tradition, see David Brown, Tradition and
Imagination: Revelation and Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999),
esp. 10667. The same tendency is implied, I think, throughout many works
on biblical theology by James Barr; see especially his approving discussion of
Brown in James Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology (Minneapolis: Fortress,
1999), 586604. A related attempt appears in the work of Manfred Oeming,
who emphasizes the need for dynamic, back-and-forth discussion between bib-
lical texts and later theology; see Gesamtbiblische Theologien der Gegenwart: Das
Verhltnis von AT und NT in der hermeneutischen Diskussion seit Gerhard von
Rad (Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1985), esp. 2357. For a discussion of the
re-emergence of tradition alongside scripture in Protestant thought, see Avery
Dulles, Reections on Sola Scriptura, in Revelation and the Quest for Unity
(Washington, DC: Corpus Books, 1968), 6774.
See the very clear statement in Dei Verbum, the Dogmatic Constitution on
Divine Revelation promulgated by Paul VI during the Second Vatican Council
in 1965, chapter 2 (Handing On Divine Revelation). The statement is available
at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/
vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html.
On the question of whether new ideas (2`L`") can result from something
sis in Jewish and Catholic thought on the continuity between
scripture and tradition is noteworthy; and the implications of
this continuity for biblical theology demand attention.
TORAH AND TORAHS,
OR UNITY BEYOND THE CANON
73` 2l `"NC _`` `"2Ì
The Torah of Your mouth is better for me than
riches of gold and silver. (Ps. 119: 72)
It is quite clear that the Bible is not the only canonical antho-
logy for rabbinic Judaism. The twenty-four books of the Jewish
Bible or Tanakh never stand on their own in Jewish tradition
but are canonical only within a larger matrix of texts. There are,
famously, two Torahs according to rabbinic literature: `
232L or Written Torah and ".2L ` or Oral Torah.
The former consists of the Pentateuch along with the Prophets
and Writings; the latter consists of rabbinic literature. Now, let
me pause to explain how I use several of these terms, since some
of them can have confusingly overlapping referents. By Written
Torah I shall mean the twenty-four books of the Jewish Bible
and not merely its rst ve books. When I intend to refer to the
akin to revelation, see Abraham Joshua Heschel, Torah min Ha-shamayim, 3 vols.
(London: Soncino, 1965 and New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1990),
iii. 239, 368, 4953 (in Hebrew); and Yochanan Silman, The Voice Heard at
Sinai: Once or Ongoing (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1999), passim (in Hebrew).
Silman distinguishes especially clearly among several attitudes towards revela-
tion in rabbinic and medieval Jewish texts; for one of these schools, the answer
to the question at hand is an unambiguous no, and for two, a highly qualied
and nuanced yes. On apparent exceptions to the rabbinic notion that prophecy
ceased after the biblical period, which turn out not to be real exceptions at all,
see my article, Did Prophecy Cease? Evaluating a Re-evaluation, Journal of
Biblical Literature 115 (1996): 3147.
On the term itself, see Jacob Blidstein, Concerning the Term Torah
SheBe }Al Peh , Tarbiz 42 (1973): 4968 (in Hebrew) and also the critique of
Blidstein by Avraham Rosenthal, Oral Torah and Torah from Sinai: Theory
and Practice, Meh
.
qerei Talmud 2 (= Talmudic Studies Dedicated to the Memory
of Professor Eliezer Shimshon Rosenthal, 1993), 4556 n. 30 (in Hebrew).
On the term ` as including the entire Tanakh, see Wilhelm Bacher, Die
exegetische Terminologie der jdischen Traditionsliteratur (Hildesheim: Georg
Olms, 1965 (1899) ), i. 197; ii. 229; and E. Ben-Yehudah and N. H. Tur-Sinai,
rst ve books, I will use the term Pentateuch, rather than the
term Torah. When referring to the other two parts of the Jewish
Bible, the Prophets (2`N`2.) and Writings (2`2`3), I will use
the Hebrew acronym, _.Nach. (This not only saves a few syl-
lables but underscores the fact that the Prophets and Writings are
essentially a single bloc of material in the Jewish biblical canon,
which is more bipartite that tripartite.) By Oral Torah I mean
rabbinic literatures. This term includes the classical works of
the early sages known as tannaim (who lived from the early rst
century i to the mid-third century) and those by slightly later
sages known as amoraim and saboraim (mid-third to mid-sixth
centuries): the Mishnah, the two Talmuds (or Gemaras), and
the various midrashic and aggadic compilations. But the term
Oral Torah as it is typically used also includes later works. Post-
Talmudic texts and teachings, whether from the geonic period
(the sixth through eleventh centuries), the Middle Ages, or the
current era, can fall under the rubric of Oral Torah. To be sure,
the boundaries of Oral Torah are vague. (The Mishnah is clearly
in, while Masechet Sofrim (an extra-canonical tractate some-
times published along with but not quite as a part of the Tal-
mud) lies near the border, probably on the outer side rather than
the inner. Both the Jerusalem Talmud and the Nefesh Hahayyim
(a nineteenth-century scholastic work) are denitely in, but the
former is somehow more in than the latter.) But the existence
and importance of Oral Torah, however large its periphery may
be, are quite clear. The idea of Oral Torah has been discussed
comprehensively in scholarship, and an extensive summary of
Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis (Jerusalem/Tel Aviv: Ben Yehudah Society, 1908
1959), xvi. 7704b (in Hebrew). On the inclusion of the Prophets and Writings
in the rubric of that which was revealed as Written, see e.g. the Maharshas
commentary to b. Berachot 5a (2. 2`2`3` 2`N`2. `l :`23 LN
`2 `C3 N` `SC 22 |`N "2N 23`" `.. `"N); see further the
sources cited in Heschel, Torah min Ha-shamayim, ii. 734, and Silman, The
Voice Heard at Sinai, 323.
See James Barr, Holy Scripture: Canon, Authority, Criticism (Philadelphia:
Westminster, 1983), 546; John Barton, Oracles of God: Perceptions of Ancient
Prophecies in Israel after the Exile (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1986),
44, 912.
See especially the very helpful and clear presentation in Peter Schfer, Das
Dogma von der mndlichen Torah im rabbinischen Judentum, in Studien
zur Geschichte und Theologie des rabbinischen Judentums (Leiden: Brill, 1978),
the rabbinic texts that describe the duality of Torah need not be
repeated here.
Two issues, however, call for brief discussion in order to avoid some
misapprehensions: (1) the extent to which Oral Torah really was oral
at all; and (2) the dierent forms that the notion of dual Torah takes in
rabbinic literature.
(1) The classical works of Oral Torah have long been available in
written form. While scholars have investigated the orality of this body
of learning, the important questions they ask are not relevant to the
project at hand. Suce it to say that Oral Torah for at least the past
eighteen centuries has consisted rst and foremost of written docu-
ments (though the term can include some oral learning as well, if only in
the sense of exchanges between teacher and student in the classroom).
Oral Torah, in short, is not exclusively or primarily oral, and for our
purposes it does not matter to what extent it ever was. (For that matter,
the Written Torah in the biblical and rabbinic eras was made known
15397. See further Rosenthal, Oral Torah and Torah from Sinai, 44875;
Shmuel Safrai, Oral Torah, in Shmuel Safrai, ed., The Literature of the
Sages, Part One, Compendia rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum,
no. II/3 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 3588, esp. 435, 5660; E. E. Urbach,
The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs, trans. Israel Abrahamson (Jerusalem:
Magnes, 1975), 286314, esp. 3045; Jacob Neusner, What, Exactly, Did the
Rabbinic Sages Mean by The Oral Torah? (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998). On
the development of this notion and its relation both to pre-rabbinic Judaism
and to the modern study of oral literature, see especially Martin Jaee, Torah in
the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE400 CE
(New York: Oxford University Press, 2001).
To wit: Was it ever really a purely oral-performative aair? When and
why did it come to be written down? How did the memorizers and reciters of
Oral Torah go about their work, and what elements of oral composition are
evident in it? How do the works of Oral Torah compare to other oral tradi-
tions from around the world? Did oral and written recensions of rabbinic works
coexist, and, if so, how did they interact? For examinations of these questions,
see especially the works of Jaee, Safrai, and Schfer in the previous note, as
well as, among others, Saul Lieberman, The Publication of the Mishnah, in
Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950),
8399; Birger Gerhardsson, Memory and Manuscript: Oral Tradition and Writ-
ten Transmission in Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity (Gleerup: C. W.
K. Lund, 1961); Jacob Neusner, Oral Tradition in Judaism: The Case of the
Mishnah (New York: Garland, 1987), 61100, 13348; Yaakov Elman, Yerush-
almi Pesah
.
im, Tosefta Pish
.
a, and the Problem of Orality, in Harry Fox and R.
Meacham, eds., Introducing Tosefta (Hoboken, N.J.: Ktav, 1999), 12380, and
the essays by Martin Jaee, Steven Fraade, Elizabeth Shanks Alexander, and
Yaakov Elman in Oral Tradition 14/1 (1999).
through oral recitation and was absorbed aurally by its audiences.
The contrast between modes of disseminating these literatures, then,
is smaller than one might think: in ancient times Written Torah was
largely an oral-performative aair, and from the early stages of the
rabbinic period Oral Torah was mostly written down.) The orality
of Oral Torah is a matter of ideology, not of actual transmission or re-
ception. The term asserts either Oral Torahs intimate connection with
the relationship between master and disciple or its organic, dynamic
nature, or both.
Yehoshua Gitay points out that the distinction between oral and written
literature is anachronistic when applied to ancient texts; see his article, Deu-
tero-Isaiah: Oral or Written?, Journal of Biblical Literature 99 (1980): 18597,
esp. 191. On the intertwining of oral and written registers in ancient Israel,
see further Susan Niditch, Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite
Literature (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1996), esp. 99130, and
Raymond Person, Jr., The Ancient Israelite Scribe as Performer, Journal of
Biblical Literature 117 (1998): 6019; but see also William Schniedewind, How
the Bible Became a Book: The Textualization of Ancient Israel (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, forthcoming), esp. ch. 1, who argues that the gulf
between orality and literacy ought not to be understated.
On the complex and uid relationship between oral culture and written
culture in Jewish tradition, see especially Yaakov Elman and Israel Gershoni,
Transmitting Tradition: Orality and Textuality in Jewish Cultures, in Yaakov
Elman and Israel Gershoni, Transmitting Jewish Traditions: Orality, Textual-
ity, and Cultural Diusion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000), 126. On
the deeply intertwined nature of oral and written literature in biblical Israel,
early Judaism, and ancient societies generally, see further Jaee, Torah in
the Mouth, 8, 1527; Jaee, Oral Tradition in the Writings of Rabbinic Oral
Torah, Oral Tradition 14 (1999): 9; Steven Fraade, Literary Composition and
Oral Per forance in Early Midrashim, Oral Tradition 14 (1999): 346, 46.
That is, the rabbis emphasized that one could not know Torah simply
by reading it on ones own; one can learn Torah only by hearing it discussed
by a teacher and by joining the discussion. See the sensitive insights of Jaee,
Torah in the Mouth, 12656. On this ideological dimension of the concept of
Oral Torah, see especially Michael Satlow, Oral Torah: Reading Jewish Texts
Jewishly in Reform Judaism, in D. E. Kaplan, ed., Platforms and Prayerbooks:
Theological and Liturgical Perspectives on Reform Judaism (Lanham: Rowman
and Little, 2002), 26170. Satlow uses the term Oral Torah to refer to the con-
ceptual category that allows Jews to derive Jewish meaning from written texts;
thus Oral Torah does not simply refer to a particular group of texts but more
profoundly to a set of orally transmitted reading practices peculiar to Jewish
cultures through the ages; one absorbs these practices above all through direct
contact with teachers, not only through a solitary grappling with texts (see esp.
265). One might paraphrase Satlows point with Yaakov Elmans phrase: Oral
Torah is sometimes understood as referring to a method of transmission rather
than the content of what is transmitted. See Yaakov Elman, R. Zadok Hako-
(2) Rabbinic works conceptualize the relation between Oral Torah
and revelation in more than one way. In the concepts most fully devel-
oped form, Moses received the entire Oral Torah at Sinai including all
of rabbinic literature and even what keen-witted students of the Torah
would one day expound before their teachers: see, e.g. in the Jeru-
alem Talmud Peah 2: 6, Hagigah 1: 8, Megillah 1: 5, and in the Babylon-
ian Talmud Megillah 19b. The texts expressing this maximalist idea are
amoraic, not tannaitic. Other rabbinic texts make somewhat less com-
prehensive claims. Some passages in tannaitic midrashim come close
to the amoraic position, claiming that laws found in rabbinic literature
come from God without insisting that all their details were revealed to
Moses; see Sifra Shemini Par. 1 9 (ad Leviticus 10: 11), Mekhilta de-
Rabbi Ishmael Vayyisa Par. 1 (ad Exodus 15: 26), Sifre Deuteronomy
48 and 351. Other tannaitic or early amoraic texts make quite clear
that some aspects of Oral Torah were unknown to Moses and arose only
after his day (even though some such later teachings were rhetorically
linked to Moses); so, for example, in the famous story told by Rav in the
Babylonian Talmud Menah
.
ot 29b. The Mishnah and Tosefta ascribe
only three non-Pentateuchal laws to Moses at Sinai (see m. Yadayim
hen on the History of Halakha, Tradition 21/4 (1985): 9. Cf. the very similar
denition of tradition in Christian tradition in Dulles, Reections on Sola
Scriptura, 77.
See David Weiss Halivni, Peshat and Derash: Plain and Applied Meaning
in Rabbinic Exegesis (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 1637; id., On
Mans Role in Revelation, in Jacob Neusner, ed., From Ancient Israel to Mod-
ern Judaism: Intellect in Quest of Understanding. Essays in Honor of Marvin Fox
(Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), ii. 2949. Rosenthal addresses this issue from a
slightly dierent vantage point, noting that once certain traditions were classi-
ed as Oral Torah various responses arose to the question, which parts of Oral
Torah came from Sinai? See the sources he collects and his useful discussion in
Oral Torah and Torah from Sinai, 4607.
See Schfer, Das Dogma von der mndlichen Torah im rabbinischen
Judentum, 1623, 197, and Jay Harris, How Do We Know This? Midrash and
the Fragmentation of Modern Judaism (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press, 1995), 2.
This basic idea is attributed to tannaim in midrashic texts that were edited in the
amoraic period; see the opinions of Rabbi Akiva in Sifra Beh
.
uqotai 8: 13 and of
Rabbi Nehemiah in Kohelet Rabbah 5: 8.
On these passages, see Jaee, Torah in the Mouth, 8492.
On this passage as representing a nuanced minimalist conception of the
revelation of Oral Torah, see Halivni, On Mans Role, 301, esp. n. 6. For other
examples of a non-maximalist approach to the revelation of Oral Torah, see
e.g. the teaching of the rst-generation amora Yannai in y. Sanhedrin 22a (`"`N
3`" ` .`.), which makes clear that new halakhic decisions would be
arrived at later than Moses time. Cf. Seder Eliahu Zuh
.
a 2: it is praiseworthy
not merely to conserve Torah received at Sinai but to extend it, producing new
4: 3, m. Peah 2: 6, and t. Sukkah 3: 12; a non-legal tradition is also
ascribed to Moses at Sinai in m. Eduyot 8: 7). Consequently Martin
Jaee suggests that as far as the tradents behind Mishnaic and Toseftan
traditions are concerned, the bulk of the oral-literary tradition of hala-
khic norms is conceived to be of rather recent vintage, promulgated by
teachers whose disciplesor whose disciples disciplescould still be
consulted for details. In short, there are varying degrees to which
rabbinic literature ascribes authoritative traditions outside the Written
Torah to revelation. Because the maximalist formulation from some
amoraic texts is so well known, it is useful to recall that a non- maximalist
(and earlier) claim appears as well: Oral Torah (but not all of the Oral
things from it; and Midrash Numbers Rabbah h
.
uqat 4. On this theme in both
classical rabbinic and hasidic literature, see Elman, R. Zadok Hakohen, 712.
Mishnah and Tosefta do not employ this phrase in a fully consistent
manner, but they seem to mean by it a law distinct from scripture and not derived
from scripture; see Christine Hayes, Halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai in Rabbinic
Sources, in Shaye J. D. Cohen, ed., The Synoptic Problem in Rabbinic Literature
(Providence, R.I.: Brown Judaic Studies, 2000), 74. Later texts use the phrase
somewhat dierently; nonetheless, the Babylonian Talmud and early tradents
of the Jerusalem Talmud largely accept this distinction; see ibid., 78, 11011.
Jaee, Torah in the Mouth, 80; cf. Schfer, Das Dogma von der mndli-
chen Torah im rabbinischen Judentum, 185. So also Mayer Gruber, The
Mishnah as Oral Torah, Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellen-
istic, and Roman Period 15 (1984): 1212: Some of the laws contained in the
Mishnah purport to be of divine origin, and they have a clear basis in scripture.
Some . . . purport to be of divine origin, and they have little or no Scriptural
basis. Some . . . purport to be the legislation of . . . mortal authorities. On
the rabbis increasing tendency to attribute material to Sinaitic revelation, see
further David Weiss Halivni, Revelation Restored: Divine Writ and Critical
Responses (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1997), 5463, and David Kraemer,
The Formation of Rabbinic Canon: Authority and Boundaries, Journal of
Biblical Literature 110 (1991): 61627. The same tendency may be seen in the
increasing importance of the phrase `.`72 LC" 3" in later amoraic texts
(especially Babylonian ones, which tend to use the phrase on a wholesale level
to bolster rabbinic law in general); see Hayes, Halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai in
Rabbinic Sources, esp. 67 n. 13, and 96102.
Further, Azzan Yadin argues that texts associated with the Rabbi Yish-
mael tradition of exegesis radically limit the authority of what became known
as Oral Torah; for these texts, scripture and exegesis of scripture is almost the
only source of authority, and authoritative traditions parallel to and indepen-
dent of scripture are all but non-existent. See Azzan Yadin, Rabbi Ishmael,
4QMMT, and the Origins of Legal Midrash, Dead Sea Discoveries 10 (2002):
120. Nonetheless, as Yadin points out, this attitude was completely marginal-
ized in rabbinic tradition, so that Yadin can characterize this Yishmaelian tradi-
tion as radically unrabbinic.
Torah) was given to Moses at Sinai; this Oral Torah developed further
as scribes, sages, and rabbis interpreted and enacted new laws through-
out the generations.
There is no question that for Jewish tradition both Torahs are
sacred and worthy of study, that both provide sources for norms
of behaviour, that Gods presence is manifest in both. Many
rabbinic texts teach that Oral Torah (whether all of it or merely
its core) was given along with the Written Torah at Mount Sinai.
I will cite just one. Commenting on the verse, The Levites will
teach your laws to Jacob and your teachings/Torah/Torahs to
Israel (Deut. 33: 10), the midrash Sifre Deuteronomy 351
states:
The words Your Torah(s) to Israel ("NL`" _``) teach that two
Torahs were given to Israel, one orally and one in writing. A Roman
ocial named Agnitus asked Rabban Gamaliel, How many Torahs
were given to Israel? He replied, Two, one orally and one in writ-
ing.
(Note, by the way, that the Torah mentioned rst is the Oral
Torah, not the Written Torah). The idea that Oral Torah is
revealed, just like Written Torah, appears elsewhere in rab-
binic literature with some frequency: in the Babylonian Talmud
(Shabbat 31a), the Jerusalem Talmud (Hagigah 1: 8), in the
E. P. Sanders maintains that the early rabbis did not believe in a revealed
Oral Torah at all. According to Sanders, the earliest rabbis viewed their non-
biblical legal traditions (i.e. what later would be called Oral Torah) as distinct
from laws revealed directly by God at Sinai; see Sanders, Did the Pharisees
Have Oral Law? in Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Trin-
ity Press International, 1990), 97130. It remains the case that early rabbis had
non-biblical traditions they regarded as ancient and authoritative, even if they
were not Sinaitic. Hence they had a notion of twofold teaching quite parallel to
the later rabbinic doctrine of Oral Torah.
Sifre Deuteronomy, 351, in Louis Finkelstein, Sifre on Deuteronomy
(New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1969), 408. The Sifre evidently
read a text in which _` was plural (i.e. it read _` or even _```
rather than MTs _`). This parallels the plural _ÌLC in the rst verset.
Such a text is preserved in some Samaritan manuscripts and the Peshita, and
also in the standard vocalized editions of Tg Onkelos (though not in the better
manuscripts). For a defence of the plural reading, see further Joachim Begrich,
Die priesterliche Tora, Gesammelte Studien (Munich: Kaiser, 1964), 233 n.
10; Michael Fishbane, Torah (1), in Encyclopaedia Biblica, 9 vols. (Jerusalem:
Bialik, 195588 (1982) ), viii. 472 (in Hebrew).
midrashim (Sifra Beh
.
uqotai 8: 12), and in aggadic works (Avot
deRabbi Nathan : 15/n 29 (31ab)), to cite only a few examples.
One might suggest that the Written Torah and the Oral Torah
are both sacred and valued, but that they do not comprise a uni-
ed canon. Since they are distinct, it may be misleading to talk
about some sort of trans-canonical unity that joins them. Many
rabbinic texts suggest otherwise.
An amoraic comment in the Babylonian Talmud at Berachot
5a reads:
R. Levi bar H
.
ama said in the name of R. Shimon ben Laqish: What is
the aggadic teaching that can be derived from the verse in Scripture,
And I shall give you the tablets of stone, and the Torah (``), and
the commandment (`SC`), which I wrote to teach them (Exod. 24:
12)? The tabletsthis refers to the Ten Commandments. Torah
this refers to the Pentateuch. And the commandmentthis refers
to the Mishnah. Which I wrotethis refers to the Prophets and the
Writings. To teach themthis refers to the Talmud (i.e. Gemara).
This teaches that all these were given to Moses at Sinai.
It is signicant that components of the Oral Torah and the
Written Torah are mixed together in this passage. The order in
which the text presents the material is not, as we might expect,
Penta teuch, Nach, Mishnah, Gemara, but Pentateuch, Mish-
nah, Nach, Gemara. This passage arms not just unity
Hebrew: NC, literally Reading, but usually rendered Scripture. As
Rashi explains in his commentary to this passage, the word here refers speci-
cally to the Pentateuch, which one is commanded to read (`") in its entirety,
not the Nach.
Printed editions read Gemara here rather than Talmud. The variant
does not aect our point, since the word Talmud when used as a title in rabbinic
literature generally refers to the work we now call Gemara by itself, and not to
Talmud in the current sense of Mishnah combined with Gemara. See Bacher,
Die exegetische Terminologie der jdischen Traditionsliteratur, ii. 235.
On the important role this passage plays in later rabbinic thought, see Hes-
chel, Torah min Ha-shamayim, ii. 2378.
The same is true of the alternative versions of this midrash in other rab-
binic sources, even though the identication of the various components with
words from the source verse diers. Thus in Midrash Hagadol and Halachot
Gedolot, tablets are the Pentateuch, Torah is the Mishnah, commandments
are the commandments, which I wrote are the Prophets and Writings, and to
teach them is the Talmud (= Gemara). For references to these and additional
sources, see M. M. Kasher, Torah Shelemah, 43 vols. (Jerusalem: Beit Torah
Shelemah, 192792), xix. 277, 108 (in Hebrew). Some midrashic texts, how-
within scripture but unity between scripture (Pentateuch and
Nach) and rabbinic literature (Mishnah and Gemara). One does
not sense that either type of literature as a whole takes prece-
dence, has greater importance, or makes a stronger claim on
our loyalty. If anything, one might conclude that the Mish-
nah, a component of Oral Torah, takes precedence over Nach,
a component of Written Torah. Classical commentators on
the Talmudic passage in fact make precisely that claim. An
early medieval commentator on Berachot 5a states, From this
passage one concludes that the Mishnah, as well as the Talmud
which explains the Mishnahs laws, have greater sanctity than
the Prophets and Writings . . . for the biblical verse puts the
commandment, which is the Mishnah, before which I write,
which are the Prophets and Writings. A nineteenth- century
rabbinic commentator, Abraham of Minsk, in his Ahavat Eitan,
refers to a teaching from elsewhere in the Babylonian Talmud,
Nedarim 22b, to explain the placement of Mishnah before Nach
in Berachot 5a. According to Nedarim 22a, if the Israelites
had never sinned, only the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua
would have been revealed to them; God would not have given
the remainder of the Nach to a perfectly righteous Israel. This
ever, provide another interpretation, in which the Written Torah precedes the
Oral Torah; see ibid. xix. 278, 12. Even these, however, stress that both were
given to Moses at Sinai.
Urbach (The Sages, 2902) makes a similar point about the story in Avot
deRabbi Nathan :15/n29: Hillels statement that there are two Torahs contains
not the slightest indication that the two Trt were dierently evaluated. Just
as you have accepted the one in faith [Hillel says there,] so accept also the other
in faith. Against this view, however, see Sanders, Did the Pharisees Have
Oral Law?, who argues that the Pharisees and early rabbis did view their non-
biblical traditions as having a lower status than biblical law (i.e. laws that were
clearly stated in scripture or that could be derived exegetically from scripture).
Even if Sanders is correct, this attitude weakens over time, as more and more of
the Oral Torah comes to be seen as Sinaitic.
Cited in Kasher, Torah Shelemah, xix. 277, 108. Similarly, as Kasher
notes, the Iyyun Yaakov (a mid-nineteenth-century halakhic authority and
commentator to the Talmud) ad loc. maintains that the verse mentions Mishnah
rst because one should study Mishnah before Nach.
See the commentary of Ahavat Eitan to this passage in the Ein Yaakov,
and the summary by Kasher, Torah Shelemah (where, however, Kasher clearly
intended to write not .2L`" but 32L`", as the passage in Ahavat Eitan
itself makes clear).
is because (as the fourteenth-century commentary of Nissim
Gerondi, or the Ran, to Nedarim 22b explains) the Pentateuch
contains laws that will be in eect in perpetuity, and Joshua 1322
stipulate how land should be allocated among the Israel ite tribes
in Canaan for all time. Thus both the Pentateuch and Joshua had
to be revealed whether or not the Israelites had sinned. In con-
trast (the Ran avers), the remaining books of the Nach merely
contain exhortations and warnings to sinful Israelites regard-
ing the need to observe the Torahs laws. The Ahavat Eitan,
commenting on our passage from Berachot 5a, makes clear that
in this regard the Mishnah resembles the Pentateuch, not the
Nach: the Mishnah would have been revealed even if Israel had
not sinned, presumably because it contains rulings and explana-
tion of law. Thus sacred texts containing law (the Pentateuch
and Joshua from the Written Torah, and the Mishnah from the
Oral Torah) are of primary value, while the remaining texts of
the Written Torah are merely of contingent value.
The primacy of Oral Torah over parts of Written Torah
emerges even more strongly in other rabbinic texts. Take the
following passage from the Jerusalem Talmud Peah 2: 6:
The Gemara, according to Ahavat Eitan, is mentioned last because it was
originally intended only for Moses use, not for the whole nation.
One might argue that the term .LC in b. Berachot 5a is not a title referring
to the specic literary work of that name edited by Rabbi Judah (as I translated it
above) but a noun referring to orally repeated traditions generally; on this sense
of the term, see Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jdischen Traditions-
literatur, i. 1223, Ben-Yehudah and Tur-Sinai, Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis,
vii. 3403, and Jaee, Torah in the Mouth, 206 n. 50. In this broader sense, the
term .LC is essentially synonymous with the term Oral Torah; cf. Gerhards-
son, Memory and Manuscript, 278, 83, and Rosenthal, Oral Torah and Torah
from Sinai, 455 n. 24. Similarly, the term `C" at the end of the passage (in
the better manuscripts) would refer not to the works we now call Gemara but
to rabbinic debates concerning the Oral Torah (Bacher, Die exegetische Termino-
logie der jdischen Traditionsliteratur, i. 2012; Ben-Yehudah and Tur-Sinai,
Thesaurus Totius Hebraitatis, xvi. 7756). This translation of the two terms sug-
gests a reading of the passage which diers slightly from the one I explore above,
but my point remains unchanged or is perhaps amplied: Oral Torah (in this
case, Oral Torah generally, not just the Mishnah of Rabbi Judah) precedes a
segment of Written Torah.
On the theme of Oral Torah as the more beloved Torah in rabbinic texts,
see further Schfer, Das Dogma von der mndlichen Torah im rabbinischen
Judentum, 1756, and the texts discussed there. For further texts and discus-
R. Haggai said in the name of R. Shmuel bar Nahman: [Sacred] words
have been uttered orally and [sacred] words have been uttered in writ-
ing, and we do not know which of them are more precious, but it is
written, For in accordance with (` ". `3literally, according to the
mouth of ) these words I have established My covenant with you and
with Israel (Exod. 34: 27). This proves that those that came orally are
more precious.
The sense that Oral Torah takes precedence becomes unmis-
takable, I think, in some medieval and modern discussions of
curriculum. There is an agreement in principle that ideally a Jew
should study both Written Torah (in particular the Pentateuch)
and Oral Torah, but some authorities maintain that one can ful-
l this dual obligation by studying Oral Torah aloneafter all,
rabbinic literature quotes scripture quite often, so by studying
the rabbis one kills two birds with one stone. Some medieval
authorities, especially among Ashkenazim, went so far as to dis-
courage the study of the Bible, mentioning it alongside hereti-
cal works! The notion that Talmud alone is worthy of study
became, and to some degree remains, fairly widespread in the
great Lithuanian yeshivot of the nineteenth and twentieth cen-
turies. While medieval and modern authorities within rabbinic
sions in addition to the one cited here, see Urbach, The Sages, 305, and Krae-
mer, The Formation of Rabbinic Canon, 621.
On this passage and its parallels, see Jaee, Torah in the Mouth, 1423;
Schfer, Das Dogma von der mndlichen Torah im rabbinischen Juden-
tum, 1667; Urbach, The Sages, 305. Interestingly, Rosenthal points out (Oral
Torah and Torah from Sinai, 451 n. 12) the same proof-text (Exod. 34: 27) is
used in Dead Sea Scrolls to assert that the Torah of Moses (i.e. the Pentateuch)
already contains all the law and thus implicitly to reject the notion of a tradi-
tion parallel to and not directly based on the Written Torah; see the Damascus
Covenant xIv. 2. This may suggest that already in the rst century ni a live
debate over the question of traditions outside the Written Torah was taking
place and that certain verses had become central to that debate (cf. the use of
Habakkuk 2: 24 in discussions of justication and law in Galatians 3: 1011
and 1QpHab).
On the relative place of Bible and Talmud in Jewish curricula, see the
helpful summary in Moshe Halbertal, People of the Book: Canon, Meaning, and
Authority (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1997), 98100, with
extensive references to primary and secondary sources. See also Isaac Kalimi,
Die Bibel und die Klassich-Jdische Bibelauslegung. Eine Interpretations-
und Religionsgeschichtliche Studie, Zeitschrift fr die alttestamentliche Wissen-
schaft 114 (2002): 596, 6046.
culture have defended the study of the Bible, nonetheless the
Bible in traditional rabbinic culture is always studied alongside
rabbinic texts, or through rabbinic texts, when it is studied at all.
Never in rabbinic Judaism do we nd the converse opinion, that
Written Torah is important and Oral Torah is not.
The unity of Written Torah and Oral Torah is further dis-
closed in rabbinic works that fail to distinguish between them at
all or that regard the distinction as inconsequential. Two central
documents of early rabbinic tradition, the Mishnah and Tosefta,
never refer to the duality of Torah; the terms Oral Torah and
Written Torah do not even appear in these works. Rather, they
use the term torah to refer to all authoritative Jewish learning
with its roots at Sinai (reserving the term ha-torah, with the
denite article, to refer to the Pentateuch). Thus the opening
passage of Mishnah Avot simply says that Moses received torah
at Sinai and passed it on, ultimately, to the rabbis. A stronger
See Halbertal, People of the Book; see also H. H. Ben Sasson, ed., A History
of the Jewish People (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1976), 717.
For one possible exception, see the reference to the work of Azzan Yadin
on the Yishmaelian exegetical tradition in tannaitic midrashim in n. 20 above.
The only other apparent exception involves curricula for girls among the ultra-
Orthodox, which focus on Bible and shun Talmud, but by associating Bible
with girls (I use this term advisedly) the rabbis in question did not intend a
compliment to the Bible.
See Neusner, Oral Torah and Tradition, in Method and Meaning in
Ancient Judaism (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1979), 60; Gruber, The
Mishnah as Oral Torah, 114. Only in the tannaitic midrashim and in amoraic
literature does the notion of a dual Torah emerge. See Jaee, Torah in the Mouth,
845; Neusner, What Did the Rabbinic Sages Mean, 34.
Avot clearly uses the term torah to include what other texts call Oral Torah
and Written Torah, or so the parallel (or explanatory) texts in Avot deRabbi
Nathan make clear; see Moshe David Herr, Continuum in the Chain of Torah
Transmission, Zion 44 (1979 = Yizhak F. Baer Memorial Volume): 47 n. 30
(in Hebrew), and cf. Jaee, Torah in the Mouth, 845. This use of terminology
shows up outside the Mishnah and Tosefta as well; so, for example, in the debate
between Elazar and Yoh
.
anan in b. Gittin 60b and y. Peah 2: 6, on which see
Kraemer, The Formation of Rabbinic Canon, 6245. Similarly, Azzan Yadin
points out that the phrase ` CN (Torah says) in halakhic midrashim
sometimes introduces verbal citations from the Pentateuch, and at other times
it introduces conclusions not found verbally in the Pentateuch but derived from
it in other midrashic texts. These texts use the term Torah to refer both to actu-
al verses from Written Torah and exegesis found in Oral Torah. See Azzan
Yadin, Scripture as Logos: Rabbi Ishmael and the Origins of Midrash, Divina-
statement of the unity of scripture and tradition can hardly be
made.
Other rabbinic documents admit the distinction but minimize
it. A midrash preserved in Exodus Rabbah 47: 1 and elsewhere
regards the division of Torah into written and oral components
as nothing more than a practical measure:
When the Holy One, Blessed be He, revealed Himself at Sinai in order
to give Torah to Israel, He dictated it to Moses in sequence: Scripture
(miqra), repeated traditions (mishnah), discussions (talmud), and lore
(aggadah), as it is said, God spoke all these things (Exod. 20: 1). At
that moment, God told Moses even what a student would one day ask
a teacher. Once Moses learned it from Gods mouth, God said, Teach
it to Israel. Moses responded, Master of the Universe! I shall write it
down for them. God said, I dont want to give to them in writing, for
I know that the nations of the world will rule over them and will take
it from them, and they will be degraded among the nations. Rather,
I will give them Scripture in writing, and I will give them repeated
traditions, discussions, and lore in oral form. This way, when they come
to be oppressed by the nations, they will still be distinct from them.
According to this comment, all Torah was originally Oral Torah.
One might say that the default value of Torah is oral. Only
after it was given to Moses was one part of it transmuted into
Written Torah, in deference to Moses request. This midrash
tions: Rereading late Antique Religion Series (Philadelphia: University of Penn-
sylvania Press, 2004), ch. 1.
In this regard, it is noteworthy that biblical verses that discuss the preser-
vation of revealed material frequently mention writing and oral memorization
side-by-side; see Exodus 24: 37, Deuteronomy 31: 911, 19, Exodus 17: 14,
concerning which see Rosenthal, Oral Torah and Torah from Sinai, 448 n. 4.
Dulles describes a similar realization in modern Christian thought, not
only Catholic but to some extent Protestant as well; see Dulles, Reections on
Sola Scriptura, 80.
See Jaee, Torah in the Mouth, 1445, and Schfer, Das Dogma von der
mndlichen Torah im rabbinischen Judentum, 170 for parallels.
In translating mishnah and talmud in their general sense rather than as
titles, I follow Jaee (Torah in the Mouth, 145, and cf. 206 n. 50; so also Moshe
David Herr, Oral Law, in Encyclopaedia Judaica (Jerusalem: Keter, 1972), xii.
1442, and cf. Bacher, Die exegetische Terminologie der jdischen Traditionslitera-
tur, i. 1223, 2012). That questions asked by future students are included in the
revelation of Torah makes clear that the broad sense is intended here; a question
asked last week by a student is not in the Mishnah or Talmud, but they are part
of talmud in the sense of a learned discussion of tradition.
does not indicate that there is any essential dierence between
the sections of Torah God consigned to writing and the sections
God kept oral. The point was to divide the precious inheritance
so that no other nation could take it in its entirety. Other nations
could usurp the written sections (and in the view of the rabbis
the Christians did exactly that). But one who has only a part
of Torah has nothing of it at all, for Torah is a unity, its appar-
ent division into written and oral sections notwithstanding.
Indeed, this passage implies that Oral Torah has a conceptual
and even temporal priority over Written Torah; since all Torah
was originally oral, Written Torah can be seen as a subset of Oral
Torah. (Similar assertions appear elsewhere in rabbinic litera-
ture. One might compare these assertions to the view among
recent Catholic and, increasingly, Protestant thinkers that tradi-
The parallel text in Tanh
.
uma Ki Tissa 34 makes this explicit: God antici-
pated that the nations of the world would later translate the Torah and read
it in Greek and say, We are Israel! Not all rabbinic texts take this attitude,
incidentally; see Solomon Schechter, Aspects of Rabbinic Theology (New York:
Schocken, 1961 (1909) ), 133 and references there.
On this idea more generally in rabbinic literature, cf. Gerhardssons asser-
tion that the rabbis distinguished between Oral and Written Torah merely as
laws which had been transmitted in dierent ways, not as two dierent types or
qualities of law (Memory and Manuscript, 26).
Cf. Urbach, The Sages, 305, and Kraemer, The Formation of Rabbinic
Canon, 621, both of whom note the dependence of Written Torah on Oral
Torah. See also Herr, Oral Law, xii. 1440, who points out that written laws in
ancient Israel really did depend on oral tradition. The notion of the primacy of
oral tradition is not merely a midrashic trope but also is a historical reality: the
phrasing found in biblical law codes clearly refers back to the cultures com-
monly held legal practices, which preceded the written texts found in scripture.
See further Baruch Schwartz, On the Binding Status of the Mitzvot: The Legal
Grundnorm and its Rationale in the Torah Traditions, Shnaton HaMishpat
HaIvri 20 (2000): 24751 (in Hebrew), who notes classical thinkers who posit
conceptual priority of Oral Torah.
The same point emerges from the opinion of Resh Laqish in b. Gittin
60a, according to whom Moses memorized the various sections of the Torah as
they were given to him during the forty years in the desert and wrote down the
Pentateuch only at the end of his life (see Rashi there, .`. C`" ). On
these passages, see especially Kraemer, The Formation of Rabbinic Canon,
624 and 626: according to [Resh Laqish] . . . Written Torah was originally oral.
In eect, the only dierence between Written and Oral Torah during the life of
Moses was what they one day would become; for most of that period the form of
the two Torahs was literally identical. For additional rabbinic sources express-
ing this view, see Fraade, Literary Composition, 43.
tion is prior to scripture, and that the former encompasses the
latter. Signicantly, it is the work of modern biblical critics that
has encouraged Protestant thinkers to see tradition as parallel to
and even prior to scripture, since they remind theologians that
Christian scripture itself is the product of the passing on and
reshaping of traditions in the early church. The same assertion
applies to Jewish scripture, which crystallized through the pro-
cess of transmission and reworking in biblical Israel.)
The midrash preserved in Exodus Rabbah 47: 1, then, seems
to endorse the view that there is a trans-canonical unity that
includes literature outside the twenty-four books of the canon.
Moreover, this midrash makes clear that canonical non-biblical
literature includes not only the Mishnah and Gemara but also
learned questions asked by keen-witted students in the pres-
ence of their teachers. Oral Torah includes not only xed writ-
ings but also the ongoing, living words of students who discuss
Torah. Other rabbinic texts explicitly make the point that Torah,
both Oral and Written, constitutes a unity. Sifre Deuteronomy
306 suces as an example: The words of Torah are a unity
("N ` `2) which includes Scripture, repeated tradition
(mishnah), discussions of tradition (talmud), laws (halachot), and
lore (aggadot).
See Dulles, Reections on Sola Scriptura, 702, and 80.
The parallel texts read not simply student but keen-witted student
(`` `C"). See y. Peah 2: 6, Leviticus Rabbah 22. On the meaning of ``,
see David Golinkin, The Meaning of the Concepts Watiqin, Watiq, and Talmid
Watiq in the Book of Ben Sira and Talmudic Literature, Sidra 13 (1997): 538
(in Hebrew).
See the sources collected in Heschel, Torah min Ha-shamayim, iii. 457.
Especially pertinent is the comment of Rabbi Akiva in Sifra Beh
.
uqqotai 8: 13,
on which see Silman, The Voice Heard at Sinai, 267.
On my translation of the terms in their broad sense rather than as titles of
specic books, see Steven Fraade, From Tradition to Commentary: Torah and Its
Interpretation in the Midrash Sifre to Deuteronomy (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press,
1991), 96, and cf. note 41 above. That some manuscripts read midrash rather
than talmud also suggests that these terms here have their broad meaning. See
the textual notes in Finkelstein, Sifre on Deuteronomy, 339, and Fraade, From
Tradition to Commentary, 244, n. 103.
On the notion that the two Torahs constitute a unity, cf. the very similar idea
expressed in the statement of the Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum, chap-
ter 2, 9. There exists a close connection and communication between sacred
tradition and Sacred Scripture . . . Both of them, owing from the same divine
This trans-canonical unity is further evinced by the uidity
of the border separating the Torahs. The classication of a par-
ticular work as part of Written or Oral Torah seems straight-
forward: Genesis and Judges belong to the former, Berachot
and Bechorot to the latter. Nonetheless, many teachings found
in works classied as Oral Torah are derived exegetically from
the Written Torah. Consequently, one might consider those
teachings to belong, deep down, to Written Torah, reserving
the term Oral Torah for the small number of traditions inde-
pendent of and parallel to Written Torah. (Indeed, according
to Rashis commentary, this is precisely the view of Rabbi Ela-
zar in the Babylonian Talmud Gittin 60b.) On the other hand,
teachings that are distinctly articulated in a work of Oral Torah
can, not unreasonably, be considered part of Oral Torah. (This
more common view lies behind the comment of Rabbi Yoh
.
anan
in Gittin 60b according to the Maharshas commentary there.)
The latter approach seems sensible in light of the fact that many
teachings derived exegetically from Written Torah are not self-
evident from Written Torah alone. R. Nah
.
man points out in the
Babylonian Talmud Qiddushin 66a that any literate person can
wellspring, . . . merge into a unity and tend toward the same end . . . It is not from
Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything
which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture
are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.
It is remarkable how well this statement from Vatican II could summarize the
rabbinic texts under consideration here, though many Jewish thinkers would
interpret the phrase owing from the same divine wellspring in a more general
fashion than most Catholic authorities.
See Rashi to b. Gittin 60b (232 2` ), who explains the logic behind
R. Elazars statement there as follows: exegetically derived laws are part of the
Written Torah, while Oral Torah contains only those laws spoken directly to
Moses at Sinai which have no basis in scripture. On the broad use of the term
Written Torah, which in the end indicates the uidity of the border between
the Torahs or even the disintegration of that border, see further the insightful
analysis by Kraemer, The Formation of Rabbinic Canon, 6246.
See Maharsha to b. Gittin 60b (2` ), summarizing the logic behind
R. Yoh
.
anans statement: teachings derived by sages using midrash can be seen
as Oral Torah. The opinions of Eliezer and Yoh
.
anan here are consistent with
their opinions in b. Berachot 11a in the standard printed editions, especially if
by mishnah in that passage they mean Oral Torah. (However, the manuscript
evidence is highly inconsistent; see Rosenthal, Oral Torah and Torah from
Sinai, 4678.)
read the Written Torah, but no-one can fully understand it with-
out the Sagesthat is, without the insights and techniques of
Oral Torah. Since teachings of the Written Torah depend on
Oral Torah, they can sensibly be classied as Oral Torah. Many
teachings, then, in some sense are simultaneously part of both
Torahs, and these teachings probably include the bulk of Jewish
law and belief. There is considerable overlap between the two
Torahs; the boundary of the canon does not delimit the extent of
canonicity for rabbinic Judaism.
Cf. Jaee, Torah in the Mouth, 54, 70. In a dierent vein, Satlow (Oral
Torah, 2647) makes a similar point: one creates Jewish meaning out of Jew-
ish texts not simply by interpreting them but by interpreting them through the
orally transmitted lens of traditionthat is, through Oral Torah.
Cf. m. Hagigah 1: 8, which famously recognizes that (1) some laws are
rmly based in scripture; we may regard these as Written Torah; (2) some have
no basis in scripture at all; we may regard these as Oral Torah; and (3) some have
precious little basis in scripture. Laws from this third category may be seen as
Oral Torah or Written Torahthe former, according to the view of Maharsha
explaining Yoh
.
anan, the latter according to the view of Rashi explaining Elazar
(see notes 50 and 51). The sages themselves disagreed about the ratio of material
belonging in each category (see b. Gittin 60ab, y. Peah 2: 6) but they do not deny
that the categories exist. Deciding which teachings belongs to each category is
not always easy; indeed, one of the main projects of the Gemaras and the halakhic
midrashim is asserting that Mishnaic material which seems to belong to the for-
mer in fact belongs to the latter; see e.g. David Weiss Halivni, Midrash, Mish-
nah, and Gemara: The Jewish Predilection for Justied Law (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1986), 93. Similarly, modern scholars themselves
disagree on the extent to which the Mishnah views its laws as deriving from the
Pentateuch; for a summary of this central question in modern rabbinic scholar-
ship, see Gnter Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, trans.
Markus Bockmuehl (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1996), 1415, and cf. Harris,
How Do We Know This?, 124.
Cf. Jacob Neusners eloquent statement in Midrash in Context: Exegesis in
Formative Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 1356. The theme of overlap
is developed in the thought of R. Zadok of Lublin (a nineteenth-century hasidic
thinker), for whom much that is Oral Torah becomes Written Torah (when
the Mishnah and Talmuds were reduced to writing), and much in the Written
Torah becomes Oral Torah (through the novella of the sages). See Elman, R.
Zadok Hakohen, 1516.
CANON AND CANONS,
OR THE TORAHS STATUS
``2 ` CN `
The true Torah is in his mouth. (Mal. 2: 6)
On reection, the question that needs to be asked from a Jewish
viewpoint is not whether we can speak of unity that goes beyond
the realm of Tanakh itself; the armative answer to that ques-
tion is so clear as to be self-evident. Rather, the real question
is: Does Written Torah have any greater degree of canonicity?
Let me proceed, then, to examine the nature of the canonicity
of each Torah from several perspectives. I will attempt to ascer-
tain in light of each whether there is any real dierence in status
between Written Torah and Oral Torah.
1. One perspective is suggested by the very helpful discus-
sion of canon by Moshe Halbertal in his recent work, People
of the Book: Canon, Meaning and Authority. Halbertal distin-
guishes among several senses of the term canonical. For our
purposes, the distinction between what he terms normative and
formative canons is especially important. Texts that are canoni-
cal in the normative sense are obeyed and followed; they pro-
vide the group loyal to the text with guides to behaviour and
belief. Texts that are canonical in the formative sense are taught,
read, trans mitted and interpreted . . . They provide a society or
a profession with a shared vocabulary. Halbertal suggests in
passing that scriptures are canonical in the normative sense, but
I think that in practice this is not the case. In Judaism the Writ-
ten Torah is taught and read, transmitted and interpreted, but
it is not the loca tion of legal norms that are followed. When one
wants to know whether a pot is kosher, or whether a business
transaction is accept able, or what time the Passover Seder must
begin, one does not open up a Bible. One turns instead to works
of Oral Torah. Crucial beliefs regarding messianism, resurrec-
tion, and the nature of God are also articulated in rabbinic and
post- rabbinic texts rather than the Bible. Thus in Judaism
Halbertal, People of the Book, 3.
To be sure, often these beliefs and practices are linked exegetically to the
Written Torah, but they still may be classied as part of Oral Torah, or perhaps
normative canon is found within the Oral Torah rather than the
Written. Yet even within the realm of Oral Torah the situation
is complex. The core texts of Oral Torahthe Mishnah and the
Gemarasare, like the Bible, more formative than normative.
When answering legal questions, rabbis rely primarily on recent
law codes and responsa literature, not on tannaitic or amoraic
texts (much less biblical ones). A basic principle of halakhic juris-
prudence is `N23 N3": the law as practised follows the
later authorities. Both the Written Torah and many works of
the Oral Torah are canonical in the formative sense, but they
are not in practice authoritative. Granted, the Pentateuch once
was authoritative for legal purposes: the tannaim and amoraim
created law or decided legal questions on the basis of (or at least
with reference to) Pentateuchal texts. But that role of the Writ-
ten Torah became a thing of the past in the early Middle Ages;
by and large, from the close of the amoraic era on, decisions on
questions of halakha have been made by referring to other texts
in the Oral Torah, not texts from the Written Torah.
Let me return to our central question, then. Given that Writ-
ten Torah and Oral Torah are both canonical, are they canonical
in similar or dierent ways? In light of Halbertals distinction
between normative and formative canons, the two Torahs turn
out to be similar. Both are canonical primarily in the formative
sense. One part of the Written Torah (to wit, the Pentateuch)
once was normative, but it no longer is. Similarly, the most
as part of both Torahs. One would not be able to know them without the Oral
Torah. See above, notes 512.
On the importance of this point for a Jewish biblical theology, cf. Moshe
Goshen-Gottstein, Tanakh Theology: The Religion of the Old Testament and
the Place of Jewish Biblical Theology, in P. D. Miller, P. D. Hanson, and S. D.
McBride, eds., Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 6267 and n. 40. In stating that halakhic deci-
sions have been made by referring to texts of the Oral rather than the Written
Torah, I do not deny that post-amoraic scholars have been interested in the rela-
tionship between halakhot and their exegetical sources in the Pentateuch; many
works have addressed just that issue, including critics of Maimonides Mishneh
Torah. But to my knowledge these scholars have not made rulings of Jewish law
by referring directly to the Pentateuch; their activities have been academic, not
legislative, in nature.
By this I mean simply that the actual text of the Pentateuch does not articu-
late legal norms for rabbinic Jews, and a rabbinic authority who makes a ruling
crucial texts in the Oral Torah (the Mishnah and Gemaras) once
were normative, but due to the principle of `N23 N3" they
ceased being truly normative in the Middle Ages. Only the most
recent texts within the Oral Torah are truly normative, and they,
like the Mishnah and the Pentateuch before them, will become
less authoritative as time goes by.
2. While Halbertals categories suggest a basic similarity
between each Torahs canonicity, the perspective suggested by
Jewish ritual practice turns up a dierence. The Pentateuch is
recited in the liturgy, in its entirety and following a set of very
exact rules. Similarly, selections from the Nach are also recited
liturgically following specic rules. Rabbinic texts are not
chanted in rabbinic liturgy in this manner. Further, the Penta-
teuch serves as a ritual object in a way that rabbinic texts do not.
The scroll of the Pentateuch is carried about in formal proces-
sion during the synagogue service. Texts from the Torah are put
on the doorpost of a Jews house (the mezuza) and are worn dur-
ing prayer (the tellin). The common Jewish practice of reciting
of law opens up not the Pentateuch but a law code to ascertain the law. Of course,
some Jews assert that the formers real meaning is actually found in the latter,
and thus in some theoretical way the Pentateuch remains normative. Such an
assertion would involve us in a debate on the meaning of the word norma-
tive which is not pertinent to the claim I make here, which is simply that texts
of the Oral Torah and Written Torah are canonical in basically similar ways
when viewed from the vantage point of Halbertals discussion of formative and
normative canons.
Another possible objection to my assertion that Written Torah is not norma-
tive involves the distinction between derabbanan and deoraita commandments,
but this distinction itself is a trope of the Oral Torah, and decisions of which
laws belong to which category are governed by and within the matrix of Oral
Torah. Hence it does not seem to me an exception to my general assertion on
the essentially formative rather than normative nature of the Written Torahs
canonicity.
The practice of reciting Targum blurs the line slightly; on Targum as Oral
Torah, see Safrai, Oral Torah, 389, and Gerhardsson, Memory and Manu-
script, 689. Rabbinic law takes pain to distinguish between the formal recita-
tion of the biblical text from a scroll and the less formal restatement in Targum,
as Gerhardsson points out (ibid., 68 nn. 35). Similarly, there are passages from
rabbinic literature that are recited in the liturgy, but these always occur in pre-
liminary rather than central services (e.g. in "L `32), and the rabbinic
passages are not chanted in the same formal, public, and rule-bound manner as
biblical texts.
psalms is also ritual in nature: what matters to most people who
recite psalms on behalf of the sick or for some other purpose is
not contemplating the text but pronouncing it.
This ritual use of the Written Torah is not an innovation of
rabbinic Judaism. Karel van der Toorn has pointed out that in
the Hebrew Bible, and especially in Deuteronomy, the written
text of scripture served as a sacred object. Deuteronomy di-
rects Israelites to install words of Torah on the doorposts of their
homes and to wear words of the Torah on their arms and fore-
heads (Deut. 6: 69; 11: 1820). According to Deuteronomy,
a copy of Deuteronomy itself was to be kept in the ark, which
ultimately rested in the Jerusalem Temple. Thus already in the
biblical period Israelites used holy scrolls in nearly the same
manner that Mesopotamians and Canaanites used cult statues
(which were placed in temples and also in homes) and amulets.
Written texts for Israelites and cult statues for other ancient
Near Eastern peoples were each an embodiment of the sacred,
and both were perceived as incarnations of God, van der Toorn
writes. Like the icon, the Book is both a medium and an object;
as a medium, it refers the reader to a reality beyond itself, whilst
as an object, it is sacred in itself.
On the crucial distinction between reading for understanding and reading
for a ritual purpose, see Halbertal, People of the Book, 1314.
Karel van der Toorn, The Iconic Book: Analogies between the Babylo-
nian Cult of Images and the Veneration of the Torah, in Karel van der Toorn,
ed., The Image and the Book: Iconic Cults, Aniconism, and the Rise of Book Reli-
gion in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Leuven: Peeters, 1997), 22848.
Ibid., 2402. It is worth recalling, contra e.g. the commentary of Rashbam
to Exodus 13: 9, verses such as these refer to physical objects and are not
intended as gurative language. See Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 111,
Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 1991), 3413. The evidence of the
seventh-century Ketef Hinnom amulets, which include the priestly benedic-
tions know to us from Numbers 6: 237, indicates that these sorts of rules were
not merely theoretical or metaphorical; Israelites in fact did use biblical texts
these ways. Further, these amulets show that the ritual use of texts was not
limited to Deuteronomic documents but included priestly documents as well.
See Gabriel Barkay, The Priestly Benediction on the Ketef Hinnom Plaques,
Cathedra 52 (1989): 746 (in Hebrew), and on the link between these amulets
and the commandments found in Exodus 13, and Deuteronomy 6 and 11, see
further Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of
God in Ancient Israel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998), 366.
Van der Toorn, The Iconic Book, 242.
The use of sacred text as icon, already present in the seventh
century ni, deepened and intensied in rabbinic Judaism.
It remains central to Jewish worship today. In short, Written
Torah functioned and functions not only as a text to be taught
or obeyed, but also as a sacred object. Oral Torah, on the other
hand, does not have so pronounced a ritual function in Jewish
practice.
3. A third lens through which to compare the status of the
two Torahs involves another distinction, this one articulated by
John Barton. Barton points out that in rst-century Judaism,
there was Scripture but no canon. As Barton uses the terms,
Scripture refers to sacred texts, whether normative or forma-
tive or both. He uses the term canon in its narrow sense, to refer
to a nite list of such texts. For rabbinic Judaism, both Written
and Oral Torah are scripture in the sense Barton implies: they
are holy, in some way authoritative, worthy of study and con-
templation. But only the Written Torah is canon, or closed and
delimited: it has twenty-four books, no more and no less. On
the other hand, new teachings and texts continue to be added to
Oral Torah throughout Jewish history. From this perspective, a
Granted, the study of the Oral Torah can also be a sort of ritual act; one
studies Talmud, for example, not only to gain understanding but to obey the
commandment to studyin eect, to gain merit. The notion of Torah study
(including primarily the study of Oral Torah) as a religious act is quite prominent
in rabbinic Judaism, especially in the Lithuanian yeshiva movement. Nonethe-
less, this function of Oral Torah is not highlighted in Jewish liturgy. Indeed,
Jaee points out that rabbinic works are Torah only insofar as it is taught orally;
the written texts themselves have no inherent value, unlike the written texts of
the Tanakh. See his sensitive discussion in Torah in the Mouth, 1556.
A related question in the Talmuds concerns the blessing one is required to
recite before studying Torah. It is a given that one recites this blessing before
studying the Written Torah; however, the rabbis debate whether one must recite
this blessing before studying Oral Torah; see y. Berachot 1: 8 and b. Berachot
11. Some authorities hold that one is not required to recite the blessing before
studying Oral Torah; the issue is further complicated by diering opinions con-
cerning halakhic and aggadic material therein, on which see Rosenthals discus-
sion in Oral Torah and Torah from Sinai, 46775. The conclusion of both
Talmudsthat one must recite the blessing for both Written Torah and Oral
Torahsupports the notion of the unity of the two Torahs; but the very fact
that the issue is debated at all points to a distinction between them.
Barton, Oracles, 91; cf. 75. Barr implies a similar distinction in Holy Scrip-
ture, 5960, 63.
dierence does exist between the two Torahs. One is static, and
one dynamic.
4. The issue of authorship raises the clearest distinction
between the status of each Torah in rabbinic Judaism. Accord-
ing to the dominant view found among the classical rabbis, the
Written Torah, or at least the Pentateuch, was revealed in its
entirety. The ideas and the precise wording found in the Penta-
teuch come directly from God. Similarly, the Nach frequently
quotes God, prefacing many passages with words like, Thus
says the Lovi. Oral Torah was revealed, but because it was
never closed, it continues to grow and evolve. Consequently,
it is a mix of human and divine elements, which cannot be de-
nitively disentangled, and it does not repeatedly claim to quote
God verbatim. Both Torahs, then, are revealed, but the Oral
Torah is a highly mediated form of revelation. In Oral Torah
human beings have restated the divine teachings, supplemented
them, extrapolated from them, and perhaps even forgotten or
perverted some of them. The distinction between direct revela-
Other views concerning Pentateuchal revelation are expressed or at least
hinted at in rabbinic literature, but the stenographic theory summarized here is
clearly the most common. On alternative views in rabbinic and medieval Juda-
ism, see Heschel, Torah Min Ha-shamayim, vol. ii, esp. ii. 14656. See further
Lawrence Perlman, Abraham Heschels Idea of Revelation (Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1989), 11933. On the implications of stenographic and other positions,
see also Silman, The Voice Heard at Sinai, passim.
Cf. Halivni, Peshat and Derash, 1637, and, On Mans Role, 2949. Inci-
dentally, Halivnis own writings on the nature of revelation also imply some
degree of analogy between Oral Torah and Written Torah, albeit in a very di~
erent way from that proposed in this chapter: for Halivni, the Pentateuch we
possess is a maculated form of the original divine revelation, restored expertly,
but not perfectly, by Ezra. Hence for Halivni, Pentateuch, like Oral Torah, is
infected by at least some degree of human fallibility.
Granted, phenomena such as the bat qol are referred to in rabbinic litera-
ture, but this is not quite the same as prophecy and in any event is infrequent.
On the importance of the decline of prophecy for rabbinic literature, see my
essay, Did Prophecy Cease?, 3545.
See especially b. Temurah 15b16a for the idea that the repeated tradi-
tions passed on as Oral Torah were corrupted by forgetfulness. For a summary
of medieval views of the human elements in Oral Torah, see Halbertal, People
of the Book, 5472. The Oral Torah often refers to its own orality and even to
the possibility of its consequent fallibility: take, for example, its careful list-
ing of tradents (which reects an attempt to forestall erroneous transmission,
and hence an admission of the possibility) and its acknowledgement of doubts
tion in the Written Torah and mediated or derived revelation in
the Oral Torah provides the strongest armative answer to the
question whether there is any dierence between the status of
the two Torahs.
Related to the issue of authorship is an issue of attitude. Clas-
sical rabbinic thinkers do not openly disagree with the Writ-
ten Torah, but they do display some openness to disagreeing
with texts from the Oral Torah, at least those with which they
are roughly contemporaneous. A medieval rabbi may argue
against an older medieval text. An amora may disagree with a
tanna, at least if he can nd another tannaitic tradition to bolster
his claim. But neither will argue that scripture itself is wrong.
I doubt, however, that this dierence of attitude has any real
impact in the construction of Jewish law and thought. Disagree-
ments with Written Torah are not wholly absent in rabbinic
Jewish literatures; they are merely cloaked as interpretations,
interpretations that we today would characterize as strong mis-
readings. Practically, then, there seems to be little dierence
between the attitudes towards Written Torah among premodern
concerning the accuracy of oral transmission (e.g. CN "` . . . CN "). Con-
sequently, as Professor Samuel Fleischacker reminds me, Oral Torah sees itself
as responsible to Written Torah, while it sees Written Torah as responsible
only to God. Biblical texts, on the other hand, put much less emphasis on their
self-referentiality, and at times they tend to mask it (see e.g. Bernard Levinson,
The Human Voice in Divine Revelation, in Michael Williams et al., eds.,
Innovations in Religious Traditions (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1992), 45, and
my discussion in A Prophet Reads Scripture: Allusion in Isaiah 4066 (Stanford:
Stanford University Press, 1998), 202). My thanks to Rabbi Daniel Nevins for
pointing out the relevance of this issue.
An interesting question that I do not pursue here is whether the Nach more
closely resemble the Pentateuch or the Oral Torah in this regard. In Exodus
Rabbah 28: 6 and Tanh
.
uma (Jethro) 11, we are told that both the prophecies
of the classical prophets (found in the Nach) and the teachings of the sages
(found in Oral Torah) were revealed at Sinai and merely published later. Sim-
ilarly, according to some commentators such as Ahavat Eitan quoted above,
b. Berachot 5a regards Oral Torah, or at least Mishnah, as surpassing Nach in
importance and authority.
To be sure, one can easily nd statements by rabbinic authorities that
appear to constitute an exception to this tendency: rabbinic scholars do on
occasion insist that exegesis (i.e. Oral Torah) can overturn Written Torah. But
these apparent exceptions should not be exaggerated. On this whole issue, see
Halivni, Peshat and Derash, 1523 and sources cited there.
and modern Jewish thinkers. Granted, the ancients and medi-
evals maintained that such a dierence did exist, since they did
not see themselves as practising misreading at all. In many cases
they genuinely believed that through their interpretations they
were delving deeper in the text rather than erasing it. But for
modern thinkers who are aected (or, some would have it, in-
fected) by historical and hermeneutical consciousness, it is clear
that there is no longer a dierence between disagreement and
strong misreadings. The belief in dierent types of authorship
between Written Torah and Oral Torah, in the end, produces a
dierence of style but not of substance in the way that classical
Jewish thinkers utilized each corpus.
I have addressed the question of the unity of canon in Jewish
tradition by asking whether the canonical nature of Oral Torah
diers from that of Written Torah. We have seen that the only
dierences between the two types of canonicity involve attitude:
the rabbis regard one Torah as the product of mediated revela-
tion, and the other as the product of direct revelation. Conse-
quently, they feel free to disagree with the one openly, and they
are constrained to mask their disagreements with the other as
interpretations. (Lest we accuse them of mendacity, we should
note that they often mask their disagreements not only from
others but from themselves as well.) Further, because Written
Torah is a product of direct revelation, every Torah scroll con-
stitutes what Eliade calls a hierophany, and therefore it becomes
a sacred object with ritual uses. Oral Torah has a much more
limited ritual function. In short, Written Torah enjoys a greater
degree of prestige. Yet in terms of the ongoing formulation of
Jewish thought there is little dierence between them. In the
realm of aggada both spur new ideas and provide proof-texts for
them. In the realm of practice, Written Torah might be com-
pared to a constitutional monarch: hers are the honour and the
ceremony. But we all know that the Oral Torah, as the Prime
Minister, holds the power.
A MODERN JEWISH APPROACH TO CANON
`.`.N 2``` "` 2.` `` `2 2.
``" |`2 ``" |`2 . . . ``CNC `.L"
By the Torah of His mouth let one raise ones voice . . .
Divine and human speech strengthen each other . . . whether to give
praise or to give Torah.
(Yehudah Halevi, Gods Utterances Are Pure)
Up until this point, this chapter has been descriptive: I have
attempted to outline the ways in which certain texts outside the
twenty-four books of the Jewish canon do and (to a lesser degree)
do not function as canonical in rabbinic Judaism. In the nal
part of this chapter, I would like to build on this description by
proposing a modern Jewish view of unity within and beyond the
Written Torah.
Many contemporary Jewsincluding all Jews who are in-
volved in modern biblical scholarshipdo not regard the
Written Torah as directly revealed in the stenographic sense.
According to at least one strand within modern Jewish thought,
the Written Torah, including the Pentateuch, is the product of
complex human mediation. It is at once revealed and human, or
rather it is the human response to Gods act of self-disclosure.
This view is implied in the famous teaching of Franz Rosen-
zweig that the words of the Ten Commandments are already
the beginning of interpretation, and also in Abraham Joshua
Heschels assertion that the Bible is a midrash on the event at
Sinai. (I have attempted to show elsewhere that this twenti-
eth-century understanding of revelation ts surprisingly well
The literature on modern Jewish approaches to revelation is of course
voluminous. For a summary of the sort of approach I take, with further bib-
liography, see my article, Revelation at Sinai in the Hebrew Bible and Jewish
Theology, Journal of Religion 79 (1999): 42251.
See Franz Rosenzweig, On Jewish Learning, ed. Nahum Glatzer (New
York: Schocken, 1955), 118; Franz Rosenzweig, The Star of Redemption,
trans. William Hallo (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970), 1768.
For Heschels view, see Abraham Joshua Heschel, God in Search of Man (New
York: Jewish Publication Society, 1956), 185, 274, and see in general part two,
chapters 1920 and especially 27.
with the description of revelation in Exodus 1920. The most
plaus ible reading of those chapters shows that the Israelites at
Sinai did not hear the voice of God directly, or in its entirety,
but only through the mediation of Moses, the religious leader
who embodies the notion of tradition. The biblical text itself
thus intim ates what some modern Jewish theologians argue: the
nation did not experience a direct revelation carrying specic
content.) The Pentateuch and even the Ten Commandments,
in this view, are human formulations that respond to revelation,
and hence they are tentative and groping rather than denitive.
If this is so, then the distinction between the Written Torah and
the Oral Torah falls away entirely: even the Pentateuch itself is
one of many human interpretations of divine self-disclosure to
Israel, as are the midrashic collections, medieval commentaries,
and modern scholarly works, not to mention the questions
asked by a worshipper at a synagogues Torah discussion or by
a participant in its adult-education course. The biblical writers
are not dierent in kind from the authors of these other texts
(though their utterances often dier in quality and durability).
In short, the approach to revelation associated with Rosenzweig
and Heschel compels us to construct a new notion of canon (even
though neither Heschel nor Rosenzweig, so far as I know, articu-
lated or admitted this corollary of their own thought): There
really is no Written Torah; there is only Oral Torah, which starts
with Genesis 1: 1.
In principle, collapsing the ontological distinction between
Written Torah and Oral Torah seems a radical move. In prac-
tice, however, this move has fewer consequences than one might
imagine. As we have seen, the formative canon of rabbinic
See my article, Revelation at Sinai, 42943.
This reading is not exclusively a modern one; see the commentary of the
thirteenth-century rabbinic exegete Nahmanides (Ramban) to Exodus 20: 15;
H
.
izzequnis commentary to Exodus 20: 15; Midrash Leqah
.
Tov to Exodus 20:
2; Song of Songs Rabbah 1: 2; the Alexandrinus codex of the Septuagint to
Exodus 20: 1. Within modern biblical criticism, the discussion of Aryeh Toeg is
especially insightful; see Lawgiving at Sinai (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977), 1726,
3941, 4859 (in Hebrew). See also Brevard Childs, The Book of Exodus, The
Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1974), 35160.
I am indebted to Rabbi Michael Balinsky, who helped me to understand
the signicance of this implication of my earlier article on revelation at Sinai.
Judaism includes both Torahs, and its normative canon is uid.
Once located in the Pentateuch, the normative canon moved to
the classic works of tannaim and amoraim, and now it sojourns
in recent literature, from which it is sure to move on. In light
of the canonical uidity and trans-canonical unity implied by
rabbinic texts, my suggestion that Written Torah is Oral Torah
is less than entirely unprecedented.
Even from the vantage point of biblical texts themselves, elim-
inating the distinction between Written and Oral Torah does not
seem problematic; on the contrary, doing so ts biblical notions
of scripturality exceedingly well. As James Barr has taught us,
the notion of the Bible is quite alien to biblical texts. During
the biblical period there was (to use John Bartons termin ology)
scripture but no canon. In other words: there was Oral Torah
(an ever-evolving group of texts regarded as sacred) but no
Written Torah. Just as teachers within rabbinic literature dis-
agree with each other, question each other, and supplement each
other, so too biblical authors revise, interpret, and even reject
other biblical authors. Chronicles retellsand hence replaces
SamuelKings; Deuteronomy has the same relationship with
the Covenant Code in Exodus. The Holiness Code supple-
ments the older Priestly Code, at once preserving its wording
and altering its teaching signicantly. Throughout biblical
literature one nds reections on or modications to the text at
hand which were added by later scribes. What later Jews came
Barr, Holy Scripture, 122.
The canon preserves all these, of course; neither SamuelKings nor the
Covenant Code was jettisoned in the end. But the presence of later texts that
seem at least to have contemplated jettisoning older ones shows the exible
nature of the biblical texts during the biblical period itself: their authors dealt
with scripture but not with canon; they worked within a world of Oral Torah,
not one of Written Torah. On the relation of Deuteronomy to its sources, see
Bernard Levinson, Deuteronomy and the Hermeneutics of Legal Innovation (New
York: Oxford University Press, 1997), 14452.
See Israel Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the
Holiness School (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995).
The literature describing this phenomenon is enormous; see especially
Michael Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1985), 2388, 16687, and Yair Zakovitch, An Introduction
to Inner-Biblical Interpretation (Even-Yehuda: Reches, 1992), 2034, 8896 (in
Hebrew).
to know as the Written Torah was in fact Oral Torah for the rst
Jews, the Jews who actually created it.
The use of the term Torah within the Bible anticipates the
uid border between Oral Torah and Written Torah in rabbinic
Juda ism. It is signicant that torah from an early period prob-
ably referred to both written and oral teachings. Thus Joachim
Begrich argued that priestly torahs were originally communi-
cated orally. At the same time, some priestly torahs were put in
writing at an early period, perhaps in separate scrolls in temple
archives. Similarly, the prophets initially delivered their
This suggestion (to wit, that biblical books which revise, interpret, or
repeat earlier biblical texts can be termed Oral Torah) is not merely a modern
proposal resulting from historical-philological criticism. One hasidic commen-
tator in the nineteenth century, Avraham of Sochochow, described the Book of
Deuteronomy as Oral Torah; another, Zadok Hakohen of Lublin, described
Deuteronomy as the root of the Oral Torah. Both Avraham of Sochochow
and Zadok of Lublin base themselves on Nahmanides, the thirteenth-century
rabbinic commentator. In his Pentateuch commentary Nahmanides maintains
that the laws in Deuteronomy fall into two classes: some were originally dictated
by God to Moses, who memorized them and wrote them down years later; the
rest consist of Moses explanations of laws written down earlier in the Penta-
teuch. Thus Nahmanides implies a basic similarity between Deuteronomy and
Oral Torah in two respects: parts of Deuteronomy were originally oral (like the
Mishnah), and other parts are commentaries (like the midrashim). Here again
we see a theme emphasized in II above: some rabbinic authorities undermine
the distinction between Oral Torah and Written Torah by creating a signi-
cant area of overlap between them, which in this case includes a whole book of
the Pentateuch. For a treatment of all these gures, see Yaakov Elman, Nah-
manides and Abarbanel on the Book of Deuteronomy as Revelation, in Yaakov
Elman and Jerey Gurock, H
.
azon Nah
.
um: Studies in Jewish Law, Thought, and
History Presented to Dr Norman Lamm (New York: Yeshiva University Press,
1997), 22950, and Elman, R. Zadok Hakohen, 1011. My thanks to Rabbi
Michael Balinsky for referring me to these fascinating articles, without which
I would have been completely unaware of the surprising views of these hasidic
masters.
On the use of the term Torah in the Tanakh, see especially Fishbane,
Torah, 47083; G. Liedke and C. Peterson, Torah, in E. Jenni and C. Wes-
termann, eds., Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 3 vols. (Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 1997), iii. 141522; F. Garca Lpez, trah, in J. G. Botterweck
and H. Ringgren, eds., Theologisches Wrterbuch zum Alten Testament, 10 vols.
(Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 19702000), viii. 597637.
Begrich, Die priesterliche Tora, 236.
On the notion that the Torahs found in Leviticus and Numbers may once
have existed as distinct scrolls that were later brought together to form the P
document, see Yehezkel Kaufmann, Toledot ha-Emunah ha-Yisraelit (Tel Aviv:
teaching in speeches; nevertheless classical prophetic literature
associates prophetic torahs with writing (see Isa. 8: 16, 20; Hos.
8: 12). Thus both priestly and prophetic torahs in the biblical
period were at once oral and written. (One should not overlook
the originally oral nature of priestly torah, nor ought one for-
get the early relationship of prophecy and writing. The orality
of law and the written quality of prophecy are precisely what
one would expect. Prophetic teaching, as persuasive rhetoric, is
readily reduced to writing, since a particular prophetic teach-
ing, once spoken, is a matter of record and hence xed; future
generations can contemplate the static prophetic word. Torah
in the priestly sense of law, on the other hand, always had to be
adapted to circumstances and thus was always living, versatile,
and dynamic.)
The multiple uses of the term Torah in the Bible further sug-
gest that what we now call Written Torah originally functioned
as Oral Torah. In priestly literature (e.g. Lev. 6: 2; 7: 37; Num.
31: 21) Torah denotes specic traditions or teachings, especial-
ly those pertaining to ritual matters. Elsewhere the term refers to
a specic book, usually Deuteronomy or an early edition thereof
(Deut. 1: 5; 29: 20; 2 Kgs. 14: 6). In some late books Torah may
even refer to the Pentateuch, whether in its current form or in an
antecedent recension (Ezra 3: 2; Neh. 13: 113). Signicantly,
these later biblical books use the term Torah to refer not only
to a specic Pentateuchal text but also to interpretations based
on a Pentateuchal text but not explicitly found in it. Moreover,
Mosad Bialik and Devir, 193756), i. 4950, 76 (in Hebrew). On the possibility
that they were kept in temple archives, see Jacob Milgrom, Leviticus 116 (New
York: Doubleday, 1991), 383.
See Liedke and Peterson, Torah, 141819. On the writtenness of prophetic
Torah in Isaiah and Hosea, see also Garca Lpez, trah, 61112.
In Ezra 3: 2 the term written in the Torah of Moses clearly refers to
material from priestly literature found in Leviticus, while in Nehemiah 13:
13 the Torah which was read aloud includes Deuteronomy 23: 4. Apparently,
then, the Book of EzraNehemiah uses the term Torah of Moses to refer to a
work that included both P and D, or both Leviticus and Deuteronomy. That
work is either the Pentateuch or something very much like it. On Torah in
Chronicles and EzraNehemiah as referring to the Pentateuch, see also Liedke
and Peterson, Torah, 14212; Garca Lpez, trah, 62930; Joseph Blenkin-
sopp, EzraNehemiah, Old Testament Library (Philadelphia: Westminster,
1988), 155.
these late biblical books use the term Torah to refer to teachings
neither found in the Pentateuch nor based on it. Nehemiah 8:
1415 is quite instructive in this regard. The exilic community
in Jerusalem
(14) found it written in the Torah which God commanded through
Moses that the Israelites should dwell in booths during the Holiday in
the seventh month, (15) and that they should make a public announce-
ment in all the cities and in Jerusalem as follows: Go out to the hills
to get olive branches, oil trees, myrtle, palms, and all kinds of trees to
build the booths as it is written.
Verse 14 restates Leviticus 23: 42, which commands the Israel-
ites to dwell in booths during the holiday. Verse 15, however,
enumerates two regulations not found in Leviticus 23: rst that
branches of certain trees should be used to build the booths,
and second, that a public announcement to this eect is com-
manded. The rst of these regulations may be inferred from the
ambiguous command regarding tree branches in Leviticus 23:
40. Thus the Book of EzraNehemiah is describing as Moses
Torah not only what is clearly written in Leviticus but also
exegeti cal extensions thereof. The second regulation has no basis
in the written text whatever, but it, too, is described as Torah.
In Ezra Nehemiah, a practice may be ascribed to the Torah of
Moses if it is explicitly in a Pentateuchal text, if it is exegetically
derived from the text, or if it is based on an authoritative teaching
This verse directs the Israelites celebrating the festival to take certain
branches, but it does not say what to do with them. Two verses later this pas-
sage directs the Israelites to dwell in booths. One might plausibly infer that one
should use the branches to build the booths, and apparently this is what the
author of Nehemiah has done (he was followed in this regard by many post-
biblical commentators, on which see Milgrom, Leviticus 2327 (New York:
Doubleday, 2001), 2065). On the exegetical nature of the Nehemiah passage, see
especially Kaufmann, Toledot ha-Emunah ha-Yisraelit, viii. 32536, Fishbane,
Biblical Interpretation, 10912, and Blenkinsopp, EzraNehemiah, 2912.
Alternatively, one might argue that Nehemiah 8 is based on an altogether
dierent version of the Pentateuch, but Milgrom cogently refutes this possibil-
ity; see Leviticus 2327, 2065, and cf. Kaufmann, Toledot ha-Emunah ha-Yisra-
elit, viii. 326. Like Nehemiah 8: 1415, the text of Ezra 6: 18 refers to a practice
as written in the Book of Moses which is not mentioned in the Pentateuch at
all; see Hindy Najman, Torah of Moses: Pseudonymous Attribution in Sec-
ond Temple Writings, in Craig Evans, ed., The Interpretation of Scripture in
Early Judaism and Christianity: Studies in Language and Tradition (Sheeld:
Sheeld Academic Press, 2000), 2089.
outside the Pentateuch but somehow parallel to it. This use is
almost precisely what we found in the Mishnah, Tosefta, and
some tannaitic midrashim: Torah is a unity encompassing writ-
ten texts, exegesis of those texts, and extra-textual tradition.
In short, in biblical times, no hard and fast distinction existed
between scripture and tradition, between authoritative teach-
ing and emerging teaching, between Written Torah and Oral
Torah. An amorphous unity called Torah included, but was
not limited to, written texts now known from the Hebrew Bible.
Even after the Pharisees developed a conscious notion of tra-
dition distinct from scripture, and after the tannaim formal-
See the especially insightful summary by Najman, Torah of Moses, 212
13.
Similarly, Jon Levenson shows that the author of Psalm 119 recognizes
three sources of tr: (1) received tradition, passed on most explicitly by teachers
(vv 99100) but including perhaps some sacred books now in the Hebrew Bible,
(2) cosmic or natural law (vv 8991), and (3) unmediated divine teaching (e.g.
vv 269). See The Sources of Torah: Psalm 119 and the Modes of Revelation
in Second Temple Judaism, in P. D. Miller et al., eds., Ancient Israelite Reli-
gion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 570.
Cf. Garca Lpez, trah, 6201.
Cf. Levensons comments concerning Jewish learning throughout the
Second Temple period (Sources, 571): Just as Scripture generates tradition,
so does tradition generate Scripture. Neither can be said to have absolute chrono-
logical priority. Nor, we might add, does either have conceptual or ontological
priority.
Remarkably consistent descriptions of the Pharisees attitude toward tra-
dition appear in Josephus, the Gospels, and Paul. From these we can conclude
that the Pharisees were already aware of and concerned with the existence of
traditions passed on from earlier generations and distinct from scripture. See
A. I. Baumgarten, The Pharisaic Paradosis, Harvard Theological Review 80
(1987): 6377. One cannot know whether they emphasized the oral nature or
Sinaitic origin of these traditions. (Some scholars maintain that they did not do
so; see Sanders, Did Pharisees Have Oral Law?, 97130; Jaee, Torah in the
Mouth, 3961; and cf. the similar but more moderate scepticism of Neusner,
Oral Torah and Tradition, 6970. Others critique this scepticism; Schfer,
Das Dogma von der mndlichen Torah im rabbinischen Judentum, 1901;
Baumgarten, The Pharisaic Paradosis, 6377.) Nonetheless, the Pharisaic
category of non-biblical tradition remains largely identical with what we now
call Oral Torah: to wit, Jewish beliefs and practices authorized by tradition
but not explicitly spelled out by scripture. One might object to this conclu-
sion by noting that no term referring to an orally transmitted set of legal teach-
ings appears in Greek descriptions of the Pharisees. This fact, however, hardly
means that the notion of a tradition parallel to and to some degree separate from
ized the notion of Oral Torah distinct from Written Torah, the
rabbis themselves undermined that distinction. They stressed
the value of tradition alongside scripture, and they stressed the
authority of scripture only as understood by tradition. As a result,
my proposal that for modern Jews Written Torah is merely a
part of Oral Torah is not as surprising as it initially seems;
indeed, it is in a sense reactionary, since it returns us to an earlier
situation.
The modern Jewish scriptural canon, then, is a very broad one.
It includes texts dating from the beginning of the biblical period,
from our own day, and from all periods in between (though not,
of course, all texts authored by Jews in these periods). It will be
useful by way of conclusion to explore the implications for bibli-
cal theology of such a broad canon.
scripture was unknown to them. As Gruber points out (The Mishnah as Oral
Torah, 113), the terms Oral Torah and Written Torah are no more present in
Mishnah than in Josephus. But the Mishnah clearly does endorse the existence
of authoritative legal traditions separate from and not based on scripture, and
one of the Mishnahs projects is to pass those traditions on along with ones that
have some basis in scripture (Gruber, The Mishnah as Oral Torah, 1212).
By the middle of the rst millennium i, for example, it was clear that
Qumran literature, Philo, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, and early Christian
writings were not Torah for the Jewish community as it had begun to crystallize.
This is not to deny that some of these texts may have had some inuence, direct
or indirect, on Judaism; but they were not preserved, studied, and revered in liv-
ing Jewish communities. At the time of a texts composition, it is impossible to
know whether it is part of Torah; the answer to such a question will only emerge
over the following centuries.
A separate (and crucial) question involves the halakhic implications of this
suggestion. Because this question lies beyond the scope of this chapter and of
my own competence, I will not address it in detail; the following brief musings
will suce.
It may be useful rst of all to note Rosenthals conclusion that halakhic
rulings in the Talmud are not based on theoretical attitudes toward the nature
of Oral Torah; see Rosenthal, Oral Torah and Torah from Sinai, 4745. This
conclusion severely limits the practical halakhic import of this chapter, or at
least should temper any attempt to apply it to the realm of halakhic discourse.
On this important issue, see also the nuanced statement of Halivni, On Mans
Role, 378.
Collapsing the Written Torah into the Oral Torah might have the paradoxical
eect of allowing biblical texts a greater say in halakhic discourse. Due to the
principle of `N23 N3", the category of Written Torah is largely irrelevant
to practical decisions of Jewish law, and reference to biblical texts plays little
or no role in the ongoing production of Jewish law. But if biblical texts belong
IMPLICATIONS FOR BIBLICAL THEOLOGY
:`L." _22"2` _`2 NC 2 _`"N 2``3
For the word is very close to youin your mouth and your mind, that
you may perform it. (Deut. 30: 14)
Biblical theologians have often focused their attention on what
we may call centripetal forces within scripture. They do not deny
that the components of scripture are diverse, but they regard
one of their most crucial tasks as nding the centre of scrip-
ture, the idea that holds scripture together, or the group of texts
out of which other texts ow. (One thinks, for example, of the
idea of covenant in Walter Eichrodts work, or the role of the
so-called little credo in Gerhard von Rads; and of course one
recalls Brevard Childss emphasis on the nal shape of the Bible,
rather than its diachronic components, as the key to understand-
ing how tradition is understood by the community of faith.)
The not-entirely-new model of canon I outline here moves in
quite a dierent direction. Oral Torah emphasizes multiplicity.
The hallmark of midrashic collections is their tendency to pre-
serve several interpretations of a single passage. The Talmuds
(once again) to the category of Oral Torah, they could conceivably have some
role in halakhic decision-makingthough as the oldest texts of Oral Torah,
their role would still be quite limited. In practice, I suspect that the one group
of rabbis who tend at times to ignore the principle of `N23 N3" in mak-
ing halakhic rulings are contemporary Conservative rabbis, some of whom at
times refer to biblical principles or values when calling certain rabbinic rules
into question. In doing so, they implicitly reject the way halakhic decisions have
been made for well over a millennium. But their reasoning may t the model this
chapter implies. By levelling the playing eld between Written and Oral Torah,
this chapter may allow (what used to be) Written Torah to become more of a
living voice in Jewish tradition once again. Thus this chapter may be a sort of
theoretical underpinning for a particular approach to Jewish law. Nonetheless,
it is by no means clear that this chapter must become such an underpinning;
and in any event, it could be used in such a way only if a wider body of halakhic
authorities and people committed to halakhah came over a long span of time to
see such a use as legitimate (see Halivni, On Mans Role, 378). I myself would
not endorse any such use in the foreseeable future.
My summary of Childss view paraphrases his remark in The Old Testa-
ment as Scripture of the Church, Concordia Theological Monthly 43 (1972): 715.
This is one of the features that distinguish midrash from other ancient
consist largely of debates, whether they are records of actual dis-
cussions that took place in the academies or (more likely) liter-
ary creations. Moreover, because Oral Torah is not xed but is
a matter of 2`L`" or new insights, it never achieves the stasis
that is characteristic of true unity; one cannot know what sur-
prise the Oral Torah has in store for us tomorrow.
The multiplicity that is essential to Oral Torah becomes
especially clear in the phrase, 2``" 2`"N `2 `"N` `"N
(Both are the living words of God), which is used in rabbinic
literature to give approval to both sides of a debate, how ever
mutually exclusive they are. In light of this dictum, some
rabbinic thinkers view revelation itself as open-ended, since all
sides of any debate found in the Oral Torah were revealed to
Moses at Sinai. Halbertal points out that for medieval rabbinic
gures such as Yom Tov Ishbili (the Ritba) and Nissim Gerondi
(the Ran),
controversy . . . (was) rooted in the very structure of revelation. The
body of knowledge transmitted to Moses was not complete and nal
. . . but open-ended, including all future controversies as well. Moses
(having received at Sinai an Oral Torah that included disagreements)
passed on this multifaceted body of knowledge and left it to the court of
each generation to constitute the norm.
Jewish interpretive traditions that did not endure within Judaism, such as
Philos exegesis and Qumran pesher. See Fraade, From Tradition to Commen-
tary, 513.
b. Eruvin 13b; b. Gittin 6b. On the use of this dictum in the Talmud itself,
see especially Avi Sagi, Elu va-Elu: A Study on the Meaning of Halakhic Dis-
course (Tel Aviv: Ha-Kibbutz Ha-Meuhad, 1996), 1024. In the remainder of
his book, Sagi provides a detailed discussion of the varied understandings of this
dictum in later rabbinic cultures, medieval and modern alike.
Halbertal, People of the Book, 64. See further 1612, nn. 401, and cf.
Safrai, Oral Torah, 49. For a somewhat dierent view of the Ritba, see Halivni,
On Mans Role, 434. Not all rabbinic thinkers agree with the notion that
controversy was inherent in revelation itself. Some (e.g. Abraham ibn Daud)
maintain that revealed law, both Oral and Written, was originally unied,
but controversy and hence multiplicity of meaning entered the Oral Torah as
the result of human failure to recall the revelation correctly. Other thinkers
(e.g. Maimonides) view controversy as limited to halakhot that were not revealed
at all but were created by the rabbis in the rst place. On this more negative
attitude toward controversy, see Halbertal, People of the Book, 5463; Silman,
The Voice Heard at Sinai, 726; Halivni, Peshat and Derash, 1637, and id., On
Mans Role, esp. 3644; Elman, R. Zadok Hakohen, 15.
Revelation at Sinai as understood by some classical rabbinic
thinkers, then, was multiple in two senses. Not only were two
Torahs given, but, more importantly, from the beginning the
Oral Torah God revealed included diering opinions on many
subjects. Consequently, my proposal that all Torah is Oral
Torah entails a move away from textual homogeneity. Varied
and even opposing opinions are recognized as valid, if not on a
practical level then at least on a philosophical level. A Jewish
biblical theology will dier from other forms of biblical theology
in that it can embrace variety instead of searching for unity.
It follows that modern methods of biblical scholarship need
not stand in any tension with a modern Jewish appropriation
of scripture. The multivocality of the Tanakh as recovered by
biblical criticism parallels that of rabbinic texts. The diver-
sity uncovered by historical-critical method ts quite well with
a canon that consists entirely of Oral Torah. The tendency of
some biblical theologiansone thinks especially of Childss fol-
lowersto shy away from historical-critical methods and to-
wards what they term canonical ones seems quite misplaced, at
least for a Jewish biblical theology. In this case, canon-critical
approaches will be of no particular relevance to Jewish theologi-
cal appropriation of scripture; but what might be termed tradi-
tion-critical approaches will be.
We have arrived, then, at a somewhat surprising conclusion.
Jewish traditions endorse an all-encompassing canonical unity
that goes beyond the boundaries of the Tanakh itself to include
rabbinic and post-rabbinic literature. A modern Jewish idea of
Or rather, my unfolding of an implication found in a modern Jewish
understanding of revelation which is itself deeply rooted in earlier texts; see
n. 75 above.
On this crucial dierence between Christian and Jewish approaches to
biblical theology, see especially Jon Levenson, Why Jews are not Interested in
Biblical Theology, in his collection, The Hebrew Bible, the Old Testament, and
Historical Criticism (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1993), 56.
On the linkage between rabbinic exegesis and the complex layering of
biblical texts as recovered by modern biblical scholars, see Moshe Greenberg,
The True Meaning of the Bible, in his collection of essays, On the Bible and
Judaism, ed. Avraham Schapiro (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1984), 3459 (in Hebrew)
(originally in Shdemt 79 (1981) ); Levenson, Why Jews Are Not Interested,
536; and also Benjamin D. Sommer, The Scroll of Isaiah as Jewish Scripture,
Or, Why Jews Dont Read Books, in Society of Biblical Literature 1996 Seminar
Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996), 2389.
revelation intensies that unity by collapsing Written Torah into
Oral Torahor rather, by returning Written Torah to the Oral
Torah it originally was. But this Jewish canonical unity does not
resemble the sort of unity sought by many biblical theologians.
Centrifugal rather than centripetal in nature, it bids the Jew-
ish thinker to contemplate the Torahs journey down paths not
yet taken, and to accept the paradox that opposing ideas can be
valid, and arguments sacred.
Two important implications for biblical exegesis and theology
inherent in my proposal should be noted briey (and here I
return to a theme I intimated in the rst two paragraphs of this
study).
The rst of these implications concerns biblical exegesis. My
ruminations up to this point allow us to confront a question often
asked in religious settings: of what use are modern critical read-
ings of biblical texts? Or, as the question might be phrased in a
Jewish context: what is the religious signicance of peshat, of
the straightforward interpretations of scripture which are often
opposed to midrashic exegeses found in the Oral Torah?
Many authorities deem readings not based on the exegeses of
Oral Torah as irrelevant to a specically Jewish appropriation of
scripture, however interesting and valid those readings may be.
Thus Michael Satlow, in a sensitive discussion of what it means
to read Jewish texts, maintains that one creates Jewish mean-
ing out of Jewish texts by interpreting them through the orally
transmitted lens of traditionthat is, through Oral Torah. Of
course, Satlow avers, one can read classical Jewish texts through
other perfectly legitimate lenses, but the meanings one constructs
through those lenses are not Jewish meanings. ( Satlow might
Indeed, it is through the dialectic of Oral Torah (rather than through the
xity of Written Torah) that revelation continues and knowledge of God grows,
according to R. Zadok of Lublin; see Elman, R. Zadok Hakohen, 1920. On
the positive role of uncertainty (which leads to the centrifugality and contro-
versy so characteristic of Oral Torah) in Jewish thought according to R. Zadok,
see further Elmans comments, p. 20.
On this question, see e.g. Uriel Simon, The Religious Signicance of the
Peshat, trans. Edward Greenstein, Tradition 23/2 (1988): 4163, and Stephen
Garnkel, Applied Peshat: Historical-Critical Method and Religious Mean-
ing, Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society (= Comparative Studies in
Honor of Yochanan Mus) 22 (1993): 1928.
Satlow, Oral Torah, 2647.
rephrase the point made by R. Nah
.
man in Qiddushin 66a cited
above: only through Oral Torah can one understand Written
Torah in a Jewish manner.) Satlow rightly identies the primacy
of orally transmitted reading practices peculiar to Jewish cultures
for any Jewish interpretation of scripture. Jewish readings result
from these practices rather than from a solitary grappling with
texts.
Taken to the extreme, however, such a view might remove from
the category of Jewish interpretation not only the readings of
modern biblical scholars but also those of classic peshat- oriented
medieval rabbinic gures such as Rashbam, ibn Ezra, and
Radak, to name but a few. In their biblical commentaries these
exegetes systematically disavow midrashic readings in favour of
interpretations based on the linguistic and cultural contexts of
the biblical texts themselves. Are such commentaries irrelevant
to Jewish interpretation of scripture? In light of our discussion
it becomes clear that they are not. The biblical texts that such
commentators help us to understand more precisely (that is, in
their own settings) are themselves part of Jewish tradition; they
are the oldest, and often the faintest, voices found in the Oral
Torah. Thus any attempt at hearing them more distinctlythat
is, any attempt at hearing them in their own voice, in their own
historical and philological contextsgenerates Jewish meaning
from a Jewish text. To take the most challenging example: when
Rashbam oers an explanation of a legal text which is at odds
with the explanation found in the Talmud, he does not over-
turn Oral Torah; rather he sheds light on an earlier voice in Oral
Torah, albeit one that holds no legal authority. What Rashbam
does in such a case is no less Jewishly relevant than the deci-
sion of the Mishnahs redactors to include legal opinions that the
sages had already rejected. There was some value to including
the opinions of Shammai alongside those of Hillel even though
the former are not the law, and at the very least the same value
attaches to Rashbams non-rabbinic exegeses of the Torahs legal
sections. Similarly, when Menahem Haran or Samuel Driver or
Julius Wellhausen carefully recovers, say, the J strand of a pas-
sage and interprets it in contrast to E, that commentator revives a
lost voice of the Jewish tradition. The writings of any of these
Regarding the work of the contemporary Orthodox biblical scholar
commentators therefore contribute to an attempt to understand
Jewish tradition in all its fullness. Peshat readings, including
modern critical readings, are religiously signicant because they
enable us to hear religious teachings that might otherwise have
been neglected, and those teachings may fortify, enhance, clarify,
problematize, or undermine later voices in the Oral Torah in
useful ways.
The second implication inherent in my proposal concerns
biblical theology. If there is no Written Torah, and if Oral Torah
begins at Genesis 1: 1, and includes, at least potentially, all Jew-
ish religious thought and creativity, then it follows that there
can be no Jewish biblical theology; there can only be Jewish the-
ology. The attempt to construct teachings concerning God and
Gods relationship to the world primarily on the basis of biblical
texts cannot be a Jewish activity, since any Jewish theology must
prominently include both the revealed Torahs. For Jews, as for
Catholics, religious thought is not based primarily on scripture,
much less only on scripture. It can only be based on tradition
along with scripture, or on a tradition that includes but is not
limited to scripture.
My conclusion that there can be no Jewish biblical theology
Mordechai Breuer we can go further: when Breuer distinguishes between what
classical source critics call J and E, he intends to allow us to hear distinct voices
of God. See especially his programmatic essays, Making Sense of Scriptures
Plain Sense and The Divine Names and Attributes, in Pirqe Bereshit, 2 vols.
(Alon Shevut: Tevunot Press, 1998), 1119, and 4854 (in Hebrew).
Cf. the comment of Yeshayahu Maori: There are seventy facets to the
Torah, and peshat is one of them. If Torah is light (Proverbs 6: 23), then
the facet of peshat, too, must be enlightening. See his essay, The Approach of
Classical Jewish Exegetes to Peshat and Derash and its Implications for the
Teaching of Bible Today, trans. Moshe Bernstein, Tradition 21/3 (1984): 49.
For an example of such a recovery of biblical voices that turn out to show
signicant points of contact with later Jewish texts, see my essay, Reecting
on Moses: The Redaction of Numbers 11, Journal of Biblical Literature 118
(1999): 60124. One might also compare my treatment of Deutero-Isaiahs
view of kingship in A Prophet Reads Scripture, 848, 11219 with Reuven
Kimelmans discussion of the Amidah prayers attitude toward kingship in The
Messiah of the Amidah, Journal of Biblical Literature 116 (1997): 31320. For
examples of peshat readings that problematize midrashic readings in religiously
productive ways, see Simon, The Religious Signicance of the Peshat , 5660,
and cf. Garnkels use of Moshe Greenbergs study of capital punishment, in
Garnkel, Applied Peshat , 26.
should come as little surprise. After all, the few Jewish scholars
who have become active in the eld of biblical theology spend
much of their time discussing how problematic the notion of
Jewish biblical theology is. What can serve as a Jewish theo-
logy is one that returns to scriptural documents, utilizing them
alongside later authoritative writings so that all these texts illu-
min ate, problematize, relativize, and renew each other. This
sort of under taking might be termed a biblically oriented Jew-
ish theology rather than Jewish biblical theology. Because it
would create a dialogue between biblical and post-biblical texts,
it might also be termed a dialogical biblical theology. Such
a theology would focus on biblical texts in novel ways and to a
greater extent than has been the norm in the past several centu-
ries. It would bring biblical texts to bear on post-biblical theo-
logical questions. It might show that some modern concerns
are not solely modern, but were concerns of ancient authors as
well. By fostering discussion between the rst Oral Torah (that
is, the texts embedded within the Tanakh) and later forms of
Oral Torah, dialogical biblical theology would create new Oral
Torah. And thus it would rejuvenate the canon by enlarging its
boundaries once again; by engendering plurality it would stimu-
late an authentic form of canonical unity.
Cf. Levenson, Why Jews Are Not Interested, 38.
See a forthcoming study that I intend to publish, A New Model for Bibli-
cal Theology.
5
Unity
Within the Canon or After the Canon
J::is B:vv
One of the classic themes of biblical theology has been the unity
of the Bible. It has been expected that biblical theology will suc-
ceed not only in arming, but in giving content to, the convic-
tion that the biblical books somehow belong properly together,
as symbolized by their being bound together as a single volume;
or at least, if it does not go so far as to arm this conviction,
it should at any rate discuss it and probe its possibilities. The
obvious questions involved appear to arise on four levels.
1. Dierences and (potential) similarities between existing
biblical books or groups of them, e.g. between Laws and
Prophets, between Kings and Chronicles, between Leviticus
and Deuter onomy, between Samuel and Qohelet, between
Acts and Paul, between Mark and John, and nally between
Ephesians and Revelation. These are dierences that exist
between canonical books, independent of any critical re-
assess ments.
2. Dierences and similarities between canonical books and
non-canonical books of similar genre, e.g. between Gen-
esis and Jubilees, between Proverbs, ben Sira and Wisdom,
between John and the Gospel of Thomas, and between Paul
and the letters of Ignatius. These are dierences that invite
and stimulate thought about why certain books should count
as canonical when others do not.
3. Dierences and similarities between sources or strata within
any biblical book, e.g. between Yahwistic and Priestly strata
in Genesis, or between dierent portions of the book of
152 James Barr
Isaiah, or between Marcan and Q elements in Matthew or
Luke. These are dierences, the perception of which is com-
monly attributed to historical-critical approaches, but in
fact it would be more true to say that the perception existed
anterior to historical criticism. When the latter arose, how-
ever, that perception then stimulated and fed the production
of proposed historical-critical solutions.
4. Dierences between the biblical books and the theologi-
cal traditions that arose at the end of the biblical period and
became authoritative for later stages. Both in Judaism and in
Christianity, these dierences came to be regarded as regula-
tive for the interpretation of the Bible. Biblical theologians
are aware of these dierences but they have not been brought
fully within the scope of biblical theology as generally con-
ceived. The obvious reason for this is that biblical theology,
by its own title, though aware of later developments, ought
not to take as its subject matter materials created at a later
period.
It is, I think, now agreed among most biblical theologians that
there is a plurality of theologies within the Bible; at least, this is
now the dominant use of the term theology with reference to
biblical texts. In the historical books the theology of the Deutero-
nomist is overlaid over the theology of the older materials en-
closed within the framework. The theology of the Chronicles
stands out as dierent from that of Samuel/Kings. The theology
of Job is dierent from that of Proverbs. The theology of Q is
dierent from that of the material unique to Matthew or Luke.
This usage is implicitly accepted by all the books and articles
in which a scholar sets out to write an account of the theology
of a particular book or source. It remains perfectly plausible,
however, that one may seek to speak of a total biblical theology
There have been some partial exceptions to this. Some Old Testament theo-
logians have included some consideration of the later Wisdom works (ben Sira,
Wisdom of Solomon) in their thinking, and some New Testament theologians
have likewise included Early Christian Literature (Didache, 1 Clement, Gospel
of Thomas, Ignatius) as at least marginally a part of their material. Occasional
suggestions that Old Testament Theology should take rabbinic thought into
consideration have not been widely followed: cf. James Barr, The Concept of
Biblical Theology: An Old Testament Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1999),
284-5. The Qumran documents have added to the force of the suggestion.
Unity: Within the Canon or After the Canon 153
or theology of the Bible. Such a theology, unless it simply de-
nied the possibility of diering theologies of dierent books or
sources, would have to exist on a higher level of generalization
or abstraction. We shall have to consider whether an advance in
this direction is really desirable.
For the purpose of this chapter, the area on which I want to
concentrate is that indicated by my point 4 above. I want to
argue that the locus of the unity we seek lies, not in the collec-
tion of books, even if we view their contents holistically, but
in the relation of the biblical collection to the formation of doc-
trine, of theology, of law, or of whatever it may be. Specically,
the locus of unity lies in the regulative decisions that, though
arising in part from the Bible, become the interpretative guide
for the religion afterwards.
Regulative decisions of this kind, as I say, exist within the
Bible, and the biblical text may provide evidence of them.
Sometimes the words reported of speakers in the stories may be
examples. Thus, when Joseph says (Gen. 50: 20) As for you,
you meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring
it about that many people should be kept alive, or when the
centurion says about Jesus (Mark 15: 39) Truly this man was
the Son of God, they are saying things that are more like true
theology than is true of the average content of the books in which
these sayings occur. But these regulative decisions are decisions
that were formed within the community and which came to be
transferred into the post-biblical stage not necessarily as inter-
pretations of particular passages or particular books, but as deci-
sions that we have to describe in another way. In Christianity
they can be thought of as theological, doctrinal formation. In
Judaism they may perhaps be categorized primarily as law. For
the moment we stay with the situation in Christianity. There is
an overlap, as I see it, between doctrinal formation within the
biblical period and similar formation after it. But that which
originates within the biblical period is embodied in the biblical
stories and letters, while afterwards it gradually takes a dierent
Gerhard von Rad thought deeply about this verse: see e.g. his Theologie
des Alten Testaments (Munich: Chr. Kaiser, 1957), i. 60, 176, 438, 452, id.,
Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker (New York: Harper, 1962),
i. 52, 173, 440, 454; id., Wisdom in Israel, trans. James D. Martin (Nashville:
Abingdon, 1972), 200.
154 James Barr
form and becomes doctrine, intended as a coherent statement of
what the church arms. The doctrinal production is thus some-
thing dierent from what can be stated as the product of a bib-
lical theology, especially if the latter is expressly related to the
boundary of the canonical books.
This can be particularly well illustrated from my point 4, the
relation of Old Testament to New Testament within Christian-
ity. There can be no question of the enormous importance of
the Old Testament within the New Testament books or with-
in New Testament Christianity, whichever way we express it.
Yet the fact remains that it is very hard to obtain from the New
Testament a completely coherent and comprehensive picture of
the relationship, such as would cover all books and all the many
dicult cases. Conversely the christologies and the trinitarian
concepts that arose in patristic times could not be validated as
a necessary deduction from biblical data. Rather, they are a de-
velopment from thoughts already present in biblical times, Old
and New Testaments, that attained to regulative status in the
late New Testament period or afterwards. The total material of
the Biblewhether cited in later texts or notfunctions not as
the source or proof for these doctrines, but rather as a place from
which complementation, or adjustment, or indeed objection and
restatement, may follow.
Those who seek to establish a clear and consistent applica-
tion of the Old Testament for Christianity thus probably cannot
meet their goal on the basis of the biblical documents themselves.
Thus I quote a signicant utterance of Risnen, It seems to me
that almost any early Christian conception of the law is more
consistent, more intelligible and more arguable than Pauls . . .
Yet Pauls position is likely to enjoy primacy within many or
most theological currents.
From another standpoint, the idea of a biblical theology of
the entire Christian Bible, i.e. bringing the Old and New Testa-
ments together in one theology, has often been rejected as prac-
tically impossible and academically unacceptable. I agree that
it might be practically impossible, because the variety of the
Heikki Risnen, The Torah and Christ: Essays in German and English on the
Problem of the Law in Early Christianity, ed. Ann-Marit Enrogh, Publications
of the Finnish Exegetical Society, no. 45 (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society,
1986).
material might be too great to grasp within a meaningful scope.
I do not think on the other hand that the attempt is academically
unacceptable, as if to say that theology of this kind lies outside
the realm of the modern academic world and must therefore not
even be attempted. It is of course possible to argue that New
Testament interpretations of the Old are often incorrect, that
the Old did not in fact look forward to anything resembling what
early Christianity produced, that the New Testament sheds a
bad light on Jews and Judaism, all of these things. But this does
not show that a theology seeking to embrace both Old and New
Testaments would be improper, or academically unacceptable
as something to be done in a university. The early Christians
and the New Testament did in fact build their religion around an
overlap or interpenetration of the Old and the New, and whether
they did this well or badly does not matter essentially. It is a fact
of history that this was done and is not disputed, and this sort of
interpenetration of two partly dierent religions, with the use
of texts from one by the other, is something that is by no means
abnormal in religions. So it is not unreasonable that it should
be studied as such. Thus a Christian biblical theology of the
entire Christian Bible is not an impossible thing to contemplate,
in theory.
But here we ought to consider whether something similar
might apply on the Jewish side. I have in mind the position of
Mattityahu Tsevat which I outlined in my The Concept of Bib-
lical Theology. As he sees it, a positive Jewish theology can-
not stand on the basis of the Hebrew Bible alone. Rather, it is
a theology of the way in which the Hebrew Bible is linked with
Midrash and Talmud. If this is right, then there would seem to
be a sort of analogy between Jewish theology and Christian theo-
logy, at least on a level of high generalization.
This might t in with another observation: it might mean that
there would be no necessary dierence or failure to t together as
between Jewish work and Christian work on the Hebrew Bible,
as long as it is just that, i.e. work on the Hebrew Bible. Once
we move into the way in which Christians link the Old Testa-
ment with the New, through their post-New Testament doc-
trinal formation, it is uncertain how Jewish scholars would feel.
Barr, The Concept of Biblical Theology, 289-91 and 581, 585.
156 James Barr
Conversely, if we go into the way in which the Bible is linked
with Midrash and Talmud in Judaism, not too much Christian
scholarship has gone into that area. In both cases the theology
thus perceived would be more than a biblical theology: it would
explicitly go into post-biblical areas. In both cases the unity of
the Bible would depend on integration with material from out-
side the Bible. In a certain sense the activity would be historical,
thus it would seek to perceive various stages in which the Bible
formed the base for Midrash and Talmud in Judaism, similar
to how Old and New Testament together related to doctrinal
development in Christianity. But it would not depend on purely
historical reasoning. Rather, it would seek to form a perception
that was theologically meaningful within the categories of either
religion.
We thus make a distinction between biblical stories, letters,
and other materials on one hand, and the development of regula-
tive statements, on the other hand, of which some exist already
within the Bible but most are formulated after the Bible. In Juda-
ism, they are found in law and also in Midrash, which might be
thought of as a kind of secondary story; and in Christianity they
are prominent in creeds and similar summaries. When we do this
we have to avoid giving the impression either that things become
better or that they become worse as we move from one to the
other. At least in Christianity, a creedal statement is believed to
be more precise and more comprehensively related than a bibli-
cal story or an utterance of some character within a biblical story.
But that does not mean that a creedal statement is somehow
better. Even if doctrinal formulation is necessary and has more
of the character of true theology, something is lost as we move
from scripture to theology. This is why, even if the theology is
more regulative, the Bible remains the basis and foundation, and
especially the primary resource for church life and personal rela-
tionship. We move back therefore from theology to scripture.
I argue, therefore, against the position that the text of the
Bible, especially if it is perceived in a holistic manner as a com-
plete entity, provides in itself the picture of the reality to which
it points. This has been argued quite a lot in recent times. The
Bible is not to be seen in itself, rather it points to that of which
it speaks. This has been thought to provide some sort of key to
biblical theology. The Bible is not in itself the referent, the real-
ity referred to, but nevertheless the factual shapes of the Bible
taken as a whole dene the essential shapes of that reality and
there is nothing beyond this. Biblical theology is thus denitive.
There may be other modes of theology that lie beyond this, but
they cannot alter the regulative character of the shapes dened
by biblical theology.
Of course the Bible points to a reality other than itselfit
is dicult to see how it could be otherwise. God or kingdom
or righteousness are referents to which the elements in the text
point. But the referent is not there in the text. It is more
accurate, as I see it, to say that the referent to which it points lies
behind the text. Otherwise we would reach a somewhat positiv-
istic position whereby the conguration of the referent could be
read o directly from the text. Modern emphases on holistic
readings of various kinds make it more desirable to recognize
this.
Theology then, in the sense of normative Christian theology
(and I leave open the possibility of something analogous in Juda-
ism), exists only on the basis of the formation of doctrine that
may have its basis in the Bible, may be anticipated in the Bible,
certainly derives from suggestions thrown up by the Bible, but
in itself is something other than the Bible, for its fullness arises
and becomes evident only in the times after the Bible is com-
plete. Strictly biblical theology, by contrast, works within the
boundaries of the biblical books and their environment. (This is
the same whether we work with one book or with a group like the
Prophets or Wisdom, or if we take the canonical groupings and
evaluations that vary between one communion and another
this makes no dierence for the present argument.) If this is so,
it may be asked what use or value can biblical theology have? Is
it not condemned to be eternally inferior to the combination of
doctrinal theology with the biblical text?
No, for though we have said that doctrinal formulation is
essential for the theological understanding of the Bible, a return
into the scriptural text is essential for the functioning of the
religion. Meditation on scripture is essential and is supposed to
be fostered by preaching (though often it is not!). But the return
of the mind into scripture, given the other modes (historical,
comparative, sociological, etc.) in which we now understand
the Bible, is now incomplete unless we have something like a
158 James Barr
biblical theology as its locus. Biblical theology is an approach
thatunlike the original formation of doctrine in the immedi-
ate post-biblical periodis integrated with these historical and
other modes and yet also diers from them.
6
Interpretative Unity of the
New Testament
CuvIs1oi L:i:issiv
THE QUESTION
The question regarding what makes the New Testament texts
into a canonor at least a part of the canoncan be answered
in many dierent ways. The many dimensions to the problem
and the diering perspectives on the question do not mutu-
ally exclude each other. Rather, the plurality makes it obvious
that there is not just one answer to this question. It was issues
surrounding the history of the canon that shaped the early par-
ameters of the canon question. Its high point was the inuential
two-volume work written at the end of the nineteenth century by
Theodor Zahn. At this early stage, the controversy focused on
the problem of dating the four canonical gospels, as the debate
between Theodor Zahn and Adolf von Harnack documents. On
I thank Christine Helmer for her translation of this chapter. All German
texts quoted in this chapter are also translated by Christine Helmer. Except
when otherwise noted, all Bible translations are from the New Revised Standard
Version in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, ed. Bruce M. Metzger and Roland
E. Murphy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994).
Theodor Zahn, Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons, 2 vols. (Erlangen:
Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 188892; reprint, Hildesheim: Georg
Olms, 1975). On the history of canon research until the end of the nineteenth
century, see the overview by Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testa-
ment: Its Origin, Development, and Signicance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987),
2536.
Cf. Adolf von Harnack, Das Neue Testament um das Jahr 200: Theodor
Zahns Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons (Erster Band. Erste Hlfte)
ge prft (Freiburg im Breisgau: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1889); Theodor
Zahn, Einige Bemerkungen zu Adolf Harnacks Prfung der Geschichte des neu-
testament lichen Kanons (Erster Band. Erste Hlfte) (Erlangen/Leipzig: A.
Deichertsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1889).
160 Christof Landmesser
the whole, attention was directed to the time periods and geo-
graphical regions in which specic lists were acknowledged to be
writings binding on specic communities. The canon lists were
compiled by individual persons or by church synods, and had
authoritative characterat least that was the claim.
It is signicant that the particular biblical or New Testament
books mentioned by these canon lists did not have the same rele-
vance for each community. For example, the extant Christian
library lists written on papyrus do not always include all bib-
lical writings, but only in a few cases record a complete New
Testa ment. The process of canonization can in general terms be
summarized as the process by which texts are made binding for
a group by a particular elite. By the canonization of particular
writings, the elites also intended to determine and preserve the
communitys identity. By making a text binding [on a group],
the [elites] intended that no one could explicitly challenge the
foundational character of these texts without placing him or her-
Cf. Barbara Aland, Kanonlisten, in Hans Dieter Betz, Don S. Browning,
Bernd Janowski, and Eberhard Jngel, eds., Religion in Geschichte und Gegen-
wart, 4th edn. (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998 ), iv. 779. On the discussion of
the question concerning the formation of the canon, see Caspar Ren Gregory,
Canon and Text of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribners Sons,
1907); Ernst Ksemann, ed., Das Neue Testament als Kanon: Dokumentation
und kritische Analyse zur gegenwrtigen Diskussion (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1970); Karl-Heinz Ohlig, Die theologische Begrndung des neu-
testamentlichen Kanons in der alten Kirche, Kommentare Beitrge zum Alten
und Neuen Testament (Dsseldorf: Patmos, 1972); Brevard S. Childs, The
New Testament as Canon: An Introduction (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985);
Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament; Eduard Lohse, Die Entstehung des
Neuen Testaments, 5th rev. edn., Theologische Wissenschaft, no. 4 (Stuttgart:
W. Kohlhammer, 1991), 1217; Georey Mark Hahneman, The Muratorian
Fragment and the Development of the Canon, Oxford Theological Monographs
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992); Lee M. McDonald, The Formation of
the Christian Biblical Canon, rev. and expanded edn. (Peabody, Mass.:
Hendrickson, 1995); David Trobisch, Die Endredaktion des Neuen Testaments:
Eine Untersuchung zur Entstehung der christlichen Bibel, Novum testamentum et
orbis antiquus, no. 31 (Fribourg: Universittsverlag; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1996); John Barton, Holy Writings, Sacred Text: The Canon in
Early Christianity (Louisville, Ky.: Westminster John Knox, 1997).
On this theme see Christoph Markschies, Neue Forschungen zur
Kanonisierung des Neuen Testaments, Apocrypha 12 (2001): 23762, 2439,
262.
Ibid., 242.
Interpretative Unity of the New Testament 161
self in a specic way outside the group or its consensus. For
the purpose of historical reconstruction, the processes by which
a canon is authorized by a theological or churchly elite must be
studied. Nevertheless, the canonization process cannot be re-
duced to such a purely formal process. The reasons for the forma-
tion of the New Testament canon are especially complex. The
reasons why such canon lists could nally arise, at least among
particular groups, within denite regions, and for specic time
periods should also be considered from the theological and her-
meneutical perspective. The formation of the canon lists must
be understood to presuppose an important claim. The texts
contributed a decisive aspect to the way a group determined its
understanding of the world, and thereby the possibility of shap-
ing a distinct world context (Lebenswelt). The canonical texts
have a semantic-ontological potentiality, which must be con-
sidered in order to answer questions concerning the unity of the
canon in theological-hermeneutical perspective. Without such a
semantic-ontological unity-shaping potential, the canon would
lose signicance as the elites lose their authority and inuence.
The texts of the biblical canon contribute to such an under-
standing of the world, of human relations, and of God. How ever,
this was not only the specic function of the canonical texts, but
also the function of many subsequent texts of church tradition.
Without the canonical texts, the particular understanding of
the world and God developing in relation to these texts could
not begin to take shape. The churchs tradition only grew on
the ground established by the canonical texts. Nevertheless, I
argue that it was the expectation that the canon would con tribute
to an understanding of self, world, and God that decisively
motiv ated the canons reception. Even with all of its semantic
openness and semantic heterogeneity, the canon contributes to
Ibid.
Cf. McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, 7, 22849,
who gives a detailed discussion of the aspects pertinent to the historical study
of the formation of the New Testament canon as well as mentioning the canoni-
cal criteria relevant for early Christianity: apostolicity, orthodoxy, antiquity,
inspiration, and usage.
Hahn rightly emphasizes that the New Testament canon . . . could not at
all have come about without inner reasons. Ferdinand Hahn, Das Zeugnis
des Neuen Testaments in seiner Vielfalt und Einheit: Zu den Grundproblemen
einer neutestamentlichen Theologie, Kerygma und Dogma 48 (2002): 253.
a denite understanding of self, world, and God. Its eects can
be described as a plurality oriented to a unity of understanding
self, world, and God. By virtue of its semantic perspective, the
canon guards the continuance of the churchs stock of symbols.
For any sociologically denable group, such a safeguarding of
foundational symbols is necessary for the groups longevity.
As a consequence, the process of canonization is a movement
oriented to the determination of contents. The determination
of contents is not an end in itself, but has at least the continu-
ance of the groups identity in view. During the long process of
the canons history, semantic determinative contents can change
within specic parameters. Moreover, a plurality of determina-
tive contents is shown by the semantic heterogeneity of respec-
tive biblical texts themselves and is grounded in the dierent
contextual locations of biblical texts. Questions concerning the
development and the justication of the canons content cannot
be adequately answered if the content, meaning the semantic
order ing, of the many canonical writings is not considered.
These introductory remarks lead to further aspects of funda-
mental importance for determining the biblical canons unity.
First, the canon shapes the groups distinct identity. This shap-
ing can be seen by the eects of these texts throughout church
In connection with this idea, it must be claried that unifying is not
used in the sense of a attening of perspectival dierences as accesses to an
understanding of world and God. What I mean by unity presupposes plural
accesses to reality. The reason for plurality is that neither a text nor its recep-
tion can ever be described from a holistic perspective, by which a complete
determination in view of semantics would be possible. A text and its reception
never mediate an exhaustive understanding of the world. Specic text seman-
tics might contribute to a sucient determination of our life-world, although
this takes place under human nite epistemic conditions. Nevertheless, such a
determination must naturally be corrected, given changed contextual condi-
tions. On the open semantic value of texts and especially of New Testament
texts, see Christof Landmesser, Wahrheit als Grundbegri neutestamentlicher
Wissenschaft, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, no.
113 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 47996.
Cf. Eilert Herms, Was haben wir an der Bibel? Versuch einer Theologie
des christlichen Kanons, Jahrbuch fr Biblische Theologie 12 (1997): 99152.
The diering contextual situation is obviously not the only reason for
semantic heterogeneity. Sometimes even attempts to determine an understand-
ing of self, world, and God can be observed to be inconsistent with one another
within the canon.
history. Second, the biblical canon is of essential importance
for forming the religious contents of the faith community. The
Christian church received the biblical texts as foundational
texts, constituting the communitys textual points of reference.
By this reception, the Christian community is also constituted
as a community of interpretation. Its interpretations are direct-
ed to determining the semantic potential of biblical texts and,
thereby, to a determination of the world focused by this religious
perspective. The semantic range of biblical texts is a further
unity-shaping aspect playing a key role in the functional unity
of the New Testament canon. In semantic perspective, the unity
of the canonical writings makes possible a unity-shaping eect.
Eect and semantics are two dimensions of the linguistic poten-
tial of every text. Both can be recognized as factors in the canons
functional unity when the texts potential, if not actual, unity
is seen as one part of the texts linguistic potential. So, it is not
only that the New Testament canon reinforces the continuance
of the churchs group identity by guaranteeing the continu ity of
its stock of symbols. Rather, beyond this, the church also makes
use of the canon to obtain its unity-shaping eect and to stabilize
group identity. This use can be seen throughout church history:
in the original development of dierent canon lists, through the
actual use of biblical books in the libraries of antiquity, as well as
in contemporary uses of the Bible for both worship and studies.
Third, the pragmatic aspect of the canon must be mentioned in
this discussion. Finally, fourth, the canon can only be perceived
as such because it was formed on a specic basis that distin guishes
canonical formation from unity-shaping eect. This distinction
is evident in the dierent canon lists and dierent uses of biblical
books in actual congregations and theological discussions. The
canon is also perceived as such in view of its internal divisions
and structuring of the entire text corpus. The canons structure
plays an essential role in its unity.
In general terms, the dimensions of each texts linguistic poten-
tial are outlined by its structure, semantics, pragmatics, and
The biblical canon is self-evidently not the only factor that safeguards in
historical terms the Christian churchs group identity. For this purpose, addi-
tionally pertinent factors can be the tradition or the liturgy that have con tributed
in signicant ways to the institutional stabilization of the church throughout its
history.
eects. In view of these four dimensions, the question of the
canons unity can be posed in a meaningful way. If the canons
unity is to be explored in a comprehensive way, then all of these
linguistic levels should be thematized when posing the question.
In this chapter, I will pose the question concerning the canons
unity in a restricted sense. First, I will restrict the subject matter
to the unity of the New Testament canon. Second, I will view the
New Testaments canonical unity from a semantic perspective.
Given the inter-connections between the four linguistic levels, I
will consider the other three levels only if it is necessary to do so.
INTERPRETATIVE ACCESS TO THE WORLD
Our understanding of the world is eminently dependent on lan-
guage. As humans, we access the world only through language in
all its dimensions. Our world, meaning the world insofar as and
in what ways it is accessible to us, is discursively con stituted.
Without discursive determination, we would have neither an
inter-subjectively communicable knowledge of the world nor
the possibility of a common, goal-oriented activity in the world.
Classic semiotics takes as its point of departure linguistic structure at three
levels of language, namely pragmatic, semantic, and syntactic. Pragmatics is
that portion of semiotics which deals with the origin, uses, and eects of signs
within the behavior in which they occur; semantics deals with the signication
of signs in all modes of signifying; syntactics deals with combinations of signs
without regard for their specic signication or their relation to the behavior in
which they occur. Charles W. Morris, Signs, Language, and Behavior, 2nd edn.
(New York: Braziller, 1955), 219. This disjunction is to be supplemented by
the eective level of language. This level names the eect of language. On the
diering levels of language cf. Landmesser, Wahrheit als Grundbegri neutesta-
mentlicher Wissenschaft, 2837.
A comprehensive discussion of the question concerning the unity of the
Christian Bible must obviously take the Old Testament as well as the Septuagint
into account; cf. Christoph Dohmen and Franz Muner, Nur die halbe Wahrheit:
Fr die Einheit der ganzen Bibel (Freiburg: Herder, 1993); Bernd Janowski,
The One God of the Two Testaments: Basic Questions of a Biblical Theology,
trans. Christine Helmer, Theology Today 57 (2000): 297324; Hans-Jrgen
Hermisson, Alttestamentliche Theologie und Religionsgeschichte Israels, Forum
Theologische Literaturzeitung, no. 3 (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt,
2000), 1624. The question concerning the unity of the entire Christian Bible
must be considered in view of all four levels of language.
A detailed justication is given in Landmesser, Wahrheit als Grundbegri
neutestamentlicher Wissenschaft, 9107.
Every text and every linguistic expression contributes to the
determin ation of the world in a specic way. Situated in its respect-
ive semantic-ontological context, an expres sion depends on that
context for its determining potential. As context- dependent,
every discursive articulation is inevitably an interpretation of a
feature in the world. The world is only access ible as an inter-
preted world. Our access to the world is con stantly interpreted
with thoroughly constructionist elements. To cite Hans Lenk in
this regard,
All types of both representations of and accesses to the world are pro-
foundly shaped by interpretation, from the knowing and acting subject,
to ones personal situation, to the human in its activity and world con-
text (life-world). All these aspects are structured by and soaked with
schematic interpretation. In view of their representations and general
comprehensibility, they are unavoidably saturated with interpretation.
The ground rule of methodological interpretationism (interpretation-
al constructionism) is that all knowing and acting are interpretatively
saturated. Only in profoundly interpretatively dependent ways can we
comprehend, conceive, mean, and structure anything at all, and act in a
way distinguishing between component parts. This rule stands beyond
all shadow of a doubt.
Fundamental interpretationism leads one to observe that
access to the world is never and can never be exhausted under
the conditions of nitude. Accesses to the world can only be
comprehended plurally, which does not mean arbitrarily.
Plurality is an inevitability if one claims inter-subjective com-
munica bility for our linguistically comprehended, interpreta-
tive accesses to the world. Inter-subjective communicability is a
necessary pre supposition for access to the world, at least within
each interpret ative community. Language itself opens up the
possibility for inter-subjective communication that is necessary
to a community of action and life. The question whether the dis-
cursive expressions really contribute something to the determin-
ation of the world, whether they also really oer something to
Hans Lenk, Interpretationskonstrukte: Zur Kritik der interpretatorischen
Vernunft (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1993), 6078. In view of Lenks
work, it is to be pointed out that an entire array of questions arises in connection
with the claim of a methodological interpretationism, especially the question
concerning the semantic-ontological status of the respective interpretational
constructs.
be understood from the world and thereby make goal-oriented
activity possible, is to be answered in light of the coherence
question. With the means of a logic of coherence, discursive
expressions are tested for their comprehensiveness, consistency,
and cohesiveness. The logic of coherence tests those expres-
sions that, as inter-subjectively communicable, come to be recog-
nized as interpretational constructs. These constructs are in turn
comprehended plurally. Because they reect a nite perspective,
they do not represent a unied or coherent system. The decision
as to which interpretational construct contributes to the deter-
mination of the world or can give something about the world
to be understood can only be made when a preference criterion
is chosen. One interpretational construct can be chosen from
among many when a preference criterion, itself not grounded
logically, is selected.
Language has a fundamentally interpretative function. Only
through interpretation do we have context-conditioned access
to the world. The logic of coherence takes into account the
semantic-ontological interconnection between language and
world. Beyond this logic, however, language opens up the actual-
ity of inter-subjective communication.
At this juncture, it is necessary to make the following remark. In connec-
tion with the insights of Umberto Eco, and of Wolfgang Iser in the
German-speaking world, many post-modern, linguistically ori ented,
radically reader-oriented, linguistic-hermeneutic, and linguistic-
The determination and justication of coherence in a holistic perspec-
tive demands a complex semantic-ontological mode of argumentation. Cf.
Landmesser, Wahrheit als Grundbegri neutestamentlicher Wissenschaft, 9107,
and the summary on 1037.
Ibid., 6074. On the logic of coherence cf. Nicholas Rescher, The Coherence
Theory of Truth (Washington, DC: University Press of America, 1982), 7297,
16886.
Umberto Eco, Lector in fabula: Die Mitarbeit der Interpretation in erzhlen-
den Texten, 3rd edn., Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, no. 30141 (Munich:
Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1998); id., Die Grenzen der Interpretation,
trans. Gnter Memmert, 2nd edn., Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, no. 30168
(Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, 1999).
Wolfgang Iser, Der implizite Leser: Kommunikationsformen des Romans
von Bunyan bis Beckett, 2nd edn., Uni-Taschenbcher, no. 163 (Munich: Fink,
1979); id., Der Akt des Lesens: Theorie sthetischer Wirkung, 3rd edn., Uni-
Taschenbcher, no. 636 (Munich: Fink, 1990).
literary scientic approaches to language emphasize, with justied
argu ments, the readers crucial role in the interpretation of a text. On
the other hand, the claim is made that author, text, and reader have to
be weighed equally when interpreting a text. Nevertheless, a descrip-
tion of the complex web of interpretative relations is not exhausted by
an analysis of author, text, and reader. A text is always oriented to the
determination of the world, as much as both author and reader. An
inter pretation can make sense or be meaningful; in view of reality and
the world, however, it can fail entirely. There can nally be no use-
ful interpretation that does not consider the reality of the world, even
if that reality is ultimately accessible only by interpretation. But what
does only mean in this context? It means that the only possible candi-
date for an inter-subjectively communicable access to the world under
the nite conditions of human epistemological possibilities is one that
makes claims to reality. Interpretative access to the world is, as such,
access to the world. It accesses reality, not only a text that can be con-
ceived independently of the world. A text is only relevant in the sense
that it can mediate knowledge of goals and action. A text is useful when
it gives and is able to give something of the world to be under stood.
Interpretative access to the world proves itself to be an appropriate real-
istic approach because it considers the thoroughgoing linguistic depend-
ence and the fundamental openness of our access to the world.
A brief summary of some such approaches is mentioned in: Gerd
Schunack, Neuere literaturkritische Interpretationsverfahren in der anglo-
amerikanischen Exegese, Verkndigung und Forschung 41 (1996): 2855;
Manfred Oeming and Anne-Ruth Pregla, New Literary Criticism, Theologische
Rundschau 66 (2001): 123.
Cf. W. Randolph Tate, Biblical Interpretation: An Integrated Approach,
rev. edn. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1997), 255: If the interpreter takes
any of these interpretive thrusts in isolation (i.e. author-centred, text-centred,
or reader-centred), consciously or unconsciously excluding the other two,
hermeneutics becomes an unbalanced discipline.
When a text intends to communicate something about the world to be
understood, then it also intends a truth claim. It is really a truth claim when
the text really does communicate something about the world to be understood
(cf. Landmesser, Wahrheit als Grundbegri neutestamentlicher Wissenschaft,
43844).
The interpretative access to the world presupposed here is anchored in
a holistic-pluralistic immanent realism (on this cf. ibid., 8590). This under-
standing of realism presupposes the interpretational theoretical insights
represented by someone like Hans Lenk. See Hans Lenk, Interpretations-
konstrukte: Zur Kritik der interpretatorischen Vernunft; id., Interpretation
und Realitt: Vorlesungen ber Realismus in der Philosophie der Interpretations-
konstrukte, Suhrkamp Taschenbuch Wissenschaft, no. 1179 (Frankfurt am
THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON
AS INTERPRETATIONAL CONSTRUCT
AND AS INTERPRETATIONAL OBJECT
The general ground rule for the interpretative function of lan-
guage is valid also for religious language and for religious texts.
To summarize, given our human conditions for knowledge, we
have no access to the world other than an interpretative one. If
this claim is extrapolated to religious texts, then these texts too
are to be comprehended as interpretational constructs. As such,
religious texts also claim to give something to be understood
about the world, humans, and God. They can also adequately
determine an understanding of the world, interpersonal rela-
tions, and God. What can be claimed for religious texts is also
the case for the New Testament. By contributing to a determina-
tion of world, interpersonal relations, and God, the texts of the
New Testament canon prove themselves to be interpretational
constructs. Like other texts, religious texts are interpreta-
tional constructs that are methodologically regulated and have
a semantic-ontologically determinable status. And like those
texts, New Testament texts as interpretational constructs never
oer a complete determination of the world, interpersonal rela-
tions, and God. The semantic-ontological heterogeneity in the
texts of the New Testament canon, and their occasional seman-
tic inconsistency, point to the unavoidable penultimate status of
any interpretational construct. Furthermore, the subject matter
of the New Testament texts is embedded in their context loca-
tion. Context is determined by the texts semantic-ontological
perspective as well as by the nitude of the linguistically con-
Main: Suhrkamp, 1995). My approach, however, diers on important points
from Lenks interpretational constructivist realism, which should be explained
in another essay.
In this sense religious texts make a decisive truth claim, as do all discursive
expressions in principle. No truth claim, however, is ever absolute because it is
to be understood according to its context and because it is always conditioned by
the human limits of knowledge.
Redaction-historical criticism has contributed signicantly to this insight.
The transmission of tradition is available only and simultaneously as inter-
preted tradition. Gerhard Barth, ber Probleme und Trends bei neu testa-
ment lichen Theologien, Kerygma und Dogma 48 (2002): 266.
stituted access to the world of the authors, the tradents, and the
redactors of the New Testament texts.
The claim that the texts of the New Testament canon are to be
regarded as interpretational constructs does not yet explain the
complexity of possible accesses to the world by means of these
texts. For the reader in his or her respective contemporary con-
text, the texts are a part of the world that is to be determined and
interpreted. The processes of reading with comprehension and
methodologically controlled exegesis are interpretational pro-
cesses of reading and interpreting texts as a part of the world. As
a result of these processes, original interpretative texts become
objects of interpretation. The open-ended determination of the
world conditions the open-endedness of complex interpreta-
tional processes. The continuous reinterpretation of the world,
and thereby the continuous reinterpretation of canonical texts, is
a necessary process if the texts of the New Testament canon are
not to be lost to posterity. Texts are interpreted as constituent
ele ments of the world in their respective contemporary situation.
Interpretation is to be understood as an aspect of the respect ive
contextualization of these texts in semantic- ontological per-
spective. If the New Testament texts are to contribute to the
determination of the world in the contemporary situation, then
they must be interpreted. They must be understood and recon-
structed as a part of the contemporary semantic- ontological con-
text of the world.
I will summarize my concluding observations of this section.
The texts of the New Testament canon can be understood as
interpretational constructs in two ways: First, the texts them-
selves are interpretations of the world. Second, if the texts are
to be perceived in their respective contemporary context as giv-
ing something of the world to be understood, then they must be
interpreted.
Cf. Lenk, Interpretationskonstrukte: Zur Kritik der interpretatorischen Ver-
nunft, 609.
This description obviously represents a great reduction in complexity inso-
far as the New Testament texts themselves are complex interpretations of inter-
pretations. A clear example of this reduction can be seen in the synoptic gospels.
The synoptic gospels each have dierent sources; they take up and adapt dif-
ferent traditions, and in the process naturally interpret these traditions. The
history of the interpretation of New Testament texts exposes a complexity that
INTERPRETATIVE UNITY OF NEW
TESTAMENT TEXTS
The texts of the New Testament canon altogether make the
claim that they explain the world to their readers. In more pre-
cise terms, the New Testament texts make the claim that they
are determining part of the world. Which part? These Chris-
tian religious texts determine the part of the world or reality that
is most important for the Godhuman relation. In traditional
categories, this means that the New Testament texts make the
claim to explain what is absolutely essential for human salvation.
This is not the most unimportant part of the world or reality.
Nevertheless, this claim does not by itself explain the canoniza-
tion of New Testament texts. The claim that the texts say some-
thing essential, perhaps most essential, about Gods relation to
humankind is also articulated in the Christian tradition. Also,
many texts have made this claim without having been judged
canonical in the course of history.
The pragmatic claim of the New Testament texts does not
suce to explain their canonicity. In light of this insuciency,
I now turn to the question concerning the common reference
point of the New Testament. In this section, I argue that a dis-
cussion of the reference point from a semantic-ontological per-
spective can provide an answer, at the rst level of interpretation
constructs, to questions concerning the unity of the canon.
The answer to the question concerning the common issue in
New Testament texts from a semantic-ontological perspective
appears to be quite simple. The New Testament texts have in
common one relation to the person of Jesus Christ. This re-
lation is specied in idiosyncratic ways by the New Testament
authors, except for 3 John, who does not explicitly thematize
this relation. All the New Testament writings agree with each
can never be entirely and unambiguously determined. Such a complexity con-
tinues to condition contemporary interpretations as well.
On the concept of the world used here see Landmesser, Wahrheit als
Grundbegri neutestamentlicher Wissenschaft, 8590, 439 with n. 20.
The decisive point of reference for the entire New Testament tradition
is the revelation of the person of Jesus Christ. Hahn, Das Zeugnis des Neuen
Testaments in seiner Vielfalt und Einheit, 245.
other on one further point: humankinds salvation depends on
ones understanding of this person Jesus Christ. This point can
be documented by many examples. In the following paragraphs,
my remarks on a few texts are organized according to the order of
the New Testament canon.
1. From the opening chapter on Jesus genealogy, the gospel
of Matthew makes clear that a salvation-historical change for the
chosen people of Israel and for the Gentiles is integrally con-
nected with the entry of Jesus into the world. In Matthew 1:
2-16, Jesus lineage is divided into three chronological sections
of altogether fourteen generations. These three sections span
the entire history of Israel from Abraham to Jesus. Each of the
three parts concludes with an extraordinary event in the history
of Israel. In Matthew 1: 6, the appearance of King David is men-
tioned; in Matthew 1: 1112, the Babylonian captivity; and nal-
ly in Matthew 1: 16, Jesus is named. In fact, the entire genealogy
summarizing Israels history is oriented to Jesus appearance as
its culmination. The construction of this genealogy is an expres-
sion of the divine plan, which rests above the history of Israel
leading to Jesus. Not only is Jesus salvic entry into the world
intended for the people of Israel. Christs salvation is also for the
Gentiles. The universal implications of salvation are made clear
by the genealogy with the conspicuous naming of women who do
not belong to Israel: Tamar (Matt. 1: 3), Rahab and Ruth (Matt.
1: 5), and nally the wife of Uriah (Matt. 1: 6). Even the Gen-
tiles are included in Gods history with humankind; Jesus entry
into history spells the all-encompassing salvation of humanity.
The decisive element in Jesus entry into the world is described
Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthus, i: Mt 17, 2nd edn.,
Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, no. 1/1 (Zurich:
Benziger Verlag, 1989), 95.
Uriahs wife was originally an Israelite. In Jesus genealogy, however, she
was mentioned in conjunction with the other women who did not belong to
the people of Israel. This is made clear with the naming of her husband Uriah,
who was a Hittite. See also Hartmut Stegemann, Die des Uria: Zur Bedeutung
der Frauennamen in der Genealogie von Mt 1,117, in Gerd Jeremias et al.,
eds., Tradition und Glaube: Das frhe Christentum in seiner Umwelt (Gttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), 176, 2616. At the time of Uriah, the Hittites
were known in Jerusalem as foreign elements. On this point cf. Fritz Stolz, Das
erste und das zweite Buch Samuel, Zrcher Bibelkommentar Altes Testament,
no. 9 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1981), 236.
in two ways with the giving of his name. In a dream, Joseph is
told by an angel of God to name the son of Mary Jesus, . . . for
he will save [s*sei] his people from their sins (Matt. 1: 21). The
second part of the naming stresses a further aspect: Jesus is the
Emmanuel, God with us (cf. Matt. 1: 23). Both these aspects,
that Jesus is the subject of forgiving sins and that he is God with
us, are threaded through Matthews entire gospel. The gospel
concludes with this precise motif. As God with us, Jesus is with
his disciples and his church until the end of the age: And re-
member, I am with you always, to the end of the age (Matt. 28:
20). With the preceding commissioning for mission, the author
of Matthew proclaims that Jesus entry into the world spells
universal salvation for all humankind. According to Matthew,
Jesus presence thematizes as an essential moment of salvation
the possibility as well as the demand to full Gods will. The
author of Matthew interprets the sources and traditions at his
disposal about the entry of Jesus into human history as Gods
decisive salvic activity. Gods activity interrupts the history of
human sin. Humankind is transferred to a new location in which
life can be lived in accordance with the divine will.
2. Similar to the beginning of Matthews gospel, the super-
script of Marks gospel clearly articulates its central focus on the
person of Jesus Christ: rc to eaggelou Ihso Cristo uo
qeo; The origin of the good news of Jesus Christ, the Son of
God (Mark 1: 1; trans. C. H.). Marks gospel grasps the sub-
ject matter of interpretation as the beginning (rc&), the origin,
precisely the foundation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the son of
God. For Marks gospel, it is Jesus Christ who is the sole con-
tent of the gospel. The salvic kingdom of God in its nearness
and presence is indivisibly bound together with Jesus entry into
Cf. Matthew 5: 20, 48; 7: 21 among others. In the great commissioning, the
double structure of Matthews soteriology is claried by the command to the
disciples (1) to make disciples of the nations (which is accomplished by baptism)
and (2) to teach them everything that Jesus had entrusted to his disciples (Matt.
28: 1920).
Cf. Christof Landmesser, Jngerberufung und Zuwendung zu Gott: Ein
exegetischer Beitrag zum Konzept der matthischen Soteriologie im Anschlu an
Mt 9,913, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament, no. 133
(Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), 548.
Hans Weder, Evangelium Jesu Christi (Mark 1,1) und Evangelium
Gottes (Mark 1,14), in Einblicke in das Evangelium: Exegetische Beitrge zur
the world (Mark 1: 1415). The motif of Jesus as the son of God
structures Marks gospel from its starting-point as an inclusion.
Marks author takes up this motif in chapter 15: 39 in order to
highlight this very point. In this verse, the heathen centurion
says from the foot of the cross, lhq0 oto nqrwpo u qeo
n; Truly this man was the Son of God (trans. C. H.). The
motif is also anchored at the gospels centre. At the scene reveal-
ing Jesus on the mountain, God points to Jesus as u mou
gapht, my Son, the Beloved (Mark 9: 7b). This beloved
son of God is the one whom humans should hear (Mark 9: 7b:
koete uto). The soteriological dimension to Jesus entry into
human history is also designated by the terms of Marks motif.
Right before the beginning of the passion story, the author of
Mark programatically announces that Jesus, the son of man, has
come to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many (Mark 10:
45). In his gospel, the author of Mark portrays Jesus entry into
the world by interpreting Jesus as the son of God in whom the
salvic kingdom of God comes to humankind.
3. Similarly to Matthew and Mark, LukeActs also discloses
its central theme in the Prologue to Lukes gospel. In Luke 1: 1
4, the author announces that he will provide an orderly account
of the events which have been handed down to him. By events,
Lukes author specically refers to those surrounding the person
of Jesus. He reports on these events in order to open the eyes
of Theophilus and all other subsequent readers of the gospel.
This is paradigmatically captured towards the end of the gospel
when the Emmaus disciples had their eyes opened as Jesus broke
bread with them (Luke 24: 31). Eyes are opened to the events
that Christ had to die and be raised on the third day, as well as
that the repentance of all people to the forgiveness of sins be pro-
claimed in his name (Luke 24: 46, 47). The central soteriological
point of Lukes gospel is captured in Peters speech before the
high council in Acts 4: 12: There is salvation (swthra) in no one
neutestamentlichen Hermeneutik. Gesammelte Aufstze aus den Jahren 19801991
(Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992), 53.
The determinate translation of u qeo results from the fact that this
expression functions in this sentence as a predicative noun to which normally
no article is assigned. Cf. Ernst G. Homann and Heinrich von Siebenthal,
Griechische Grammatik zum Neuen Testament, 2nd edn. (Riehen, Switzerland:
Immanuel-Verlag, 1990), 135a.
else, for there is no other name under heaven given among mor-
tals by which we must be saved (swq[nai). LukeActs is oriented
entirely to the salvation of humankind, which is inextricably
connected to Jesus Christ. Adapting special material (Sonder-
gut) not found in either Mark or Matthew, Luke frames his gos-
pel with his soteriological focus in Luke 1: 12: 52 and 24: 1353.
The author of Luke connects his gospel with Acts through the
appearance of the risen one to his disciples in Jerusalem; Christs
appearance as the risen one concludes the gospel and begins the
book of Acts. From Jerusalem, the place of Jesus appearance,
the mission extends to Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the
world (Acts 1: 8). The salvation inaugurated by Jesus Christ is
universal. From this universal perspective, the author of Luke
Acts interprets the events surrounding the person of Jesus, the
history of the rst Christians succeeding those events, and the
mission accomplished by the early Christians.
4. The gospel of John begins its Prologue with the highest
christological claim: n rc n lgo, ka lgo n pr tn
qen, ka qe n lgo; In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was of divine nature (John
1: 1; trans. C. H.). Johns entire gospel tells the story of this
lgo, who is one with the Father (John 10: 30). Attention must
be paid to the original conclusion to Johns gospel: But these
meaning the entire gospel [insertion C. L.]are written so that
you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of
God, and that through believing you may have life in his name
(John 20: 31). Through its narrative, the gospel interprets the
person of Jesus Christ, who himself is the sole and unique object
of faith. According to Johns gospel, faith is already eternal life
itself. Jesus is the essence of salvation for all humankind.
The expression in Acts 1: 8, 1w sc3tou t[ g[, refers to Rome, the center
and capital city of the world at that time. According to Acts 28: 31, Paul pro-
claimed the basilea to qeo in Rome and taught t per to kurou Ihso Cristo,
meaning everything that had to do with the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.
On the christological hymn in John 1: 118 and its theological foundation
in Johns gospel, cf. Otfried Hous, Struktur und Gedankengang des Logos-
Hymnus in Joh 1,118, in Otfried Hous and Hans-Christian Kammler,
Johannes studien, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament,
Cf. John 3: 36 and especially John 17: 3: And this is eternal life, that they
5. Arising naturally in this discussion is Paul, the apostle of
Jesus Christ, who proclaims the gospel of Jesus, the son of God
(Rom. 1: 17). Paul designates this gospel as the power of God
unto salvation (ej swthran), for Jews and Gentiles, for all
humans alike. This universal salvation is revealed to the believer;
for her, the reality of salvation is present in its justication of
the sinner (Rom. 1: 16 17; 5: 1). According to Paul, justica-
tion is integrally connected to faith in Jesus Christ (Gal. 2: 16).
The centre of Pauls preaching to his missionary congregations
is Gods activ ity in the Christ event (2 Cor. 5: 14-21). Paul inter-
prets Jesus death on the cross as the dnami qeo, the power of
God for those whom God has saved (1 Cor. 1: 18).
6. The Letter to the Hebrews begins its exordium with a
basic theological proposition articulating the theological cantus
rmus of the entire letter. Now, God has nally and denitively
spoken to us through his Son, whom God has appointed as
inheritor and who is also the mediator of creation (Heb. 1: 12).
Jesus Christ the son of God is the true and faithful high priest,
who oered himself up as a sacrice in order to remove the sins
of many (Heb. 9: 268 and in other passages). The theme of Jesus
Christ also plays the crucial role in the Letter to the Hebrews. In
this letter, salvation comes to humankind in Jesus Christ.
7. Finally, for the book of Revelation there is no other theme
than the person of Jesus Christ. According to Revelation, Jesus
is the rst-born, the Lord over the kings of the earth. He is the
lamb, who alone is worthy to open the book with the seven seals,
the lamb, by whose death humans from all nations were bought
back for God. These humans have subsequently become kings
and priests for God (Rev. 5: 910). And at the end of the ages, this
Jesus Christ will return as the one who is as God himself: alpha
and omega, the rst and the last, the beginning and the end (Rev.
1: 8 with 22: 13). The bride, the community of believers, waits
[meaning all to whom the Father gave the Son] may know you, the only true
God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
In most of his preserved letters, Paul represents himself right in the saluta-
tion with the designation p sto lo ( Ihso Cristo) or dolo ( Ihso Cristo)
(Rom. 1: 1; 1 Cor. 1: 1; 2 Cor. 1: 1; Gal. 1: 1). By this designation, he stresses the
constant reference of his preaching to the person of Jesus Christ.
Cf. Erich Grsser, An die Hebrer, Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar
zum Neuen Testament, no. 17/1 (Zurich: Benziger Verlag, 1990), 478.
expectantly and with longing for Jesus return. With his coming
again, the nal time of salvation will have begun. Salvation will
be the reality of God dwelling with humankind. Then, God will
wipe away every tear and death will be no more (Rev. 21: 4). This
is the all-encompassing shalom, salvation in its essence.
From the above overview, I have shown that the New Testa-
ment texts form a unity in a twofold perspective. First, the New
Testament texts all represent their respective interpretations of
the Christ event from their respective contexts. Second, the New
Testament texts all relate their discussion of the Christ event to a
view of human salvation that is both eected by the Christ event
and established by God.
From these observations, I draw the following interim con-
clusion. The New Testament texts altogether make a claim that
is connected throughout to a specic manner of speaking. The
texts maintain that they are articulating a decisive claim concern-
ing Gods relation to humankind when they speak con cretely
about Jesus Christ. It is this claim of Jesus Christ that I have
summarized in the above section as the common reference point
and unity-shaping element of the New Testament texts.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NEW TESTAMENT
TEXTS
My original question was: In view of their content, what forms
the New Testament texts into a canon in the sense of unity? As
an interim conclusion, I made the point that the New Testament
texts make an altogether specic claim in relation to the Christ
event and its signicance for humans. Or, in other words, faith in
Jesus Christ, the son of God who brings salvation to humankind,
is the red thread connecting all the New Testament writings.
Connected to my proposed unity in twofold perspective are further theo-
logical, christological, pneumatological, soteriological, ecclesiological, and
eschatological themes. These topics are thematized with great diversity in the
New Testament. For a summary see Hahn, Das Zeugnis des Neuen Testaments
in seiner Vielfalt und Einheit, 2548; Eduard Lohse, Grundri der neutesta-
mentlichen Theologie, 4th edn., Theologische Wissenschaft, no. 5/1 (Stuttgart:
W. Kohlhammer, 1989), 1614; James D. G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the
New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity, 2nd edn.
(London: SCM Press, 1990).
Nevertheless, this statement does not yet disclose any specic
information. There are recognizable dierences between vari-
ous New Testament texts in their descriptions of salvation for
humans by the person of Jesus Christ. In fact, the dierences
are so serious that they threaten to conceal the common element.
I will explain such a dierence by the following example. If it is
conrmed that the New Testament writings oer entirely dif-
ferent interpretations of the meaning of salvation, then the ques-
tion concerning the canon is intensied in view of content.
How can the salvation established in Jesus Christ be concret-
ized? Here I am not referring to the classic dierence between
Paul and James, which can also be used as an example of this
case. The question of how salvation, the all-encompassing sha-
lom for humanity, is ecacious is answered in two dierent ways
within the New Testament. The answer given by the author of
Matthews gospel diers in a signicant way from the Apostle
Pauls understanding of salvation.
As I have shown above, according to Matthews gospel, Jesus
as God with us has come into the world in order to forgive Gods
people of their sins. The soteriology of Matthews gospel is
inextricably bound together with the person of Jesus Christ.
Matthews soteriology is shaped by an important twofold struc-
ture that is apparent in many texts of this gospel. I choose here
the parable of the kings marriage feast (Matt. 22: 114). This is
a parable that is not taken from Marks gospel, and its version in
Matthew diers signicantly from the parallel story told in Luke
as the parable of the great dinner (Luke 14: 1524). In Lukes
version, a man sends an invitation to a great dinner. He sends
his servants out in order to remind guests about the invitation.
Regrettably, the guests do not come, giving excuses that they
For an overview of the dierent attempts to describe the unity and diversity
of theological perspectives in the New Testament, see Barth, ber Probleme
und Trends bei neutestamentlichen Theologien, 26571.
On the dierences between Paul and James in view of soteriological
questions, see Markus Lautenschlager, Der Gegenstand des Glaubens im
Jakobus brief , Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche 87 (1990): 16187; Friedrich
Avemarie, Die Werke des Gesetzes im Spiegel des Jakobusbriefs: A Very Old
Perspective on Paul, Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche 98 (2001): 282309.
In their review of literature, Hahn and Mller give a brief overview concerning
the discussion of the theology of James. See Ferdinand Hahn and Peter Mller,
Der Jakobusbrief , Theologische Rundschau 63 (1998): 173.
have what they consider to be more important things to do. As a
result of this rejection, the host becomes angry and sends his ser-
vants out againentirely in accordance with Lukes theology
this time to the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.
In Matthews version, Lukes ordinary citizen becomes a king
(Matt. 22: 2). With this modication, as is the case in the parable
of the wicked servant (Matt. 18: 2335), the author of Matthew
has God himself in view. Furthermore the author of Matthew
gives a dramatic description of how the invited guests, one after
the other, decline the invitation. In grotesque reaction to the
kings reminder of his invitation, these guests mock the kings
servants, capture them, and nally kill them. Corresponding to
this turn of events is the kings reaction. He sends his soldiers
out in order to both kill the murderers of his servants and burn
the city to the ground. This narrative element is undoubtedly an
allusion to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 i and an explana-
tion for the rejection of the Christian missionaries by Israel.
Nevertheless, this aspect of the parable is not as signicant for
my argument as is the storys sequel. When the initially invited
guests do not arrive at the wedding banquet, the king lets his
servants stream out and pick up o the streets whomever they
might nd, good and bad alike. The festive hall is lled (Matt.
22: 10b). At this juncture, the parables theological claim con-
cerns how God turns to humankind. Without any merit on the
part of humanity, and unconditionally, God invites humans to
his feast, to his salvation. This is the rst step on the path of salva-
tion. Whoever takes part in the wedding feast is saved.
On the various groups invited in this parable and their signicance for
Lukes theology, see Willi Braun, Feasting and Social Rhetoric in Luke 14,
Society for New Testament Studies, Monograph Series, no. 85 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995), 6497.
Matthew 18: 23, 35. On this point see W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr.,
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew,
ii: Commentary on Matthew VIIIXVIII, International Critical Commentary
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991), 7967.
On the allusion to 70 i in Matthew 22: 7 see W. D. Davies and Dale C.
Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to
Saint Matthew, i: Introduction and Commentary on Matthew IVII, International
Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1988), 1312; Ulrich Luz, Das
Evangelium nach Matthus, iii: Mt 1825, Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar
zum Neuen Testament, no. 1/3 (Zurich: Benziger Verlag, 1997), 242.
In contrast with Lukes gospel, Matthews version does
not end at this point. For the author of Matthews gospel, the
addition over and against Luke is an essential part of the story.
With the last-minute invitation of the guests, participation in
the wedding feastmeaning participation in eschatological sal-
vationis not yet denitively guaranteed. There is just one
more condition impinging on all the guests in order that they
might truly participate in the banquet. The king walks between
the rows and checks to see if the guests are clothed with an nduma
gamo, an appropriate wedding garment. And he does in fact
discover one guest who is not suitably dressed: Friend, how did
you get in here without a wedding robe? And he was speechless
(Matt. 22: 12). The kings reaction is cruel. He commands the
attendants to expel the man into the darkness, where there will
be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matt. 22: 13b). Matthews
parable ends with an image of the eschatological judgement
(cf. Matt. 8: 12; 13: 42, 50; 24: 51; 25: 30).
With this ending, the author of Matthews gospel permits a
closer glimpse into his soteriology. The guests are invited to the
marriage feast without any merit on their part. The kings invi-
tation is quite surprising. It is truly Gods invitation, and has
an eect similar to Jesus call of the disciples. The guests be-
long to the Christian community. The invitation is eective, and
as such it is a necessary condition for eschatological salvation.
However, it is not yet a sucient reason. [I]t is not enough just
to be called. In order really to take part in the wedding feast,
a second condition must be fullled. The guest must put on a
wedding robe. In the context of Matthews gospel, the metaphor
of the wedding garment is not dicult to understand. Already
in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus demands that his disciples
The kings entry into the wedding hall is a metaphorical play on the last
judgement. Cf. Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary
and Theological Art (Grand Rapids, Mich.: William B. Eerdmans, 1982), 439;
W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary
on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, iii: Commentary on Matthew XIX
XXVIII, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1997),
2034; Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthus, iii. 2446.
Cf. Matthew 4: 1820; 4: 212; 9: 9.
Davies and Allison give this precise formulation in Davies and Allison, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew,
iii. 207.
surpass the righteousness of the Pharisees if they want to enter
into the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 5: 20). The disciples must be
perfect, even as their father in heaven is perfect. In contrast, the
wicked servant loses the forgiveness oered to him after he acts
in an unforgiving way to the man in his debt (Matt. 18: 2135).
And at the last judgement, human salvation is ultimately decided
by the correspondence of their activity to the will of God (Matt.
25: 3146).
In the context of Matthews gospel, the parable of the kings
marriage feast expresses the soteriology of Matthews author.
For the author, human salvation is truly grounded in Gods
turning towards humankind in Jesus Christ. Human salvation
is nevertheless connected to a second condition. The human, to
whom God has turned, must completely full the requirements
of the divine will. I call this the secondary conditioning of
salvation according to Matthews gospel.
The Matthean version of soteriology is not common prop-
erty within the New Testament. The Apostle Paul articulates
another interpretation of the Christ event. From his soteriologi-
cal perspective, Paul does not admit any secondary condition-
ing of salvation. Rather Paul speaks against this conception and
argues for the present certainty of salvation in a way with which
Matthews author cannot possibly agree: Therefore, since we
are justied by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord
Jesus Christ (Rom. 5: 1). Those who have been justied by faith
can doubt no more about their salvation. In Romans 8: 389,
Paul speaks of faiths certainty in almost hymnic tones. For I am
convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor
things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor
depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us
from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Over and against
Matthew, Paul attributes the entry into salvation to the creative
act of God. God is the one who gives life to the dead and calls
Cf. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthus, iii. 246.
For details on the structure of Matthews soteriology see Landmesser,
Jngerberufung und Zuwendung zu Gott.
The entry of humans into the salvation eected by God is described
metaphorically as an act of creation not only by Paul. Rather this is precisely
the central soteriological motif which can be found in many New Testament
writings. This soteriological motif is evident in John 3: 121 with the meta-
into existence the things that do not exist (Rom. 4: 17). The one
who is in Christ, is a new creation (2 Cor. 5: 17; cf. Gal. 6: 15).
In Pauls theology, the action of Christians is of immense sig-
nicance. According to Paul, however, the action of Christians is
not a condition for entrance into salvation, but a consequence of
the new creation; it is the fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5: 22). In the
context of his theology, Paul cannot entertain a secondary con-
ditioning of salvation. In this regard, it is Pauls theology, not
Matthews, that has signicant implications for understanding
human freedom and the certainty of faith.
In this section, I have shown that there is a serious dierence in
the concrete explication of salvation between the author of Mat-
thews gospel and Paul. In view of this central question posed
in early Christianity, it is dicult to detect a unity for the New
Testament canon, at least not between Paul and Matthew. This
phor of the new birth. On this latter point see Otfried Hous, Das Wunder
der Wiedergeburt: Jesu Gesprch mit Nikodemus Joh 3,121, in Hous and
Kammler, Johannesstudien, 3380. It is also captured in 1 Peter 1: 3 and Titus
3: 5 with the metaphor of rebirth. Finally, the parable of the lost son (Luke 15:
1132) narrates the return to life as a creative act of God. For a study of this par-
able see Christof Landmesser, Die Rckkehr ins Leben nach dem Gleichnis
vom verlorenen Sohn (Lukas 15,1132), Zeitschrift fr Theologie und Kirche
99 (2002): 23961.
On the foundational signicance of Pauls metaphor of new creation see
Samuel Vollenweider, Freiheit als neue Schpfung: Eine Untersuchung zur
Eleutheria bei Paulus und in seiner Umwelt, Forschungen zur Religion und
Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, no. 147 (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 1989), and Ulrich Mell, Neue Schpfung: Eine traditionsgeschicht-
liche und exegetische Studie zu einem soteriologischen Grundsatz paulinischer
Theologie, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, no.
56 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1989).
According to Paul, those believing in Christ are empowered to act. On
the signicance of and possibility for action, see Christof Landmesser, Der
paulinische Imperativ als christologisches Performativ: Eine begrndete These
zur Einheit von Glaube und Leben im Anschlu an Phil 1,272,18, in Christof
Landmesser et al., eds., Jesus Christus als die Mitte der Schrift: Studien zur
Hermeneutik des Evangeliums, Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft, no. 86 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1997), 54377.
On the dierence between Matthew and Pauls soteriology see Landmesser,
Jngerberufung und Zuwendung zu Gott, 14957; Martin Hengel, Zur matth-
ischen Bergpredigt und ihrem jdischen Hintergrund, in Judaica, Hellenistica
et Christiana: Kleine Schriften, ii, Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum
Neuen Testament, no. 109 (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 2534.
dierence cannot be erased by assuming that the same state of
aairs is described from two dierent perspectives. For the early
Christian communities and their missionaries, the question con-
cerning the certainty of salvation was a question of life or death.
In view of this concrete and life-crucial question, Matthews
gospel and Pauls letters cannot be brought into semantic agree-
ment. Both oer radically dierent interpretations of the Christ
event.
NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS AS
INTERPRETATIONS OF THE
CHRIST EVENT
The New Testament texts all refer to the appearance of Jesus in
history and its implications. Unied by a common focal point,
the texts are all interpretational constructs of this event, which
they comprehend theologically as the Christ event in which the
divine activity is recognized. From this common interest arises
an interpretative unity of the New Testament canon. Every
inter-subjectively communicable interpretation, even of this
Christ event, must by necessity be captured in language. Hence
every interpretation of the Christ event in the New Testament
stands under the same conditions of language.
This claim has far-reaching implications. If a more precise
determination of the Christ event is made accessible to us only
through language, then our access to the Christ event is always
dependent on languageand thereby on the limits of language.
Discursive access to the Christ event is never identical with the
Christ event itself. The Christ event is always presupposed by,
and must remain the presupposition of, any of its descriptions.
In order to access the Christ event at all, the event must be dis-
cursively accessible. The Jesus story must be narrated; commen-
tary must be given for it. In traditional terminology, the Christ
event must be proclaimed, and in theological terms, the Christ
event must be interpreted.
The New Testament texts describe the Christ event by making a claim for
a more appropriate specication of the semantic level. On the basis of human
nite reason, the open-endedness of the world, and the contextual location of
each human cognition, the semantic value for such a specication must always be
No text of the New Testament exhaustively describes the
Christ event. Human language is never fundamentally in a posi-
tion to grasp something in a completely adequate or comprehen-
sive way. A description always remains open to further additions,
corrections, and new perspectives. No one apprehension can take
all aspects of the thing to be described into consideration.
All New Testament texts are discursive reconstructions or
interpretations of a rich body of material about the history of
Jesus. The New Testament authors each appeal to very dierent
traditions, variants, stories, opinions, and representations of
the Christ event. Living in dierent places and writing at dif-
fer ent times, the authors oer very dierent interpretations of
the original story. Each interpretation, however, attempts to
give coherence to the individual statements. Without coherence,
an understanding of the world, as well as an interpretation of
the Christ event, would not be possible. At least in the context
of inter-subjective communication, a more or less incoherent
inter pretation would not be convincing. In spite of a striving
for coherence, an interpretation can never take all aspects of the
event into account. In each interpretation, some aspects must be
chosen, others left out of the picture. Coherence is the criterion
measuring whether or not an interpretation is appropriate under
the conditions of human possibilities of knowing; coherence
serves to tell whether a claim has the right to be made or not. The
rich body of data, multifarious traditions, and many variants
make possible a diversity of diering coherent representations.
A problem arises with respect to this diversity. This is precisely
the problem with the New Testament.
Nevertheless, the New Testament texts do have something in
common. They all agree with each other about a meta-criterion
overarching their interpretations. Common among them is a ref-
erence to the person of Jesus Christ. Or, formulated in another
way, the common element of all New Testament texts is the faith
in Jesus Christ that is not at anyones disposal. The New Testa-
ment authors disclose the fact that they themselves are grasped
by faith in Jesus Christ. This faith determines the selection of
available sources and the composition of their interpretations of
indicated as an open semantic value. See Landmesser, Wahrheit als Grundbegri
neutestamentlicher Wissenschaft, 47992. (Italics in original.)
the Christ event. Faith in Christ is the christological preference
criterion.
THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXTS AS CANON
FOR THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
At this point in the argument, the following claim can be made.
The New Testament texts form an interpretative unity in at least
two respects. First, they are all related to Jesus entry in human
history. Second, the New Testament texts all have a christologi-
cal preference criterion as an essential element in their interpre-
tations. Even when the contextual and the semantic dierences
resulting from the contextual dierences between the New Tes-
tament texts are not overlooked, these two aspects are sucient
in order to speak about an interpretative unity of the New Testa-
ment. With all its diversity, the New Testament is an example of
how the rst Christians interpreted the Christ event under the
conditions of faith in Jesus Christ. This claim, however, does
not address the question concerning how Christians can under-
stand the New Testament writings in semantic perspective as a
relevant canon for the contemporary church.
Persons of every generation must work out their respective
understandings of the world in their respective contexts. Each
understanding of the world is always contextually situated in re-
lation to the tradition and the history shaping that specic con-
text. The context is, however, not identical with the tradition
and the history conditioning it. Every new context demands a
reinterpretation of tradition and history. This reinterpretation
can be understood as a recontextualization of tradition and his-
tory. By being interpreted in the contemporary context, the
inter preted texts, and among them the New Testament texts,
contribute to a determination of the world in that context. Only
through interpretation can the texts understanding of the world
contribute something to our contemporary understanding of
world, self, and God. The aim of such an interpretation is to pro-
On a more precise determination of the christological preference criterion
see Landmesser, Wahrheit als Grundbegri neutestamentlicher Wissenschaft,
45979. The sole referent of the christological preference is the person of Jesus
Christ, meaning the fact of faith in Christ. The content of this criterion is to be
distinguished from the criterion itself.
duce a coherent picture of the texts semantic-ontological claims.
Although in a holistic perspective, the interpreted picture is
never the less context dependent and thereby open-ended. When
such an interpretation is produced within the con temporary
discursive-ontological context, the New Testament texts can be
said to contribute to the determination of the world.
Obviously, very dierent accesses to the New Testament texts
can be presented. The Bible as a whole is not only an object of
interpretation as seen by the Christian church. The biblical texts
are also world literature in the best sense. There is a crucial dif-
ference between a literary study of the New Testament texts and
an interpretation conducted within the church. In the church,
the New Testament texts are evaluated by the same christologi-
cal preference criterion that the New Testament texts them-
selves presuppose. Believers in Christ read the New Testament
texts with the knowledge that they have the same faith in Jesus
Christ as those who wrote the texts. And this sameness of faith
points precisely to the process of the canonization of the New
Testament texts in view of both their content and their seman-
tics. In view of their content, the New Testament texts are not
canon by themselves. Rather, they become canon where they are
interpretationally grasped as the original texts of the Christian
church and as the necessary reference texts for Christians.
7
Unity of Scripture Constituted
through Jewish Traditions of
Interpretation
AvI S:cI
INTRODUCTION
Throughout its history, halakhic tradition established a unique
relationship with scripture, which it viewed as reecting the
original word of God, and therefore sacred. The biblical text
was inter preted and understood within the boundaries of this
tradition, which reread the text and determined its meaning
based on hala khic parameters. Given the assumption about the
sacredness of this text, we would expect Halakhah to develop
a disposition of careful attentiveness and subservience towards
scripture when attempting to decode its meaning. Instead, we
nd an active disposition and readiness to create the text through
interpretation.
Yeshayahu Leibowitz, among the most prominent Jewish
phil osophers of the twentieth century, locates the biblical text
within halakhic tradition through one of his characteristically
radical formulations:
Halakhah is founded on faith, yet at the same time constitutes this faith.
In other words, Judaism as a living religion creates the faith upon which
it is founded. This is a logical paradox but not a religious paradox. The
Halakhah is not an external wrap clothing Jewish religion or faith. It is
the sole form in which they can be embodied, the collective manifesta-
tion of Judaism.
I thank Batya Stein, my translator, for her excellent translation, her editorial
suggestions, and the substantive comments she contributed to this paper.
Yeshayahu Leibowitz, Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State, ed.
Eliezer Goldman, trans. Eliezer Goldman, Yoram Navon et al. (Cambridge,
Leibowitz understands Jewish religion as a constitutive system,
namely, one that establishes rather than regulates activity in a
given domain. In his words: We characterize Judaism as an
institutional religion . . . This description is intended to reect
the peculiarity of Judaism, for which the institutions of halakhic
practice are constitutive. Apart from them, Judaism does not
exist. This is the foundation of Leibowitzs claim that Juda-
ism . . . creates the faith upon which it is founded, meaning that
Halakhah creates all its institutions of legal authority and the
norms as well as the institution of scripture. The infrastructure
of Jewish religion, then, is the institution of Halakhah:
Jewish religion as the world of Halakhah, of the Oral Law, was not
created in scripture. Instead, scripture is one of the institutions of
Jewish religion. As Halakhah determines . . . the holy day in the year
designed for atonement, so does it determine, according to its own con-
siderations, the writings meriting the description of sacred.
According to Leibowitz, Halakhah determines the meaning of
scripture, and thereby its status. Having Halakhah determine the
status of scripture is a striking inversion of the apparently logical
order, whereby the Written Law precedes the Oral Law. Leibo-
witz argues against this order: From an ideological- religious
perspective, but also from a logical-causal one, the Oral Law,
which is the world of Halakhah, precedes the vision and values
of the Written Law. The institutional law creates the faith on
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1992), 11. For an analysis of Leibowitzs
perception of scripture see my article, Contending with Modernity: Scripture
in the Thought of Yeshayahu Leibowitz and Joseph Soloveitchik, Journal of
Religion 77 (1997): 42141.
Searle described in detail the meaning of a constitutive system. See John R.
Searle, Speech Acts (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 3242. On
the links between Leibowitz and Searle see Asa Kasher, "NL |C`7 ,7`
(Paradox, Siman Sheelah = Paradox, Question Mark), Iyyun 26 (1975): 238
n. 1. (Editors note: Transliterations and their English equivalents are given for
all Hebrew works cited in this essay.)
Leibowitz, Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State, 4.
Yeshayahu Leibowitz, "NL` .`C` ``` 2. ,`` (Yahadut, Am
Yehudi u-Medinath Israel = Judaism, the Jewish People, and the State of Israel)
(Jerusalem: Schocken, 1976), 349. Excerpts from this book have appeared
in translation in Judaism, Human Values, and the Jewish State, cited above.
Whenever translations are available, I refer the reader to the latter.
Unity of Scripture and Jewish Traditions of Interpretation 187
188 Avi Sagi
which it rests. Halakhah thus determines not only the meaning,
but also the status of the Bible:
The Oral Law did not sanctify the Written Law as a historical or liter-
ary document, as a science book or as a moral guide, and not even as a
constitution. Halakhah actually uproots scripture whenever it deems so
necessary. Halakhah consecrated the Written Law as divine revelation.
The Jew lives by the Oral Law, but he sets the Lord always before him,
as revealed in the Written Law.
According to this approach, scripture reects divine revelation,
but the contents and the meaning of this revelation are deter-
mined by halakhic tradition. Gods word becomes subject to
human interpretation, which determines its import and signi-
cance. Even if Leibowitzs formulations are slightly radical, he
does represent a mainstream voice in Jewish tradition in general
and in halakhic tradition in particular, which developed a unique
hermeneutical approach concerning the interpretation of the
biblical text.
In this chapter, I attempt to explicate this view by analysing
the approach of Nahmanides (c.11941270), a towering exegete
and halakhist whose work is a paragon of rabbinic thought. The
analysis of Nahmanides approach and its manifestations in later
Jewish tradition may suggest plausible answers to a range of ques-
tions in the history of Jewish hermeneutics that remain open.
At the centre, however, two questions beg further investi gation.
First, why did a general hermeneutical theory fail to develop in
traditional Judaism, as it did, for instance, in Protestant ism?
Second, why did the problems evoked by biblical criticism, and
chiey the unity of the biblical text, enter intra-Jewish discourse
only during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries?
Leibowitz, Yahadut, Am Yehudi u-Medinath Israel.
Ibid.
For a more detailed critical analysis of Leibowitzs position see my article,
Contending with Modernity. See also Avi Sagi, Yeshayahu LeibowitzA
Breakthrough in Jewish Philosophy: Religion without Metaphysics, Religious
Studies 33 (1997): 20316.
NAHMANIDES AND THE OPENNESS OF
SCRIPTURE
Is there an autonomous biblical text, whose meaning does not
depend on a hermeneutical tradition? What is the nature of
this text and what is its relationship to halakhic interpretation?
These questions recur often in Nahmanides writings. His basic
assumption is that the biblical text is open in principle to many
interpretations, implying that it is a polysemic text:
For the Torah was given to us by Moses in written form, and it is
known that not all opinions concur on newly arising matters. God com-
mands us to heed the Great Court on everything they say, regardless
of whether members of the Court claim to rely on traditions received
from him [Moses], or claim that this is the meaning and intention of
the Torah according to their own view, because it is subject to the judg-
ment of halakhic authorities that God commands us and gives us the
Torah.
Nahmanides view concerning the openness of scripture rests on
the perception of this text as normativeas a source for drawing
practical conclusions. When engaging in normative inferences
from a written text to a new reality unknown in the text, we are
not necessarily drawing a deductive inference. Instead, we are
exercising discretion. The text does not speak, nor does it deter-
mine the normative conclusion. In his introduction to another of
his works, Milhamot ha-Shem, Nahmanides clearly distin guishes
Translators note: I have retained the Hebrew term Torah because it
appears in Nahmanides discussion in all its multivalent connotations: law or
instruction (as the verses in Deuteronomy 811 discussed below are translated
in the King James version and in other modern translations of the Bible), but
also scripture and Jewish texts in general. English translations of scripture in
the present chapter, preserving the word Torah, are from The Holy Scriptures
(Jerusalem: Koren, 1986).
See Nahmanides exegesis on Deuteronomy 17: 11 in Commentary on the
Torah, trans. Charles B. Chavel (New York: Shilo Publishing House, 1973),
207: whether they received its interpretation by means of witness from witness
until Moses [who heard it] from the mouth of the Almighty.
|2C `.L 2. ,22C" ``SC 7 (Sefer ha-Mitzvoth le-ha-
Rambam, im Hasagot ha-Ramban = Maimonides Book of the Commandments,
with Nahmanides Critical Glosses), ed. Hayyim Dov Chavel (Jerusalem: Mosad
Harav Kook, 1981), 17. Subsequent references from this work will be cited in
the text as Glosses.
190 Avi Sagi
deductive inferences, such as those of logic or mathematics, from
halakhic inferences: Any student of the Talmud knows that the
parties to a hermeneutical controversy do not adduce conclusive
evidence . . . that this wisdom [talmudic commentary] does not
rely on clear proof, as is true of the calculation of fractions or
astro nomical experiments. Although Nahmanides speaks here
of talmudic commentary rather than of the Talmud itself, this is
only because this is his subject. Both this statement and the pre-
vious one in Glosses suggest that, concerning halakhic infer ence,
human values and human discretion play a crucial role in the
decision of how to apply a textual instruction to a particular case.
Consequently, the text remains open.
In Glosses, Nahmanides merely indicates that, in principle,
this is an open text, without pointing to the diculties ensuing
from this openness. In his Commentary on the Torah, however,
Nahmanides nal work and thus later than Glosses, he argues
that this inherent openness is problematic: It is known that not
all opinions concur on newly arising matters. Disagreements
would thus increase and the one Torah would become many
Torahs. His concern over the openness of the biblical text
is twofold: practical and theological. From a practical point of
view, disagreements would thus increase, implying fears about
social disintegration. From a theological perspective, the poten-
tial for various normative conclusions enables the existence of
several Torahs, all of equal standing, without any ability to deter-
mine Gods commands or wishes.
To contend with these problems, Nahmanides assumes that
the meaning of the text is determined by its interpreters. In the
statement, because it is subject to the judgement of halakhic
authorities that He commands us and gives us the Torah,
Nahmanides refers both to the texts intrinsic meaning and to
its normative implications. Nahmanides deals with both these
aspects when stating that we are bound to obey the normative
halakhic inference of the halakhic authorities, and we must also
rely on their interpretation of the halakhic text. In this regard, it
is irrelevant whether this interpretation originates in an ancient
`C""C (Milhamot ha-Shem = Nahmanides Glosses on R. Itzhak Alfasi,
published with the Babylonian Talmud).
Nahmanides, Commentary on the Torah, 207.
tradition or is the product of interpreters acting as autonomous
exegetes: this is the meaning and intention of the Torah accord-
ing to their view. Nahmanides thus points to a tension between
a biblical text viewed as entirely open and assumptions concern-
ing a specic Torah commanded by God. This tension is re-
solved by making scripture subservient to an halakhic authority
that determines its meaning and the ensuing conclusions. This
authority does not disclose the original word of God, but fulls
Gods will.
NAHMANIDES AND DECONSTRUCTIONISM
This analysis points to the anity between Nahmanides and
Hans-Georg Gadamer concerning the relationship between ap-
plication and interpretation. Like Gadamer, who claims that
interpretation unfolds through the application of a legal instruc-
tion to a specic situation, Nahmanides claims that interpreta-
tion develops within a legal process of normative inference from
the text. However, whereas Gadamer preserves a measure of in-
depend ence for the text and argues that the hermeneutical pro-
cess is a fusion of horizons between text and reader, Nahmanides
position is more radical: interpretation constitutes the meaning
of the text. The anity between Nahmanides and deconstruc-
tionism emerges in that both reject the existence of an independ-
ent text and point to the readers decisive role in its creation.
In order to shed light on this matter, let us return to Nahman-
ides view in Glosses. Here, he relates his view of interpretation
to the mandatory interpretation of the biblical text described in
Deutero nomy:
If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement, between blood
and blood, between plea and plea . . . : then shalt thou arise, and go up
to the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come
to the priests the Levites, and to the judge that shall be in those days,
and enquire; and they shall tell thee the sentence of judgement: . . .
accord ing to the sentence of the Torah which they shall teach thee, and
For an extensive discussion of this question see my article, Halakhic Praxis
and the Word of God: A Study of Two Models, Journal of Jewish Thought and
Philosophy 1 (1992): 30529.
See Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method, trans. Joel Weinsheimer
and Donald G. Marshall (New York: Crossroad, 1988), 275.
192 Avi Sagi
according to the judgement which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do:
thou shalt not deviate from the sentence which they shall tell thee, to
the right hand or to the left. (Glosses, 17: 811)
With his acute hermeneutical sensitivity, Nahmanides senses
that the term Torah in this passage refers to the instruction of
the authorities and makes the instruction synonymous with
scripture. Hence, he states: And whatever the majority decides,
this is what the Torah has commanded us (Glosses, ibid.). This
is his opening statement in the discussion, which then recurs
in the previously noted formulation: because it was subject to
their judgement that He commanded us and gave us the Torah.
Torah, then, is not synonymous with the biblical text, but with
its authorized exegesis. Nahmanides, like Leibowitz after him,
holds that scripture directs us outwards; hence, he draws a dis-
tinction between the Torah and the text pointing to the Torah.
The Torah, meaning the instruction of the authorities, grants
meaning to the text, which should not be interpreted outside this
context. This analysis claries Nahmanides next statement in
Glosses:
And whoever transgressed [namely, a member of the court who delib-
erately ignores the consensus of the court] was considered a rebellious
elder, at the time the court used to sit on criminal cases, as is written,
and the man that will act presumptuously, and will not hearken to the
priest (Deut. 17: 12). As punishment, he lost this world and the world
to come, and these are the Sadducees, who in the East are called Kara-
ites. For the Torah was given to us by Moses in written form. (Glosses,
ibid.)
In this text, Nahmanides compares the rebellious elder to the
Sadducees and the Karaites, although this comparison is highly
questionable. Sadducees and Karaites do not recognize the
author ity of the Oral Law and cling to the biblical text as the
exclusive source of authority. By contrast, the rebellious elder
is one in a court of halakhic sages and surely acknowledges the
Oral Law. His sole transgression is his categorical opposition
to a specic instruction of the court, as demonstrated by his in-
sistence in following his own counsel when ruling. How, then,
could Nahmanides identify him with the Sadducees and the
Karaites?
Hanina Kazis raises this question in his commentary, which is published
A key to this question may be found in Nahmanides herme-
neutical theory. He holds that the texts openness precludes a
xed, uniform meaning, except for that determined by the sages
who abide by the halakhic rules of inference he describes in
Glosses (17). This assumption claries that the Sadducees and
the rebellious elder are guilty of the same transgression: they be-
lieve that the meaning of the biblical text can be construed with-
out outside authorization. Sadducees hold that the biblical text
bears an independent meaning, and exegetes as well as halakhic
jurists must listen to the text and bow to its authority. Unlike
them, the rebellious elder accepts the authority of the Oral Law
as constitutive of our approach to the biblical text, but mistak-
enly believes that halakhic sages compete in the search for the
best interpretation. Since the rebellious elder believes that his
inter pretation or his halakhic conclusions are more congruent
with the meaning of the text, he refuses to accept the consensus
of the court. Contrary to these approaches, Nahmanides holds
that the biblical text assumes its meaning from and within the
hermeneutical and legal context of the halakhic authorities, who
constitute the texts meaning.
The controversy of the rebellious elder with his colleagues,
then, hinges on the status of halakhic authority. The rebel-
lious elder holds that halakhic authority rests on knowledge
and understanding of the text. He supports an epistemic model
of authority. Believing he has the truth, he refuses to accept a
majority ruling. For Nahmanides, however, halakhic authority is
deontic, meaning that halakhists have authority to determine the
halakhic norm. This authority does not rely on knowledge but
on the power they have been granted to determine the norms.
Nahmanides explicates this position in Glosses: As was the
case concerning R. Joshua and Rabban Gamaliel on the Day of
Atonement according to his reckoning. He refers here to the tal-
mudic story (Rosh Hashanah 25a) about a time when R. Joshua
and Rabban Gamaliel disagreed on the specic timing of the new
together with Maimonides Book of the Commandments, 2``7 N. (Kinat
Soferim).
On these two models of authority see Avi Sagi, Models of Authority and
the Duty of Obedience in Halakhic Literature, Association of Jewish Studies
Review 20 (1995): 124, and the sources discussed there.
194 Avi Sagi
year. This controversy entails implications for the dating of the
Day of Atonement, and Rabban Gamaliel, who was the presid-
ing judge, commanded R. Joshua: I order you to come to me
carrying your walking stick and your coins on the day that, by
your reckoning, is the Day of Atonement. Abiding by this order
was extremely hard for R. Joshua, but R. Akiva taught him:
I learn from this that anything Rabban Gamaliel does is done,
as is written: These are the feasts of the Lord, holy gatherings,
which you shall proclaim (Lev. 23: 4), whether in their time
or not in their time (Glosses, ibid.). The sages, then, have abso-
lute authority to determine the timing of the holy gatherings,
regardless of any actual reality. Nahmanides, by referring to this
source, draws a parallel between the sages absolute authority
to determine the holy gatherings and their absolute authority to
constitute the biblical text.
The view that the sages interpretation need not pass a test
of suitability to the texts meaning is not easily reconciled with
the statement in TB Horayot 2b. The mishnah in Horayot 1:
1 deals with the possibility of halakhic mistakes and limits the
duty of compliance with the authorities instructions. This duty
only applies when their instructions are true, meaning that they
reect scripture. On the surface, then, this mishnah supports an
epistemic model of authority:
If the court issued a ruling and one of them knew they had erred, or
a disciple who was himself capable of ruling on matters of law acted
in accord ance with their ruling, whether they acted and he acted with
them . . . he is liable since he was not dependent upon the ruling of the
court. (M. Horayot 1: 1)
The Talmud explains the nature of the mistake requiring a dis-
ciple to oer a sacrice: as he knew it was prohibited, but he
erred concerning the commandment to obey the sages (TB
Horayot 2b). In other words, even when an halakhic authority
commands a specic act, this is not a sucient reason for obey-
ing a wrong instruction. In this case, obedience is wrong, and
compliance is a sign of misunderstanding.
Nahmanides cannot disregard this talmudic discussion, which
subverts the basic assumptions of his hermeneutical stance.
Indeed, in Glosses, he contends with this talmudic passage and
limits its scope considerably:
If a sage who was t to rule lived at the time of the Sanhedrin, and
the Great Court ruled that a certain matter should be allowed while he
holds that they erred, he is not commanded to heed the sages, nor is he
permitted to allow himself something forbidden, and he must not com-
promise. This is most certainly the case if he himself sits in the Great
Court. He should then come before them and argue his case, and they
will discuss it with him. And if most of them agree to reject his view
and they confuse his argument, he must retract and follow their ruling,
after they have dismissed him and have agreed concerning his claim . . .
And in any event, he must accept their ruling, after they have agreed.
(Glosses, 17)
Nahmanides assumes that the injunction in this talmudic pas-
sage instructing a member of the court to cling to his view is
not universally applicable and relates to one specic situation
only, namely, if the court fails to discuss his claims. If he does
have a chance to present his views, however, he must abide by
the courts decision, regardless of whether he nds it persuasive
or not. The duty of a member of the court to heed the courts
decision is not based on the assumption that, following the dis-
cussion, its view is truer or more pertinent. Possibly, argues
Nahmanides, the rebellious sage may come to accept the justice
of his colleagues claim in the course of the discussion, but this
is not the basis for his duty to comply with the courts decision.
Nahmanides stresses this point when stating that the basis for
compliance is that they have agreed concerning his claim . . . and
in any event, he must accept their ruling, after they have agreed.
Their agreement, rather than the victory of truth, validates the
sages decision. We may therefore conclude, as did all later hala-
khic authorities, that Nahmanides does not regard the sages
obligation to explain their decision as a necessary condition for
compliance. They may, or they may not, explain their grounds
for agreement. Thus, for instance, Zevi Hirsch Heyyot states:
Nahmanides emphasized that [this ruling applies] when abso-
lute agreement to oppose him prevails, regardless of whether they
provided arguments and reasons, or dismissed his view without
reason, or even when [they claimed] that left is rightwe heed
only the majority.
``" |`C `7 "3 (Kol Sifrei Maharitz Heyyot = Zevi Hirsch
Heyyot, The Complete Works) (Jerusalem: Divrei Hakhamin, 1958), i: 376.
Heyyot (180585) is an Eastern European rabbi.
196 Avi Sagi
This analysis enabled many halakhists who relied on Nah-
manides to preserve halakhic pluralism to a considerable extent,
while specically dening the nature of the sages agreement.
If one or several sages did not participate in the discussion of
this issue, or if no such discussion took place, the duty to comply
with a majority ruling did not apply. This conclusion is con-
sistent with Nahmanides approach in Glosses, whereby the ha-
lakhic ruling is not designed to reveal any truth but to establish
one Torah binding all. Hence, as long as the authorized institu-
tion subject to [whose] judgement He commanded us and gave
us the Torah has not convened, a normative openness tting the
openness of the text is possible.
NAHMANIDES MULTI-LAYERED
APPROACH
Nahmanides deconstructionist approach, however, is largely
toned down in other texts of Glosses as well as in other state-
ments. The most structured expression of this change appears in
his Commentary on the Torah, which reects an attempt to tem-
per and restrain the deconstructionist perception by acknow-
ledging an autonomous text independent of interpretation. Here,
Nahmanides recurrently cites texts from Glosses with correctives
designed to preempt a deconstructionist interpretation.
The deconstructionist stance assumes that the text is consti-
tuted through a process of interpretation, whereas the moderate
approach assumes the existence of an autonomous text, inde-
pendent of interpretation. The biblical text, however, is multi-
layered. The overt, external layer is the literal one, understood
through the relevant context, while the inner layers include what
the sages disclose through their exegesis. The sages exegetical
and applied activity does not create the Torah, but exposes its
This analysis appears, for instance, in Joseph Caro, |L`" Ì `7`` `2
ILC (Beit Yosef: Tur Hoshen Mishpat) (Jerusalem: Machon Hatam Sofer,
1965), #13; Jonathan Eybeschutz, 2`C` 2``N (Urim ve-Tumim) (Vienna:
1818); Moshe b. Shlomo Ibn Habib, I`L I. (Get Pashut) (Zolkiew: 1834);
Heyyot, Complete Works, i. 97111, 3637, 37090; Yosef Babad, ".C _`.`"
(Minhat Hinukh = Glosses on Sefer ha-Hinukh) (Jerusalem: 1961), 91, com-
mandment 34; Elhanan Wasserman, 2``.`L |2` (Kovets Shiurim) (Tel-
Aviv: Friedman, 1963), ii: 10915, and many others.
inner layers. Already in his rst critical gloss, discussed so far,
Nahmanides states: Because the Torah [referring to scripture]
will interpret, and command, and declare, and suggest ( Glosses,
19). Nahmanides, then, assumes that scripture comprises several
meanings, some overt and some covert, which are exposed
through the halakhists hermeneutical endeavour.
Nahmanides second gloss is an excellent illustration of the
moderate position. In the second principle of his Book of the Com-
mandments, Maimonides postulates that the standing of hala khic
norms, even when derived through the application of the stan-
dard rabbinic rules of hermeneutics, is not equivalent to that
of a Torah instruction. A legal inference is not of equal status
to the Torah, and is considered subsidiary rabbinic legislation,
unless the sages attest to this inference as part of the Oral Law,
thereby conferring on it the status of a Torah ruling. This deni-
tion severely reduces the number of norms dened as part of the
Torah, since most talmudic halakhic activity takes place through
the application of traditional rules of inference. In a responsum,
Maimonides states:
Nothing inferred through inference, or a fortiori, or through the appli-
cation of one of the thirteen hermeneutical rules, is a Torah law, until
the sages explicitly declare that it is part of the Torah . . . And nothing
is from the Torah unless explicitly mentioned in the Torah, such as
mixed cloths, and mixed species, and the Sabbath, and incest, or unless
the sages declare it is from the Torah, which pertains only to three or
four matters.
Maimonides, then, accepts the postulate assuming a one-layered
biblical text, exclusively literal. On this issue, Maimonides
relies on the Talmud: A verse cannot depart from its plain
meaning, implying that the meaning of the biblical text is
synonymous with its simple, explicit meaning. Ultimately, this
analysis turns most talmudic halakhic material into subsidiary
legislation.
Nahmanides rejects this approach categorically. In a scathing
formulation, he objects to Maimonides second principle because
22C `2`L (Teshuvot ha-Rambam = Maimonides, Responsa), Blau
edn. (Jerusalem: Rubin Mass, 1986), #355.
Maimonides, Book of the Commandments, 456.
TB Shabbat 63a.
198 Avi Sagi
it uproots and abolishes many talmudic rules . . . eradicating the
foundation of our Oral Law, which was established through the
Thirteen Hermeneutical Rules, and most of the Talmud resting
upon them (Glosses, 301). For Nahmanides, the fundamental
assumption of talmudic discourse is that a conclusion reached
through the implementation of the rules of inference is identical
with what appears in the Torah, because, for them [the sages],
the rules are as written in the Torah (Glosses, 32). Contrary to
Maimonides, Nahmanides considers that in order for a halakhic
norm to become subsidiary rabbinic legislation, the sages must
say so explicitly: Hence, we should say the opposite [of Mai-
monides]: everything inferred in the Talmud through one of the
Thirteen Rules is from the Torah, unless they say the inference
is an asmakhta [namely, unless they explicitly claim that the
inference is merely an illustration and the norm they are enact-
ing is an independent act of legislation] (Glosses, 34). Nahman-
ides could ostensibly have proven his point by relying on his
rst gloss, stating that the interpretive process determines the
meaning of the text. For his second gloss, however, he chooses
a dierent strategy. In his view, the rules of inference create the
interpretation of the Torah, which is identical to the Torah:
All that is inferred in the Talmud through one of the Thirteen Rules is
Torah, an interpretation of the Torah told to Moses at Sinai, whether
specically . . . or generally, and they were commanded to expound
the Torah through the Thirteen Rules, and the sages agreed in their
expounding of every single command. (Glosses, 37)
Why are interpretation and inference synonymous with the
Torah? Because the text is multi-layered rather than because of
the openness of scripture. The entire hermeneutical endeavour is
meant to expose the texts hidden layers: All are included in the
written word . . . the written word includes everything ( Glosses,
44). This perception of the text as multi-layered emerges in
Nahmanides interpretation of the talmudic saying, a verse can-
not depart from its plain meaning. As noted, Maimonides had
relied on this saying to conclude that the written text was identi-
cal to its literal meaning, thereby rejecting the notion of a multi-
layered text. Nahmanides reads this saying entirely dierently:
A verse cannot depart from its plain meaning, but [the verse]
has its exegesis beside its plain meaning, and it does not depart
from either; the written word will accept everything, and both
are true (Glosses, 45).
Nahmanides assumption, then, is that the text has a simple,
overt meaning and, therefore, a verse cannot depart from its
plain meaning. However, the sages, he believes, do not intend to
claim that the biblical text is identical only to its plain meaning;
rather, the other layers of scripture include the sages exegeses as
well. In this passage, Nahmanides assumes that the exegeses and
the plain level of scripture are of equal standing: both are true.
Assertions concerning the multi-layered nature of scripture
recur in other of Nahmanides writings. Thus, for instance, he
writes: a verse cannot depart from its plain meaning, God
has spoken once: twice have I heard this. Hence we learn
that the Torah has several faces of truth. The most radical for-
mulation of the view supporting the multi-layered character of
scripture appears in Nahmanides introduction to his Commen-
tary on the Torah: Everything that was transmitted to Moses our
teacher . . . was written in the Torah explicitly or by implication
in words, in the numerical value of the letter, that is, whether
written normally or with some change in form . . . or in the tips
of the letters and their crownlets. This statement, written in
a mystical spirit, allows us to identify the texts various layers.
The rst is what was written in the Torah explicitly. This layer
is identical with the plain meaning of scripture, whose text is
contextual. The other, inner layers, are not context-bound, and
are reached through smaller linguistic units: letters or syllables,
through which the contextual framework can be transcended.
The verse is Psalm 62: 12, and Nahmanides hints here at the talmudic
exegesis in Sanhedrin 34a, one verse may convey several teachings, meaning it
can be interpreted in several ways.
|2C" `7"``C N2L `L (Shut ha-Rashba ha-Meiyuhasot la-
Ramban = R. Shlomo b. Adret, Responsa Ascribed to Nahmanides) (reprint,
Warsaw: Goldman, 1884), #285.
Nahmanides, Commentary on the Torah, 10.
This link between the plain level and context on the one hand, and the
expounding of smaller linguistic units, letters or words, on the other, was
already formulated by Isaac de Leon in 7N "`.C (Megilat Esther), a com-
mentary that is published with Maimonides Book of the Commandments:
Exegesis . . . is not concerned with the plain literal level, because the exegesis
focuses on a letter or a syllable, and the term plainness (peshat) does not apply to
it, since we only learn about the verse from its entire context (hitpashtut) (52).
200 Avi Sagi
What is the basis for assuming that the biblical text is multi-
layered? According to Nahmanides, this assumption relies on
the texts divine character: The Torah of the Lord is perfect
[Ps. 19: 8], no letter is superuous or missing, all were written
wisely (Glosses, 44). The perfection of the text is manifest in
its innite fullness, which includes various layers, some explicit
and some hidden. In the introduction to the Commentary on the
Torah, Nahmanides goes further and states that the biblical text,
as known to us, is only one of its possible articulations. Scripture
was originally written in a sequence:
The writing [of the Torah] was contiguous, without break of words,
making it possible for it to be read by way of Divine Names and also by
way of our normal reading, which makes the Torah and the command-
ments explicit. It was given to Moses our teacher using the division of
words which expresses the commandment.
Although this passage suggests a mystical-kabbalistic interpre-
tation of scripture, its assumptions convey Nahmanides general
hermeneutical stance, which assumes a multi-layered biblical
text.
Let us now return, in light of this analysis, to Nahmanides
commentary on Deuteronomy 17: 11. Nahmanides opens by
describing the duty of compliance derived from the verse thou
shalt not deviate from the sentence which they shall tell thee, to
the right hand, or to the left:
Even if you think in your heart that they are mistaken, and the matter is
simple in your eyes just as you know [the dierence] between your right
hand and your left hand, you must still do as they command you. You
are not to say: How can I [permit myself to] eat this real forbidden fat,
or execute this innocent man; instead, you are to say, The Lord who
enjoined the commandments commanded that I perform all His com-
mandments in accordance with all that they, who stand before Him in
the place that He shall choose, teach me to do. He gave me the Torah as
taught by them, even if they were to err. . . . And surely you are obligated to
think that they say right what is truly right; because Gods spirit is upon
the ministers of the sanctuary (Ezek. 45: 4), they are preserved for ever
(Ps. 37: 28) from error and stumbling.
De Leon creates a link between the plain level and the context by pointing to the
similar roots (pashat) of these two Hebrew words.
Nahmanides, Commentary on the Torah, 1415. Ibid. 2067.
The segment in italics is additions to the passage that do not
appear in the parallel text in Glosses. They are, therefore, par-
ticularly interesting, because they point to the turnabout in Nah-
manides approach. He acknowledges a biblical text that is not
contingent on interpretation for its meaning when he claims that
errors of understanding are possible. In Glosses, Nahmanides
states: because it was subject to their judgement that He com-
manded us and gave us the Torah, whereas in this passage, his
formulation is: He gave me the Torah as taught by them, even if
they were to err. This change explains also the following one. In
Glosses, Nahmanides does not assign crucial weight to the claims
of the person who is the subject of Halakhah and he believes his
interpretation is correct because the sages are the ones who con-
stitute scripture. By contrast, in his Commentary on the Torah,
Nahmanides must contend with the subjects claims, since he
now supports a view holding that the text has an autono mous
meaning. The answer to the subjects claim is twofold. First,
the Torah itself grants absolute authority to halakhic sages to
interpret it as they see t, even if they err. Second, the subject of
Halakhah can be certain that the sages do not err, and ultimately
disclose the truth, preserved for ever from error and stumbling
by virtue of the divine inspiration that accompanies Halakhah.
Nahmanides does not deal here with the claim about the texts
multi-layered nature, but this is still his underlying argument.
Identifying one interpretation as true, despite the appearance
of error, conrms the existence of a hidden textual layer. The
claim, He gave me the Torah as taught by them, is no longer
interpreted to mean that interpretation constitutes the text, but
as a more moderate contention. The sages understanding rep-
resents the legitimate interpretation of the text, since they are
authorized, and indeed able, to disclose its meaning, and what
they disclose is the Torah commanded by God.
MULTI-LAYERED SCRIPTURE AND
HERMENEUTICAL FREEDOM
Let us now reconsider the relationship between the deconstruc-
tionist position and the more moderate stance Nahmanides en-
dorses later. I have so far argued that Nahmanides presents two
contradictory views, but a closer analysis reveals this judgement
202 Avi Sagi
as slightly simplistic, on several grounds. First, the deconstruc-
tionist view appears only in the rst of his critical glosses; by
the second, Nahmanides is already oering the thesis of a multi-
layered text. Second, in his introduction to the Commentary on
the Torah cited above, Nahmanides claims that everything was
written in the Torah explicitly or by implication in words . . .
or in the tips of the letters and their crownlets. For this claim,
he relies on a known talmudic legend: When Moses ascended
to heaven he found the Holy One, blessed be He, engaged in
attaching crownlets to the letters of the Torah. When Moses
enquired into the purpose of this activity, God answered: One
man will arise, Akiva b. Joseph, who will interpret heaps and
heaps of laws on their basis. Moses then asked to see a study ses-
sion at R. Akivas academy. When he was brought there, he sat
down behind the eighth rank of disciples but was unable to fol-
low the arguments, and was deeply grieved, but then heard the
disciples asking R. Akiva, Whence do you know this? When R.
Akiva replied, This is a law given to Moses on Mount Sinai, he
was comforted (TB Menahoth 29b). This wondrous tale, which
provides Nahmanides justication for his view of the biblical
text as multi-layered, does not oer any mechanism for coping
with the transition between the layers. Not only does Moses
fail to understand the halakhic discourse, but the only link be-
tween the biblical text and the exegesis is a law given to Moses
on Mount Sinai, a term in talmudic literature for describing ha-
lakhic norms lacking textual source. Interpretation, then, is not
predicated on semantic foundations but on extra-textual tradi-
tion. It is on these grounds that Nahmanides emphasizes divine
inspiration in his Commentary on the Torah. Since a semantic
transition between the text and the meaning its interpreters nd
in it is not always present, the only guarantee of any correspon-
dence between the text and its interpretation is divine inspira-
tion.
Although the interpretation in this legend creates only a vi-
sual link to the text, in the crownlets of the letters, it conveys
the hermeneutical freedom of the halakhic sage. Nahmanides
explains this legend as an indication of the transition between
textual layers, but he also understands that this transition is not
necessarily preceded by rigorous semantic analysis. The mean-
ings generated through interpretation exist in the text in some
form, but no method is prescribed as a necessary requisite for
the shift between layers. Hence, even when Nahmanides writes
of the multi-layered text of scripture, the emphasis is on the her-
meneutical freedom of halakhic sages.
The range of approaches that Nahmanides suggests, then, is
meant to clarify the relationship between two typical features of
rabbinic thought that are not easily reconciled: rst, the assump-
tion that scripture is sacred and canonical, and second, the
hermeneutical freedom of halakhic sages to interpret this text.
The sacralization of the biblical text could lead us to hypo the-
size limita tions restricting the hermeneutical liberty of halakhic
sages, but the opposite occurs. Halakhic tradition extolled her-
meneutical freedom, gradually lessening the signicance of the
Sinai theophany, as illustrated, for instance, in the TB Menahoth
legend. Nahmanides seeks to explain these discrepancies in
several ways by asserting that halakhic sages have authority to
implement the traditional rules of interpretation, which become
increasingly central in determining the text. According to the
second gloss of Nahmanides, these rules are given together with
the text and, consequently, their concrete implementation deter-
mines the text. However, Nahmanides knows that the halakhic
endeavour is not conned to the inference of norms through
these rules, and the sages hermeneutical enterprise is wide-
ranging, ultimately reecting their subjective understanding of
the text. How can religious-theological signicance be attached
to this eort? Where is the proof that it reects Gods word?
Nahmanides answer is that, rst, halakhic sages are em-
powered to determine the text. Through this act, they do not con-
vey Gods original word but Gods will. Second, their concrete
deeds ultimately disclose the texts hidden layers. The decon-
structionist perception and the more moderate stance represent
two complementary aspects of an approach seeking to contend
with the relationship between a sacred text and hermeneutical
freedom. The sacred text is multi-layered and, precisely on these
grounds, halakhic sages create the text, since the shift between
layers does not necessarily rely on semantic analysis.
Nahmanides acknowledgement of scriptures polysemic
char acter and of the texts inherent openness have been widely
See Sagi, Halakhic Praxis.
204 Avi Sagi
accepted in Jewish thought since the rabbinic period. The rela-
tionships that Nahmanides outlines between text and exegesis
express the primacy of the Oral Law over the Torah. Intimations
of this approach, favouring the Oral Law, appear already in the
Talmud: God made a covenant with Israel only for the sake of
the Oral Law. Scriptures subservience to the interpretation of
the Oral Law is a recurring motif in rabbinic literature. Yitzhak
Heinemann, a prominent scholar of rabbinic literature, claims
that, according to rabbinic tradition, the Torah not only allows
but commands independent expounding. The legend from
TB Menahoth 29b, cited above, assumes that future exe gesis
will represent the fullment of Gods will. Elsewhere, we read:
when the Holy One, blessed be He, gave Israel the Torah, He
gave it only as wheat to make our from, or as ax to weave cloth
from. Another image of the Torah appears in an exegesis of
the verse like a hammer that shatters the rock (Jer. 23: 29): Just
as this hammer fractures it into many splinters, so may one bibli-
cal verse convey many teachings. The most blatant instance
of the approach arming human activity appears in TB Bava
Metsiah 59ab, rejecting the intervention of the divine legis lator
in the hermeneutical procedure by invoking the principle of it
is not in Heaven: the Torah was given to human beings to inter-
pret and understand.
R. Yom-Tov b. Abraham Ishbili is a paramount talmudic
commentator and a disciple of R. Shlomo b. Adret, Nahman-
ides disciple. He contends with a problem emerging from a pas-
sage in TB Eruvin 13b dealing with the controversy between the
House of Hillel and the House of Shammai that states: these and
these are the words of the living God:
The French rabbis, of blessed memory, asked: How can both [the rul-
ings of the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai] be the words
of the living God when one allows and the other forbids? And they
TB Gittin 60a; PT Peah 2: 517a, and others.
Yitzhak Heinemann, .N `3 (Darkei ha-Aggadah = The Methods of
Aggadah) (Givatayyim: Magnes and Massada, 1970), 11.
NI`l ``"N 7 (Seder Elyiahu Zuta), ed. M. Ish-Shalom (Jerusalem:
Wahrman, 1969), 172.
TB Sanhedrin 34a. See also TB Shabbat 88b.
Known as Ritba, end of thirteenth and beginning of fourteenth centuries
in Spain.
explained that, when Moses ascended to Heaven to receive the Torah
he was shown, concerning every matter, forty-nine reasons for forbid-
ding and forty-nine reasons for allowing. And he asked the Holy One,
blessed be He, about this matter, and he was told that it would be for
the sages of Israel in each generation to decide.
Ritbas comments resemble the saying in the Palestinian Tal-
mud: Said R. Yannai: If the Torah were handed down cut-
and-dried, [the world] would not have a leg to stand on. Said he
[Moses]: Master of the Universe! Teach me the Halakha. Said
God: Follow the majority. When they acquit, acquit, and when
they condemn, condemn, so that the Torah may be expounded
in forty-nine ways in favour of ritual tness and in forty-nine
ways in favour of untness (PT Sanhedrin 4: 2). What is the
relationship between Ritbas commentary and this passage in
the Palestinian Talmud? Is this a paraphrase? Is it an alterna-
tive source? An independent exegesis? Whatever the answer, the
comparison between the two sources is instructive. R. Yannai
holds that the Torah is not cut-and-dried because of practical
considerations: [the world] would not have a leg to stand on,
meaning the Torah needs to be suciently open to respond to
the challenges of reality. For R. Yannai, the openness of the text
is a satisfactory mechanism for shrinking the gap between the
letter of the law and reality. The open text is implemented by the
sages who constitute it according to a given reality.
By contrast, Ritba oers a more radical theological approach,
whereby God engages in a move opposed to the one Moses
expects. Moses expects a Torah, namely, cut-and-dried instruc-
tions, Halakhah, whereas God proves to Moses that this expec-
tation should be abandoned. God shows Moses forty-nine ways
in favour of ritual tness and forty-nine ways in favour of unt-
ness. The Torah as given at Sinai is not Halakhah, but a pleni-
tude of innite interpretations. Ritba thus points to two basic
meanings of the Torah: as a plenitude of innite contents and as
a practical system of instructions. God represents the plenitude,
and Moses expectation from the Torah is a system of norms.
Gods reaction to Moses expectation is to point to the mechan-
ism for deriving the required instruction from this plenitude:
Ritba, |`2`. 37C" 2`L``" (Hiddushim le-Masekhet Eruvin = Nov-
ellae on the Eruvin Treatise) (Tel-Aviv: Or Torah, 1958), 13b, s.v. elu va-elu.
206 Avi Sagi
the sages of Israel in each generation. God deconstructs the
scripture he gave to Moses, to turn it into an innite Torah.
Ritba preserves the deconstructionist trend of the rabbi who had
taught his teacher, Nahmanides.
As Simon Rawidowicz noted, the talmudic endeavour is not a
commentary on scripture:
Insofar as we can speak of the creative endeavour of the Second Temple
[Rawidowiczs term for the talmudic period] as interpretation, all that
this interpretation has in common with explanation and commentary,
with hermeneutics in the usual sense of this term, is the name . . . If
ever there was interpretation in the Second Templeit was an uproot-
ing, subversive interpretation, constituting and stabilizing all at once,
uprooting, establishing, subverting, and stabilizing, in an intellectual
endeavour that is almost unparalleled.
Talmudic and post-talmudic literature place scripture within
a web of meaning that is outside scripture itself, and reads it
anew. One can hardly disagree with Susan Handelman when she
states, concerning rabbinic tradition: The boundaries between
text and interpretation are uid in a way which is dicult for us
to imagine for sacred text. Heinemann describes the rabbinic
perception of scriptures inherent openness to interpretation,
and the limits conning this process:
Our ancestors saw a progression of three principles [in the interpreta-
tion of scripture]: (1) All the minute details of Scripture must be rigor-
ously expounded. (2) The purpose of all the details is only to impart
knowledge. (3) All parts of speech (letters, words, verses, chapters) can
be understood not only through their human context, as human testi-
monies; they also retain, besides the meaning dictated by the context,
full independence and endless possibilities of combination.
Commenting on the principle that a verse cannot depart from its
plain meaning, Heinemann states: Even when [this principle]
was accepted, it never annulled the right to multivalent inter-
pretations. Heinemann then adds: On this issue, Nahmanides
Simon Rawidowicz, 2`"L``` "22 (Bavel v-Yirushalayim = Babylon and
Jerusalem: Towards a Philosophy of Israels Wholeness) (London: Ararat, 1957),
81.
Susan Handelman, The Slayers of Moses (Albany, N.Y.: SUNY Press,
1982), 41.
Heinemann, Darkei ha-Aggadah, 96. See also 1003, 108, 129.
Ibid., 12.
has proved more justied than Maimonides. This view of the
relationship between the text and its interpretation raises the
obvious theological questions: What was given at Sinai? What
is the nature of revelation? Many theories were developed in
order to answer these questions, but the crucial element in the
tal mudic and post-talmudic discourse on this question is the
ack now ledgement of hermeneutical freedom, as it is manifest in
halakhic and aggadic literature. Not only was the legitimacy of
this freedom never questioned, it was and is the basic phenomeno-
logical datum of rabbinic literature. In this sense, Nahmanides
voice is the voice of the rabbinic tradition.
FURTHER HERMENEUTICAL
DEVELOPMENTS AND THE INFLUENCE OF
BIBLICAL CRITICISM
Let us now turn to the questions I posed at the beginning. The
issue raised in the rst question was: Why did a general herme-
neutical theory fail to develop in traditional Judaism, as it did,
for instance, in Protestantism? The answer to this question
may be sought in the assumption underlying the emergence of
theories in general and of hermeneutical theories in particular.
Theories function as explanations for puzzling phenomena and
do not usually emerge to explain the obvious; the need for theory
arises in situations of disharmony, to restore a disturbed balance
between various elements.
The background for the rise of hermeneutical theories was the
problematic relationship between three elements: the author,
the text, and the reader. The source of the problem was the poly-
semic nature of the written text, when various hermeneutical
theories suggested dierent interpretations. For instance, the
Lutheran tradition, which turned the notion of the texts inde-
pendent meaning into a dogma, had to develop a hermeneuti-
cal theory or theories to regulate the textreader relationship:
How can the reader grasp the plain meaning of scripture? What,
Ibid., 201 n. 109.
On this issue, see Avi Sagi, Both are the Words of the Living God: A
Typological Analysis of Halakhic Pluralism, Hebrew Union College Annual
65 (1995): 10536; Avi Sagi, The Open Canon: On the Meaning of Halakhic
Discourse (forthcoming).
208 Avi Sagi
exactly, is the plain meaning of scripture? What, precisely, must
the reader understand? These and other questions provided the
impetus for the continuous development of general hermeneuti-
cal theories.
Although Jewish literature does contain the rudiments of a
hermeneutical theory, some of which were mentioned above, we
can nd no parallel to the Protestant undertaking. Nahmanides
and Maimonides oer more general hermeneutical theories of
the biblical and talmudic text and come closest to formulating
one, precisely because of a disturbance. A discussion of the
reasons that urged Maimonides to engage in theorizing lies out-
side the connes of this article. The disturbance that prompted
Nahmanides to develop a hermeneutical theory was his contro-
versy with Maimonides concerning the status of scripture, as
well as the need to clarify the status of halakhic authority and the
obligation of compliance with it. Both these problems are linked
to the question about the status of the text and its meaning. Does
the text have intrinsic meaning, independent of its interpreta-
tion, or is it constituted through the interpretation process?
Yet, Nahmanides (or Maimonides) hermeneutical approach
makes the absence of other theories even more glaring. Although
we would expect a culture that constitutes itself through inter-
pretation and that is constantly confronting the sacred bibli-
cal text to develop general hermeneutical theories, such theories
are extremely rare in Judaism. The dearth of theory originates,
I believe, in the obviousness of the rabbinic hermeneutical en-
deavour. The rabbis had seldom contended with the hermeneu-
tical question because they saw no problem in the polysemy of
linguistic expression. More precisely, this polysemy was taken
as solid evidence of the licence, and even the duty, to establish
textual meaning. Understanding the text was not considered a
serious problem in the rabbinic tradition because the text was
not perceived as a unit bearing intrinsic meaning, unconditioned
by its interpretation. To understand the text was to shape it in the
course of an interpretive process. This rabbinic tradition reached
lucid formulation in Nahmanides hermeneutical theory.
The second question posed at the beginning was: Why was
See Moshe Halbertal, People of the Book (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press, 1997), who refers to the Jewish community as text-centred.
biblical criticism not perceived as a challenge to the rabbinic trad-
ition, as it was, for instance, in Protestantism? Put another way,
why was Judaism, which focuses on scripture, oblivious to the
problems raised by biblical criticism, nding no need to contend
with these questions? Leibowitz, as noted, oers a formal an-
swer to this question, when he claims that scripture is but one of
the institutions of Halakhah. But this formal answer does not ex-
plain why the rabbinic tradition failed to take on the challenges
of biblical criticism concerning the unity of the biblical text.
The preceding analysis shows that the unity of scripture be-
comes a problem when the biblical text is isolated as an autono-
mous unity of meaning, divorced from an interpretive context.
This isolation compels recourse to literary tools of analysis in
order to decode its meaning. This methodology could lead, and
indeed has led, to a breakup into dierent textual units of the
text so far perceived as unied. Protestant tradition thus played a
crucial role in paving the way for the deconstruction of the bibli-
cal text, because it isolated it and presented it as an autonomous
unit of meaning.
By contrast, the rabbinic tradition, even without adopting the
deconstructionist position intimated in Nahmanides Glosses,
acknowledged the biblical text as multi-layered, together with
an obligation to interpret it in various modes. For this purpose,
it developed a hermeneutical style enabling it to cope, through
interpretation, with the literary-philological questions of bibli-
cal criticism. Leibowitzs formal stance, which views scripture
as an institution of Halakhah, is congruent with Nahmanides
approach, whereby the texts meaning emerges through inter-
pretation. This view does not provide fertile ground for bibli-
cal criticism, which is viewed as merely another opportunity for
human interpretation. Interpretation, instead of contesting the
sacredness of scripture, is the deepest expression of a perfect text
with broader horizons than those revealed in a simplistic, open
reading.
Secularization made deep inroads in European Jewish society
during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. As a result, the
Compare Moshe Halbertal, |``2 ``.L `3C (Mahapehot
Parshanyiot be-Hithavutan = Interpretative Revolutions in the Making) (Jeru-
salem: Magnes Press, 1997), 1901.
210 Avi Sagi
biblical text assumed independent status, as manifest in its pro-
gressive severance from the religious rabbinic legacy on the one
hand, and in the anchoring of Jewish identity in the biblical, pre-
rabbinic era on the other. Once the text became an independent
unit of meaning, a new Jewish culture began to deal with scrip-
ture in ways resembling those adopted in the scientic study of
texts, reading it with literary, philological tools. The biblical
text lost its unied status and became an aggregation of separate
units. As twilight descended on the traditional era, adherents of
tradition facing the challenges of secularization began to adduce
the typical defences of the unity and sanctity of scripture. Moses
Mendelssohn (1729 86), who translated the Bible into German
(and also wrote some sections and was the general editor of the
exegesis known as Beùr), was familiar with modern biblical criti-
cism and even used some of its ndings in his commentary.
Nevertheless, he sought to preserve traditional approaches from
the encroachment of secularism:
When the peshat is contrary to the derash . . . the peshat will be the main
meaning . . . and the derash will be the secondary meaning . . . When,
however, what seems to us to be the peshat is dierent and contradicts
the accepted interpretation, and is transferred through the rabbis in a
way that makes it impossible for both to be right . . . then it is our duty
to follow the derash and translate the text accordingly.
Mendelssohn adopted this guideline not only concerning the
translation but also concerning his commentary. Hence, he
writes: Whenever the apparent meaning of the literal level of
scripture contradicts the rabbinic tradition in the laws and stat-
utes, the commentator must relinquish the literal level altogether
and take the path of authentic tradition or, if possible, adopt a
compromise.
For evidence of this inuence see Perez Sandler, "L `" `N2
``"` ``` ``.`7` |`7".C LC (ha-Beur la-Torah shel Moshe
Mendelssohn ve-Siyàto: Hithavuto ve-Hashpaàto = The Exegesis of the Penta-
teuch by Moses Mendelssohn and His Faction: Its Development and Inuence)
(Jerusalem: Rubin Mass, 1984), esp. ch. 4.
Preface to 2`"L `2`. (Netivoth Shalom = Paths of Peace) (Vienna:
1846). This passage appears, with slight modications, in David Weiss Halivni,
Peshat and Derash (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991), 29.
Mendelssohns introduction to his exegesis on 2ÌLC (Mishpatim =
Exodus, chs. 214) (Vilna: Yosef Rom, 1852).
On the surface, Mendelssohns is the traditional approach.
When a conict emerges, he translates and explains the text
within the hermeneutical context, but his comments show that
he is aware of the tension between the text and rabbinic interpre-
tation. His decision to prefer it to the literal meaning of the text
is the deliberate choice of someone who is already in the conict
and acknowledges several options for understanding it. This
awareness is the rst departure from a tradition that, as noted,
had read scripture within a web of meaning. Mendelssohn is a
modernist, if only because he acknowledges a range of options
and then arms the traditional hermeneutical approach out of
this modernistic stance.
Against the background of this modernistic position, two other
trends that overcome the conict between the text and its inter-
pretation by denying the text are even more prominent. The rst
was formulated by the talmudist and biblical commentator Meir
Loeb Malbim (180979), among the foremost European schol-
ars of his generation, who saw his life endeavour as the inter-
pretation of scripture vis--vis contemporary challenges. His
commentary relies on the assumption that rabbinic interpreta-
tions do not transcend the plain meaning of the text but, instead,
represent its quintessential manifestation. In the introduction
of his commentary to Leviticus, he points to the uniqueness and
originality of his own commentary, which has one purpose:
To explain . . . the tradition of the rabbis, pointing to language struc-
tures and to the laws of . . . logic . . . where I show and expound how the
rabbis had . . . hidden rules and set principles of grammar, language and
logic that had mostly been unknown and hidden to the sages who came
after them . . . showing and demonstrating with reliable evidence that
derash is truly the most literal level, compelled by and imprinted in the
Compare Peter L. Berger, The Heretical Imperative (New York: Garden
City, 1979), 2930.
Noah H. Rosenbloom, |``7C` .C ``7`"` ,`.L `2`2"C
2`2"C L`2``" `NC 2 `232 (ha-Malbim: Parshanut, Filosoah,
Mada u-Mistorin be-Kitvei ha-Rav Meir Leibush Malbim = Malbim: Exegesis,
Philosophy, Science and Mysticism in the Writings of Rabbi Meir Loeb Malbim)
(Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1988).
`SC` ` (ha-Torah ve-ha-Mitzvah = The Torah and the
Commandment) (Jerusalem: Menorah, 1973).
212 Avi Sagi
depth structure of language . . . All the Oral Law is already written in
divine, explicit Scripture.
Malbim, then, rules out the conict between interpretation and
text by claiming that rabbinic interpretation is based on semantic
rules. These rules, contrary to Nahmanides claim, do not lead
to other layers in the text but disclose the actual literal level.
Even if this approach appears articial, it is ultimately based
on the traditional assumption that assumes no dividing line
exists between the text and its interpretation. Malbim, however,
as someone living in the era of biblical criticism, renounces the
assumption that the text should be read within the context of
talmudic interpretation, attempting to argue that this context is
simply an explication of the texts actual meaning.
The second trend was formulated by Samson Raphael Hirsch
(180888) who ruled out a conict between the text and its
rabbinic interpretation, but on grounds contrary to those of
Malbim. For Hirsch, interpretation does not reect scripture
as it is. Instead, scripture is part of a larger normative system and
is not self-sustaining. Hirsch formulates his stance vis--vis the
moral dilemma posed by the biblical text on the issue of slavery
(Exod. 21: 112), stating that a person can sell his neighbour,
and a father, his daughter. Hirsch does not try to support this
biblical injunction, and categorically rejects it as an unthinkable
enormity. Yet, this dismissal cannot negate the actual biblical
text. To contend with this problem, Hirsch re-examines the sta-
tus of scripture in Jewish tradition:
It is quite a dierent matter if the written work, the Book, is not the
real source of the Jewish conception of Rights, if this source is the tradi-
tional law, which was entrusted to the living word to which this book is
only to be an aid to memory and reference, when doubts arise . . . After
2`2"C L` 2. N`` 7 (Sefer Vayikra im Perush ha-Malbim =
Leviticus, with Malbim Commentary) (Jerusalem: Menorah, 1973), 1. Malbim
restates this view in his work "L "``N (Ayelet ha-Shahar), 3b, which is
printed as part of the introduction to Leviticus.
On the relationship between Malbim and Hirsch see Yekutiel Yaakov Neu-
bauer, 2``7 `2 ". 22C (ha-Rambam al Divrei Sofrim =Maimonides
on the Sayings of the Soferim) (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1957), 16873.
My analysis relies largely on this work.
The Pentateuch, translated and explained by Samson Raphael Hirsch, ren-
dered into English by Isaac Levy (Gateshead: Judaica Press, 1989), ii. 287.
all, it was not out of this book that the law was to have been acquired. This
book was to be given into the hands of those who were already well in-
formed in the Law, simply as a means of retaining and of reviving ever
afresh this knowledge which had been entrusted to their memories; and
also to the teachers of Law as a means of teaching to which the students
can go for references to the traditional actual laws, so that the written
sentences lying before them would make it easy for them to recall to
their minds the knowledge they had received orally.
According to this view, halakhic tradition has a preferred status
unconditioned by scripture, whose role is only educational.
Hirsch, like Leibowitz after him, reverses the hierarchical order
between scripture and halakhic tradition, except that Hirsch
goes further. He is aware of the theological problem arising from
the minimization of the biblical text. Religious tradition holds
that scripture is the word of God, so how can the original word
of God be limited to an exclusively educational role? To contend
with this question, Hirsch oers a dierent description of the
theophany and of the role of scripture within it:
The 232L ` is to be to the ".2L ` in the relation of short
notes on a full and extensive lecture on any scientic subject. For the
student who has heard the whole lecture, short notes are quite sucient
to bring back afresh to his mind at any time the whole subject of the
lecture. For him, a word, an added mark of interrogation, or exclama-
tion, a dot, the underlining of a word, etc., etc., is often quite sucient
to recall to his mind a whole series of thoughts, a remark, etc. . . . For
those who had not heard the lecture from the Master, such notes would
be completely useless. If they were to try to reconstruct the scientic
contents of the lecture literally from such notes they would of neces-
sity make many errors . . . The wisdom, the truths, which the initiated
reproduce from them (but do not produce out of them) are sneered at
by the uninitiated, as being merely a clever or witty play of words and
empty dreams without any real foundation.
According to this description, the written text has no primacy
in the theophany, which was oral and was only a means to the
end of acquiring the knowledge that God taught his listeners.
The written text plays only a marginal role in this context; it
is not part of the revelation as such. It is not the word of God,
Ibid., 2878, emphasis in original.
Ibid., 2889, emphasis in original.
214 Avi Sagi
only notes for the listeners. Malbims search for semantic rules
as tools used to understand the depths of the biblical text is thus
pointless.
Rosenbloom holds that Hirschs view is purposefully polemi-
cal, stating In his zeal to strengthen the Oral Law, Hirsch devel-
oped a paradoxical stance, namely, that the Oral Law surpasses
the Torah in value . . . Hirsch had obviously not intended this
Copernican revolution, but the polemical style of his exchange
with his adversaries led to this exaggeration. Rosenblooms
view, however, is untenable on two counts. First, the identity
of the purported adversaries is not clear. The text does not re-
veal a polemical trend. Rather, as I argued, it contends with a
moral dilemma emerging from the confrontation with scripture.
Hirsch is not concerned with strengthening the Oral Law, but
with solving a moral problem. Hirsch thereby continues a trend
that is pervasive in traditional Jewish literature, which does not
inch from new readings of scripture when faced with moral di-
lemmas. Second, as Neubauer shows, Hirsch formulates this
stance elsewhere in his writings. Hirsch returns to this thesis,
as Leibowitz would do later, when attempting to contend with
modern trends seeking to detach the text from other contexts of
meaning and analyse it with the tools of textual criticism.
CONCLUSION
In my view, it is Hirsch rather than Malbim who represents the
fundamental trend of the Jewish tradition I have analysed in
this chapter, whereby the Torah is not synonymous with scrip-
ture. Even if his formulation is radical, Hirsch is close to the
deconstructionist position we found in Nahmanides, although
he diers from him. Nahmanides accepted the primacy of scrip-
ture over the oral elementthe Oral Law, but assumed that the
Rosenbloom, Malbim: Exegesis, Philosophy, 150.
On this question see my articles, The Punishment of Amalek in Jewish
Tradition: Coping with the Moral Problem, Harvard Theological Review 87
(1994): 32346; He Slew the Egyptian and Hid Him in the Sand: Jewish
Tradition and the Moral Element, Hebrew Union College Annual 67 (1966): 55
76. For a broad discussion of this question see my book, 7`C" |`2 ```
(Yahadut: Bein Dat le-Musar = Judaism: Between Religion and Morality) (Tel-
Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuhad, 1999).
Neubauer, Maimonides on the Sayings of the Soferim.
text granted the sages the authority to interpret it, and even to
constitute it. In this sense, Nahmanides was aware of the con-
ict between Gods word, the written text, and Gods will, in its
rabbinic interpretation. By contrast, Hirsch overcomes the con-
ict by neutralizing the written text and making the the ophany
an oral event. Hence, when Hirsch makes the oral element the
constitutive foundation of Jewish tradition, he is launching a
Copernican revolution. This revolution, however, ts tradi-
tional halakhic practice, which had located the text within its
inter pretation.
Malbims stance is exposed to linguistic criticism, be it philo-
logical or literary, whereas Hirschs is not. The challenges of
biblical criticism pose no threat to him, not because Hirsch has
answers to all its objections, but because all objections become
irrelevant. Scripture remains unied, not because this is a
sacred, divine text, but in the unity of notes and summaries. This
is clearly a radical transformation of Jewish tradition, which
begins with the actual demotion of the text in favour of the body
of knowledge accumulated in the tradition or, more precisely, of
the readers of scripture.
The return to scriptural unity will only take place, if at all,
through the return of exegesis and interpretation as the con-
stitutive tools of scripture. In other words, only to the extent
that scripture is integrated into a comprehensive web of mean-
ing, which we bring to its reading, might its unied status be
re instated.
These perceptions of the status of scripture in Jewish tradi-
tion are close to post-modern views of the Bible, which Edgar
McKnight formulates as follows:
The post-modern perspective which allows readers to use the Bible
today is that of radical reader-oriented literary criticism, a criticism
which views literature in terms of readers and their values, attitudes,
and responses . . . A radical reader-oriented criticism is post-modern
in that it challenges the critical assumption that a disinterested reader
can approach a text objectively and obtain veriable knowledge . . . The
reader and the text are interdependent. The text is actualized by the
reader in a fashion that the text may be said to actualize the reader.
On this issue see Sagi, Halakhic Praxis.
Edgar V. McKnight, Post-Modern Use of the Bible (Nashville: Abingdon,
1990), 1415.
216 Avi Sagi
In Jewish tradition, the unity of the text is constituted through
the endeavours of the hermeneutical halakhic community;
people, not God, establish the sacred text and its unity. Similarly,
in post-modernist approaches, the unity of scripture is displaced
from the text to the community of its readers. A dialogue be-
tween these two approaches enriches and increases the chances
of a renewed link with scripture, although both Christian and
Jewish approaches that view scripture as the actual word of God
will obviously nd it hard to adopt the argumentation developed
in this article. Approaches granting primacy to the written text
of scripture must endorse other hermeneutical mechanisms to
support the unity and holiness of the text.
These approaches are those that ultimately enabled the growth
of biblical criticism and the deconstruction of scripture into its
units. Religious practice, and Protestantism in particular, which
puried the text from extra-textual contexts, acted out of deep
religious motivations, persuaded that the text itself embodied
the word of God. This adherence to the written text, however,
engendered the critical sensitivity that pulverized scripture. In
an approach assuming the absence of oral, extra-textual con-
texts, establishing scripture as a unied text was a problematic
undertaking. Jewish tradition, however, represents a radical and
fascinating manifestation of an alternative option.
Edgar V. McKnight, Post-Modern Use of the Bible, 16.
8
The Unity Behind the Canon
NIuoi:s Woi1ivs1ovii
I
In this chapter I propose to explore what I shall call the unity
behind the Christian canon, in contrast to the unity within. I
think the best way to introduce the issues I have in mind is to
present a brief narrative of a certain part of the history of modern
hermeneutics.
In Wilhelm Diltheys narrative of the origins of modern
hermeneutics, Friedrich Schleiermacher is the great hero; in
Hans-Georg Gadamers narrative, Schleiermacher is the princi-
pal culprit. There is very little dierence in the chronicle of their
tellings; Gadamer follows Dilthey, for example, in assigning to
Schleiermacher a decisive role in the origins of modern herme-
neutics. What makes their narratives nonetheless strikingly dif-
ferent is the dierence in their evaluation of Schleiermachers
role. The creative moves by Schleiermacher that Dilthey praises
are regarded by Gadamer as fatefully mistaken.
Let it be said that Gadamer happily echoes Diltheys praise of
Schleiermacher for having nally posed the fundamental ques-
tion, What is interpretation? It is Schleiermachers answer to
that question which Gadamer disputes. Or more precisely, its
the answer that Gadamer, following Dilthey, interprets Schleier-
macher as having oered that he disputes. Among the charges
Gadamer lodges against Schleiermacher is that Schleiermacher
proposed replacing interpretation of the text with exploration
into the psyche of the author. I think Schleiermacher proposed
no such thing. He did not, indeed, share Gadamers insistence
that it is for the meaning of the text that we interpret. He pro-
posed that we interpret for the discourse, the speech acts, that the
author used the text to perform; and authorial discourse is not
to be identied with the meaning of a text. But neither is it to
218 Nicholas Wolterstor
be identied with the psyche of the author. On this occasion I
must set this important issue o to the side, however, along with
most other parts of Gadamers critique, so as to focus on a point
in Gadamers criticism where I think he is correctcorrect both
in the view he attributes to Schleiermacher and in the criticism
he makes of that view.
At the heart of Schleiermachers hermeneutic, so says
Gadamer, is the proposal that we replace all forms of dogmatic
interpretation with the so-called hermeneutic circle. Rather
than interpreting a text in the light of certain convictions we
already have that we bring with us to the text, we should interpret
the text in terms of itself, said Schleiermacher. What that comes
to, concretely, is that after arriving at a tentative interpretation
of the parts, we then, in the light of that tentative interpretation
of the parts, proceed to a tentative interpretation of the whole;
that done, we reverse direction and, in the light of our tenta-
tive interpretation of the whole, rene our interpretation of the
parts, and so forth, back and forth, constantly adjusting our ten-
tative interpretations of parts and whole until, nally, we arrive
at interpretative equilibrium, that is, at an interpretation that is
stable at all levels. This strategy, when applied to the interpreta-
tion of Christian scripture, has the obvious implication, for the
relation between interpretation and dogma, that rather than per-
petuating the traditional practice of interpreting scripture in the
light of dogmatic convictions brought to the interpretation, we
allow dogma to emerge from our interpretation.
For all his praise of Schleiermacher, Dilthey thought there
was one point on which Schleiermacher failed to carry through
on this programme of allowing dogma to emerge from our inter-
pretation of scripture rather than employing it in the conduct of
our interpretation. In his biblical interpretation, Schleiermacher
I develop these points in detail in my Divine Discourse: Philosophical
Reflections on the Claim that God Speaks (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1995).
The relevant text of Gadamer is of course Part II of his Truth and Method,
trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G. Marshall, 2nd rev. edn. (New York:
Continuum, 1993). Currently the best collection and English translation of the
relevant writings by Schleiermacher is Friedrich Schleiermacher, Hermeneutics
and Criticism, And Other Writings, ed. and trans. Andrew Bowie, Cambridge
Texts in the History of Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1998).
The Unity Behind the Canon 219
took for granted the unity of Christian scripture. That must be
seen, said Dilthey, as the last remaining point at which dogmatic
conviction is allowed to guide and shape interpretation. Rather
than assuming unity in advance and then interpreting in the light
of that conviction, we must allow such unity as there may be in
these writings to emerge from our interpretation of the whole in
the light of the parts and the parts in the light of the whole.
Whereas Dilthey chastised his hero, Schleiermacher, for hav-
ing thus stopped just short of carrying through his project of
dogma-free interpretation, Gadamer repudiated the project it-
selfthe project of emptying ones head of all preconceptions
about the text and, by the employment of the hermeneutic circle,
simply interpreting the text in terms of itself. Impossible, says
Gadamer. Schleiermacher is here reecting his Enlightenment
historicist background. We always and unavoidably approach
texts with prejudicesthat is, prejudgementsconcerning
verbal meaning and propositional content. In that regard, inter-
pretation is always and unavoidably dogmatic.
This is not some sad lamentable fact about interpreters. Quite
to the contrary; prejudgements are a condition of interpretation,
they make interpretation possible. Interpretation requires that
one approach the text with more or less appropriate prejudge-
ments (praejudicia) concerning verbal meaning and proposi-
tional content. In the actual process of interpretation the text
then talks back. It allows this prejudgement here to stand, while
saying about that one there that it is mistaken. Having received
this negative assessment, we discard that prejudgement there
and replace it with a new andso we hopeimproved prejudge-
ment. If the text now allows this replacement to stand, we move
on to another prejudgement that the text tells us is mistaken.
We correct that one. And so it goes until, in the ideal case, the
text has nothing but armative things to say concerning our
prejudgements. The back-and-forth between whole and part in
Schleiermachers theory is replaced, in Gadamers theory, by a
back-and-forth between the prejudgements of the interpreter
and the talking back of the text.
I am myself of the view that Gadamers attempt to free him-
self from the objectivist assumptions of the Enlightenment in
his description of how interpretation does and must work is con-
siderably less thoroughgoing than he and his followers suppose.
For consider that process whereby the text tells us whether our
prejudgements concerning verbal meaning and propositional
content are correct or incorrect. It is a process that Gadamer,
strangely, never discusses in its own right. But presumably it
consists of an engagement of the interpreter with the text where-
by a belief is produced in the interpreter concerning some point
of verbal meaning or propositional content, that belief then being
compared by the interpreter with the belief on the matter that he
holds as a prejudgement. Nowhere does Gadamer suggest that
the interpretative engagement with the text, whereby beliefs are
produced concerning verbal meaning or propositional content,
is itself in any way shaped by prejudgements on the part of the in-
terpreter. He talks about that belief-forming process as if it were
immune in its workings to ones immersion in tradition.
I make these comments about Gadamer so as to provide a
con text for my calling attention to a type of interpretative pre-
judge ment that Gadamer never takes note of, namely, an inter-
pretative prejudgement concerning the unity behind the text.
But before I get to that, let me observe that modern biblical
scholarship strikes me as fundamentally Schleiermacherian in
its self- understanding, rather than Gadamerian. I speak here as
someone who reads around in biblical scholarship but is himself
not a member of the guild of biblical scholars; I am, accordingly,
subject to correction by specialists. But it is my clear impres-
sion that the great majority of leading biblical scholars regard
interpretation conducted in the light of dogmatic convictions as
a fundamental violation of proper interpretative practice. They
often put the point in terms of not violating the text: to interpret
in the light of dogmatic convictions is to violate the text. There
is nothing per se wrong with interpreting a biblical text for its
doctrinal content, assuming it has such; but it would violate the
text to interpret it in the light of doctrinal convictions that one
brings to the text. If doctrine is to put in its appearance anywhere
in our interpretation, it must emerge from the interpretation.
Convictions about the unity of some book of scripture would
be included among doctrinal convictions; the modern inter-
preter accepts Diltheys criticism of Schleiermachers practice.
Rather than interpreting in the light of ones prior convictions
about some books unity, let such unity as it may have emerge
from ones interpretation.
The relative unity and disunity of individual biblical books
has in fact been a matter of major concern for biblical scholars
in the modern period; it is, after all, the perceived disunity of
some biblical books that motivates the claim, made over and
over in the modern period, that the text we have is a collage of
pre- existing units. This intense concern with unity and disunity
does not carry over to the Bible as a whole, however. Most bib-
lical scholars are pretty much indierent to whether or not the
Christian canon has unity as a whole. Perhaps the canon seems
to them on the face of it to lack any unity worth talking about;
or perhaps there is nothing in their background convictions that
makes the issue of any interest or signicance to them one way
or the other.
There are important exceptions. Some scholars, out of what-
ever motivation, have engaged in the project of trying to discern
unity within the canonnot to impose it but to discern it. That
attempt has taken three main forms. And let me say, here, that
in all that follows I will conne myself to speaking of the Chris-
tian canon and its interpretation; the canonical texts of Juda-
ism, along with the history of their interpretation, are dierent
in important ways. There was, for some time, a biblical narra-
tive movement, according to which the writings comprising the
Christian canon are united by the connected narrative they oer
of Gods mighty acts. A second development was the biblical theo-
logy movement, according to which these writings are united by
a shared theology. And thirdly, there has been the movement of
so-called canon criticism, spurred by my Yale colleague Brevard
Childs. I am not fully condent that I understand this last move-
ment; but it is my impression that it consists, for the most part,
of emphasizing the ways in which the writings comprising the
Christian canon contain intertextual references, allusions, quo-
tations, and so forth.
One might wonder whether we should mention, as yet a fourth
way of trying to discern unity within the canon, Karl Barths sug-
gestion that what principally unites the Christian canon is that
all its parts, each in their own way, are a witness to Jesus Christ.
I think not. Barths suggestion was never meant as a thesis con-
cerning a unity that emerges inductively but as a proposal for a
unifying dogmatic interpretation of scripture. Let me add, lest
there be any misunderstanding, that I myself do not regard this
as a aw in Barths approach; my point is rather that Barths pro-
posal belongs to a dierent species from the others.
It would distract from my purpose in this paper were I to oer
an evaluation of these three proposals. Let me conne myself
to two observations. First, we should resist the rigid insistence
that each and every book in the canon fully exhibit the unity pro-
posed; no text except the very briefest would ever count as uni-
ed on that insistence. And secondly, it is my judgement that
each of the three proposals has succeeded in calling to our atten-
tion interesting and important modes of unity in the Christian
canon. I myself continue to think, for example, that the canon
as a whole exhibits the interlocking themes of divine creation,
redemption, and consummation; the fact that the book of Ecclesi-
astes, for example, says nothing about redemption and consum-
mation, but speaks only of God as creator and of our human
existence within creation, seems to me to count not at all against
that interpretation.
II
One assumption that all of us bring to most of our interpretative
endeavours, whether or not it be scripture that we are interpret-
ing, is that what we have in hand is a work. Not always. Some-
times we have no idea, one way or the other, whether that is the
case. And sometimes we conclude that what was presented to us
as a work, and what we initially assumed to be that, is not really
a work. The conclusion of many biblical interpreters about the
biblical book of Isaiah is an example of this last point. Though
it is presented in our canon as a work, most biblical interpreters
are of the view that it is really two worksor perhaps even three.
When I spoke above of a species of prejudgement that eludes
Gadamers attention, I had in mind the prejudgement that one is
dealing with something that has the unity consisting in its being
a work.
What makes something a work? That strikes me as an exceed-
ingly important question for the theory of interpretation. Un-
fortunately, it is also one to which neither I nor anyone elseto
the best of my knowledgehas ever worked out a satisfactory
detailed answer. Paul Ricoeur comments in various places about
the concept of a work, his main point always being that a work
is a very dierent sort of entity from a sentence. A sentence
belongs to the language in a way in which a work does not; con-
versely, a work is a product of labour in a way in which a sentence
is not. Thats true; but it doesnt get us very far. I judge that
the main question we want answered is what individuates and
dierentiates works. For example, what determines whether the
component in the Bible called Isaiah is one work, two works,
three works, or more? Ricoeur gives no help in answering that
questionother than the suggestion that the answer may just
possibly have something to do with the labour that resulted in
the writing that our Bibles call Isaiah.
Clearly contradiction within what one has in hand is not proof
that its not a single work; many among those of us who have
written lengthy works have suered the indignity of some critic
pointing out that we contradicted ourselves within the course
of our discussionor if not quite contradicted ourselves, wrote
passages that are in one and another sort of logical tension with
each other. Nor do repetitions establish that were not deal-
ing with a single work. I mean absent-minded repetitions; its
obvious that repetitions which play a literary or rhetorical func-
tion do not establish that its not a single work. Many among
those of us who have written lengthy works have also suered
the indignity of some critic pointing out that we have needlessly
repeated ourselves at various points. Nor does the fact that at
certain points the writing in hand is a collage of words taken ver-
batim from some other work establish that the writing does not
constitute a single work. My own Lament for a Son is a collage of
this sort. Mainly it consists of sentences that I myself composed.
But there are also passages taken from scripture, a passage from
Augustines Confessions, one from a sermon of John Donne,
another from Maria Dermots The Ten Thousand Things, and
yet another from Henri Nouwens A Letter of Consolation. The
See for example, chapters 5 and 8 in his Hermeneutics and the Human
Sciences, trans. John B. Thompson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1981).
An interesting and important question, for the answering of which I have
no expertise, is when the concept of a work emerged. A highly esteemed scholar
of antiquity to which I put the question replied that it had definitely emerged in
Greek culture by 500 n; it was his impression that it had emerged even earlier
in Hebraic (or Semitic) culture.
totality is me speaking, even though I did not myself compose
all the sentences. I would reject out of hand the suggestion that,
because I did not myself compose all the sentences, the text as it
stands does not constitute a single work.
That which determines whether the writing one has in hand is
a work is something that lies behind the text, rather than being a
discernible feature of the text itself. Discernible features of the
text may provide some evidence, one way or the other; but as will
be clear from the points made in the preceding paragraph, the
use of discernible features as evidence for whether or not one has
a work in hand is a tricky matter.
More specically, it appears to me that what determines the
identity and diversity of works is an intentional act of a certain
sort. Yes, that old bug-bear of modern hermeneutics: intention!
Though it would not be a misuse of English to call it authorial
intention, nonetheless, given the standard use of authorial, it
would be misleading. Authorial is standardly connected with
our English verb, to author. I did not author those passages
that I just mentioned in my work Lament for a Son; I incorpor-
ated them into my work without having authored them. I recall
reading somewhere that Walter Benjamin once contemplated
composing a work that would consist entirely of passages taken
from other writers. Had he done so, that would then have been
a work of Benjamin no part of which he would have authored.
Whether or not Benjamin did contemplate composing such a
work, one can imagine someone doing itthough unless it were
very brief, it would be staggeringly time-consuming. Far more
ecient oneself to compose the sentences for what one wants to
say, rather than nding all of them somewhere else!
In addition to our verb to author, we also have the verb to
authorize. It is that verb which expresses the relevant idea.
Whether or not the words one has in hand constitute a work is
not determined by authoring but by authorizing. The issue is
whether someone authorized this totality as a work. The origin
of the sentences in our present book of Isaiah is neither here nor
there with respect to the determination of whether it is a work;
what matters is whether someone authorized the totality of these
words as a work. If so, they constitute a work, no matter where
the sentences came from; if not, they do not constitute a work.
Of course, even if our present book of Isaiah was authorized
as a work, its possible that there are two or three parts of our
present book each of which had itself previously been authorized
as a work. Works can come in layers: works within works within
works.
And what is it to authorize something as a work? Thats the
central question! I have done it. That is, I have authorized some-
thing as a workthis present essay being one example of that.
No doubt everyone reading this chapter has done so as well. But
I confess to not having a very rm reexive grip on what it is that
I did.
Authorizing a text as a work presupposes ones judgement that
it satises ones demands for completeness. That nal chapter,
that nal section, that nal sentence, nishes it, makes it com-
plete, ready to be sent out into the world as a unit. But what sort
of completeness? After all, a paragraph also has a certain sort of
completeness, as does a section of a chapter and a chapter. As
does a sentence. I agree with Ricoeur, however, that the unity
of a sentence is signicantly dierent; sentences belong to the
language in a way that paragraphs, sections, chapters, and books
do not.
III
Perhaps the best way to understand whats going on in our
authorization of something we have written as a work is to
borrow and adapt a line of thought that is regularly used in
musical analysis. Those who analyse music standardly think of
musical works as multi-layered structures of relative tension and
relaxation. Tension is the property notes have of, as it were,
calling for other notes to follow them; relaxation is the property
notes have of answering that call. In 3/4 meter, for example,
the rst beat in a measure calls for two following weak beats.
When one superimposes rhythm on meter, when one adds the
intervallic relation ships inherent in melody and harmony, when
one adds the dynamic contrasts characteristic of music of the
modern West, and so forth, one then gets layer upon layer of
An excellent presentation of this way of thinking, along with references to
the primary literature, can be found in Jeremy Begbies Theology, Music, and
Time (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000).
tension relaxation structures, with the nal note nally bring-
ing all these dynamic structures to the halt that the composer
wanted. Of course one can play individual movements of a work
separately, and individual sections of movements; often there is
value in that. But the composer judges that something of worth is
missed if one does only that; something important in the multi-
layered tensionrelaxation structure of the whole will be missed
if the entire work is not played and listened to. No doubt most
of us have listened to one and another of the individual varia-
tions making up Bachs Goldberg Variations by itself, and found
it worth doing so. But most of us also know that to listen to the
work piecemeal is to miss out on a quite incredible spiritual ex-
perience that can only be achieved by listening to the whole work
at one sitting.
I suggest that it is along such lines that we should also under-
stand written works. To authorize a sequence of words as a work
is to declare that one wants ones readers to read it as a totality, on
the ground that only thus will they experience the kind of com-
pletenessof tension and relaxationthat one was aiming at.
Sometimes one judges that they will not even adequately under-
stand the parts without reading the whole. But thats not always
the issue. Sometimes, for example, one adds a certain chapter
because one wants to say something about questions that will
naturally and properly have occurred to the reader in the course
of the discussion, even though no misunderstandings threaten if
the chapter is not included. It was this sort of consideration that
led me to compose and include, as the nal chapter in my Divine
Discourse, what I called Historical and Theological Afterword.
It was not the aim of the chapter to forestall and preclude mis-
interpretations. Rather, I judged that the preceding discussion
would have raised in the mind of virtually every reader a ques-
tion that, if I said nothing at all by way of addressing it, would
leave them feeling unsatised with the entire discussion. It was in
that way that the book would have been incomplete without the
nal chapter. Ignoring that question would have been accept-
able for an article, but not for a book. An implication of that
last point is this: not only are tensionrelaxation structures of
different sorts; they also come in dierent magnitudes. The
magnitude of an article contributes to determining what need
not be included.
To authorize a sequence of sentences as a work is to declare
that it has a good and proper tensionrelaxation structure, and to
invite the reader, for that reason, to experience it as a totality. To
experience it only in fragments and not in its totality would be
to miss out on something of worth in its multi-layered tension
relaxation structure. Correspondingly, for us, the readers, to
inter pret it as a work is to accept that invitation of the authorizer
and to read and interpret it as a whole. Of course it is sometimes
a struggle to discern why the authorizer made the judgement
that he did. We fail to see how a certain part contributes to the
tensionrelaxation structure of the whole; it seems an interfer-
ence. Or we feel strongly that something is missing. The fault
may not be ours; authorizers make mistakes on such matters. But
the more we esteem the authorizer, the harder we try. Add that
authors sometimes grow weary and publish what is not, even in
their own judgement, a completed work.
There is another mode of unity in the region that I shall men-
tion but discuss only briey; namely, the unity among works
constituted by the fact that they are all works by the same author.
They all belong to the same corpus. A book that comes to hand
with the title Lectures on Philosophical Theology will be inter-
preted rather dierently depending on whether or not we take its
author to be Immanuel Kant.
There are interesting dierences between interpreting
sentence-sequences as together constituting a single work, and
interpreting them as constituting distinct works belonging to
a single corpus. To mention just one example: what we would
regard as regrettable contradictions if they occurred in a single
work will be understood as changes of mind, or perhaps forget-
fulness, if they occur in a corpus. Werner Jaegers way of treat-
ing Aristotles Metaphysics was, in eect, to treat it as works of
a single corpus rather than as a single work; so too for Norman
Kemp-Smiths way of treating Kants Critique of Pure Reason.
One sort of work that is an important exception to what I have
been saying about the role of tensionrelaxation structures is the
work which is a collection, a good example of such a work being
a dictionary. The judgement that the composer of a dictionary
or any other sort of collectionmakes as to whether his work is
complete has nothing to do with tensionrelaxation structures.
The author simply has in mind to collect all examples of a certain
sort; when she judges that she has done that, she authorizes the
totality as a work.
With this sort of exception in mind, along with the standard
case, my thesis then is this: what determines whether the text
in hand is a single work is something that lies behind the text
itself, in the presence or absence of a certain intentional action.
It is determined by whether or not someone authorized the text
as a work. A corollary, present in my discussion more by impli-
cation than by explicit argumentation, is that the judgement of
the reader that the text in hand was authorized as a work will
and should in various ways shape her interpretation of the text
(collections being the exception). The reader may be mistaken
in that judgementjust as the authorizer may be mistaken in
thinking that his collection is complete or that his text has the
tension relaxation structures that he thinks it has. But if the
reader is mistaken in her prejudgement that what she has in hand
is a work, the text will not talk back in anything like the way that
Gadamer thinks happens when texts tell us whether our pre-
judgements about verbal meaning and propositional content are
correct or incorrect. For, as I have argued, the unity of the text as
a work is a mode of unity that lies behind the text.
IV
It seems all but certain that a good many of the books in the
Hebrew and Christian scriptures were assembled by editors
from pre-existent texts and/or oral traditions. I have argued
that such origins do not prevent the resultant text from being
a single work; there may well have been some person, or group
of persons, who authorized it as a work. This observation natur-
ally suggests to those of us who are Christians the question as to
whether we should regard the Bible as a whole as one work with
sixty-plus chapters, the exact number depending on which canon
one favours. If what I have said about that mode of unity which
is a work is correct, then there is nothing in principle against
this highly diverse collection of texts all together constituting a
single work; the question is just whether there has been the requi-
site intentional act of authorizing it as a work. And even that
question comes to something less than the reader might think,
given what I have said thus far. There is nothing to prevent an
interpreter of some text, or a community of interpreters, from
performing the requisite authorization: Be it hereby resolved
that these texts be interpreted as a single work. The authorizer
need not be either author or editor.
I anticipate that some biblical scholars will reply that there is
something in principle against interpreting the Christian Bible
as a single work. Whats against it is that to treat it thus is to
violate the integrity of its constituent books. A variant on this
objection is the insistence of some Jewish scholars that the inclu-
sion by Christians of the Hebrew Bible within their canon is a
violation of their Hebrew Bible.
Given the point I made earlier, that there may be works within
works, I fail to see that this protest has any solid basis. To argue
for the legitimacy of interpreting the book of Isaiah as a com-
ponent within that large work which is the Christian Bible is not
thereby to question the legitimacy of interpreting it as a work
in its own right, thereby fully honouring its own integrity. As
I mentioned earlier, not only is there worth in listening to the
entire Goldberg Variations; there is worth in listening to indi-
vidual variations by themselves. Let it be added, though, that
when one knows the entire Variations, it is almost inevitable that
that knowledge will shape, in subtle ways, how one hears an indi-
vidual variation; the tensionrelaxation structure that one hears
and feels in the individual variation will be dierent from what
it would be if one knew nothing but that variation. Of course it
would be possible to insist that some variations are best heard
with no echoes whatsoever in ones mind of the entire set. Cor-
respondingly, it would be possible for a Jewish interpreter to
insist that listening to Isaiah with echoes in mind of the entire
Christian canon is a decisively inferior way of listening to it.
But that then is the issue: the worth of listening to it thus, not
the legitimacy.
What, if anything, is the worth of Christian interpreters treat-
ing the Christian canon as having that mode of unity constituted
by its being a single work? That, as I see it, is the decisive ques-
tion. And let me say yet one more time that concluding that there
is worth in such interpretation does not imply the worth-lessness
of interpreting individual biblical books as distinct works; surely
there is worth in that. The question is whether there is also sig-
nicant worth in interpreting individual books as chapters in one
single worka work whose opening chapter speaks in narrative
form of Gods work as creator and whose closing chapter speaks
in apocalyptic form of Gods work of consummation, with most
(though not all) of what lies between speaking of Gods work of
redemption.
Given the way the Christian canon is typically presented to us,
namely, as so-called books bound together in a xed order in a
single binding, I think it is virtually inevitable, for the Christian
who knows the totality, that that knowledge will shape a good
deal of her interpretation of the constituent books. I think it is all
but impossible not to have the gospels echoing in ones ear as one
reads the messianic passages in Isaiah, and vice versa; not to have
the passages in Paul about the creative activity of Christ echoing
in ones ear as one reads the opening of Genesis, and vice versa;
not to have the prologue of Johns Gospel echoing in ones ear
when one reads certain passages in the Wisdom literature, and
vice versaand so forth. It is almost impossible for those who
know the whole Christian Bible to not, in practice, treat it as a
single work.
The overall structure of the Christian canon, in its long-ago-
xed sequence, is clear. There is a New Testament consisting of
ve narratives concerning Jesus and the spread of the news about
him by the apostles, followed by a number of letters concerning
the signicance of Jesus, presented for the most part as com-
ing from one and another apostle, with the whole package then
culminating in an apocalyptic sketch of human consummation.
This package is preceded by an Old Testament which, though
much more diverse, nonetheless exhibits two interacting story
lines: a story line of creation and providence, and a story line of
redemption. In both cases, the phrase story line is a bit mis-
leading; but I dont know of a better. The creationprovidence
theme sometimes becomes minimally narrative in its mode of
presentation; not much narrative in Ecclesiastes or Proverbs!
And though the theme of redemption is, overall, far more narra-
tive in its mode of presentation, it too sometimes becomes rather
minimally so; witness some of the prophets. Once one has this
overarching thematic or story-line structure of the Christian
canon in mind, be it acquired intuitively or theoretically, then,
so it seems to me, it becomes all but impossible for that structure
not to inuence in subtle ways ones reading and interpretation
of individual books, sections, pericopes, and the like. It is all but
impossible not to interpret the various books as belonging to a
huge tensionrelaxation structure beginning with the opening
of Genesis and not nally resolved until the conclusion of the
Apocalypse.
The reader will have noticed that I have said nothing about
the ways in which interpreting a biblical book as a chapter within
that large work which is the Christian canon, rather than as an
independent work, inuences what one takes to be the proposi-
tional content of the individual books; I have said nothing, for
example, about a christological interpretation of the messianic
prophecies. I regard the issues here as exceedingly important.
Jesus already both oered interpretations of the Hebrew Bible
the scripturesand appealed to the Hebrew Bible as the inter-
pretative context for the understanding of himself. The apostles
continued this two-way appropriation of the Hebrew Bible, ap-
parently going well beyond anything that Jesus himself oered
in the details of their interpretations. The church has continued
this pattern of two-way appropriation, in its details going well
beyond, in turn, anything that we nd in the apostles.
In many cases the interpretation oered, by Jesus, apostles, or
church, of what is expressed by a passage in the Hebrew Bible, is
denitely dierent from what the original authorizer of that pas-
sage would have meant by it. This gives the modern interpreter
pause: the New Testament appears to him full of misinterpreta-
tions of the Hebrew Bible, and later interpreters seem to him
even worse oenders. But thats how it goes when extant texts
are incorporated within new, more comprehensive, works: some
of the words of the extant text will now have to be interpreted
as expressing something dierent from what they expressed
originally. I mentioned that I had incorporated a brief passage
from Maria Dermots The Ten Thousand Things within my
work Lament for a Son. In the context I gave it, the passage de-
nitely expressed something dierent from what it expressed in
its original context of her novel about Indonesia. Are those who
interpret the passage within the context I gave it thereby mis-
interpreting it? That seems to me not the right way to describe
what is going on in such interpretation.
Let me say again that this issue is important: the ways in which
certain passages from individual books of the Bible acquire
new propositional content when treated as components of that
single work which is the entire Christian canon. I spent some
time discussing the matter in my Divine Discourse. But I have
come to think that it is a mistake to let what we say on this issue
become all-determinative for our decision as to whether or not
the church should treat its canon as a single work. It is only one
aspect of the larger issue.
What led me to see this was reecting on my own experience
of deciding when a book of mine was a nished work, and my
discovery that I had to resort to an adaptation of the categories
of musical analysis to understand fully what went into my own
decisions. The musical analogue released me from what I now
see as my xation on propositional content. In music there
usually isnt any propositional content; nonetheless, there are
works, and we perform and hear passages as parts of works. The
relevant overarching categories, so I have suggested, are those of
tension and relaxation.
V
Those readers of this chapter who have read my Divine Discourse
may well have expected from me a quite dierent treatment of
the unity of the canon from that which I have presented here.
They will have expected me to talk about that unity of the canon
which consists of God being its ultimate authorizer. But in my
book I not only explored the suggestion that God is scriptures
ultimate authorizer; I also claimed that if one does regard God as
related to scripture in that way, one will regard scripture as Gods
work, not as Gods collected works. I now see that regarding God
as the authorizer of what stands in the Christian scriptures does
not settle, one way or the other, whether those scriptures should
be regarded as one work or manyGods single opus or Gods
opera omnia. I continue to nd attractive the idea I developed
in Divine Discourse, that God is scriptures ultimate authorizer.
Here I have gone beyond that to reect on what is at stake in
the issue of whether, in authorizing scripture as his own speech,
God authorized sixty-six-plus works, or one single work.
Abraham, W. J. 38 n. 79
Aland, B. 160 n. 4
Alexander, E. S. 113 n. 10
Allison, D. C. 178 n. 47, 179
n. 49
Assmann, J. 60
Avemarie, F. 177 n. 45
Babad, Y. 196 n. 19
Bacher, W. 111 n. 7, 118 n. 24,
120 n. 31, 123 n. 41
Barkay, G. 131 n. 62
Barr, J. 110 n. 3, 112 n. 8, 132
n. 65, 138, 152 n. 1
Barth, G. 168 n. 27, 177 n. 44
Barton, J. 112 n. 8, 138, 160
n. 4
Baumgarten, A. I. 142 n. 92
Beckman, G. 53 n. 6
Beckwith, R. 60
Begbie, J. 225 n. 5
Begrich, J. 117 n. 22, 139, 139
n. 83
Ben-Yehudah, E. 111 n. 7, 120
n. 31
Berger, P. L. 211 n. 47
Bickerman, E. J. 54 n. 14
Blenkinsopp, J. 63 n. 42, 77, 78
n. 58, 140 n. 86, 141 n. 87
Blidstein, J. 111 n. 6
Blum, E. 63 n. 42
Braun, W. 178 n. 46
Breuer, M. 149 n. 105
Broshi, M. 66 n. 47
Brown, D. 110 n. 3
Brunner, E. 25 n. 34
Brunner, H. 52 n. 2
Burstein, S. M. 53 n. 8
Carmignac, J. 92 n. 71
Caro, J. 196 n. 19
Carr, D. M. 60, 63 n. 42, 96
Chapman, S. B. 1 n. 1, 623
Childs, B. S. 15, 48, 137 n. 75,
144, 146, 160 n. 4
Clancy, T. 34 n. 68
Clines, D. J. A. 77
Collins, J. J. 104 n. 85
Crawford, S. W. 64 n. 46
Crsemann, F. 59 n. 29, 63 n. 42
Davies, W. D. 178 n. 47, 179
n. 49
Dimant, D. 104 n. 85
Dohmen, C. 164 n. 15
Dulles, A. 110 n. 3, 115 n. 13,
123 n. 39, 125 n. 46
Duncan, J. A. 98 n. 78
Dunn, J. D. G. 176 n. 43
Eco, U. 166
Ego, B. 82 n. 67
Eichrodt, W. 144
Eissfeldt, O. 59 n. 29
Eliade, M. 135
Elman, Y. 113 n. 10, 114 n. 12
13, 116 n. 17, 127 n. 54, 139
n. 81, 145 n. 98, 147 n. 102
Eybeschutz, J. 196 n. 19
Fabry, H.-J. 60, 96
Finkel, I. L. 52
Finkelstein, L. 117 n. 22, 125
n. 49
Fishbane, M. 117 n. 22, 138
n. 80, 139 n. 82, 141 n. 87
Fitzmyer, J. A. 66 n. 48
INDEX OF AUTHORS
234 Index of Authors
Flint, P. W. 59 n. 29, 66 n. 49
Foster, B. R. 53 n. 6
Fraade, S. 113 n. 10, 114 n. 12,
124 n. 45, 125 n. 49, 145
n. 96
Frank, M. 21 n. 24
Frei, H. W. 48 n. 109
Frei, P. 63
Gadamer, H. G. 34, 191, 217
20, 222, 228
Garca Lpez, F. 139 n. 82, 140
n. 85, 142 n. 90
Gardiner, A. H. 52 n. 2
Garfinkel, S. 147 n. 103, 149
n. 107
Gerhardsson, B. 113 n. 10, 120
n. 31, 124 n. 43, 130 n. 59
Gerrish, B. 25 n. 34
Gershoni, I. 114 n. 12
Gitay, Y. 114 n. 11
Golinkin, D. 125 n. 47
Goshen-Gottstein, M. 129 n. 57
Grsser, E. 175 n. 42
Greenberg, M. 146 n. 101, 149
n. 107
Gregory, C. R. 160 n. 4
Gruber, M. 116 n. 19, 122 n. 37,
143 n. 92
Gundry, R. H. 179 n. 49
Habib, M. 196 n. 19
Hahn, F. 161 n. 9, 170 n. 31, 176
n. 43, 177 n. 45
Hahneman, G. M. 160 n. 4
Halbertal, M. 121 n. 34, 122
n. 35, 12830, 131 n. 60, 133
n. 69, 145, 208 n. 42, 209
n. 43
Halivni, D. W. 115 n. 14, 116
n. 19, 127 n. 53, 133 n. 67,
134 n. 71, 1434 n. 94, 145
n. 98, 210 n. 45
Hallo, W. W. 53 nn. 67
Handelman, S. 206
Harnack, A. von 159
Harris, J. 115 n. 15, 127 n. 53
Hayes, C. 116 nn. 1819
Heinemann, Y. 204 n. 31, 206
n. 38
Helmer, C. 1 n. 1, 13 n. 3, 15
n. 7, 32 n. 58, 48 n. 109, 49
n. 111
Hengel, M. 181 n. 57
Heppe, H. 27 n. 39
Hermisson, H. J. 164 n. 15
Herms, E. 46 n. 102, 162 n. 11
Herr, M. D. 122 n. 38, 123 n. 41,
124 n. 44
Heschel, A. J. 111 n. 5, 112 n. 7,
118 n. 25, 125 n. 48, 133
n. 66, 1367
Hoffmann, E. G. 173 n. 37
Hofius, O. 174 n. 39, 181 n. 54
Hlscher, U. 54 n. 13
Hurowitz, V. A. 52 n. 4, 53 n. 9,
54 n. 11, 101 n. 81
Iser, W. 166
Jaffee, M. 113 nn. 910, 114
nn. 1213, 115 n. 16, 116,
120 n. 31, 121 n. 33, 122
n. 37, 123 nn. 401, 127
n. 52, 142 n. 92
Janowski, B. 15 n. 8, 48, 160 n. 4,
164 n. 15
Jenson, R. W. 44 n. 97
Kalimi, I. 121 n. 34
Kant, I. 17, 227
Ksemann, E. 160 n. 4
Kasher, M. M. 118 n. 26, 119
nn. 289
Kaufmann, Y. 139 n. 84, 141
n. 87
Kazis, H. 192 n. 16
Keel, O. 131 n. 62
Kellermann, U. 63 n. 41
Kidwell, C. S. 49 n. 111
Kimelman, R. 149 n. 107
Kloppenborg Verbin, J. S. 31
n. 56, 32 n. 58
Knohl, I. 138 n. 79
Koch, K. 63 n. 41, 104 n. 85
Kooij, A. van der 60
Kraeling, E. G. 16 n. 9
Kraemer, D. 116 n. 19, 121
n. 32, 122 n. 38, 124
nn. 445, 126 n. 50
Lambert, W. G. 53 n. 10
Landmesser, C. 1 n. 1, 14 n. 6,
37 n. 76, 38 n. 82, 162 n. 10,
164 n. 14, 166 n. 18, 167
n. 24, 170 n. 30, 172 n. 35,
180 n. 53, 181 nn. 54, 56,
183 n. 58
Lange, A. 66 n. 47, 70 n. 53, 73
n. 54, 93 n. 73, 96 n. 76, 102
n. 83
Lautenschlager, M. 177 n. 45
Leibowitz, Y. 1868, 192, 209,
21314
Leiman, S. Z. 59 n. 30, 60
Lenk, H. 165, 167 n. 25, 169
n. 28
Leon, I. de 199 n. 26
Levinson, B. 134 n. 69, 138 n. 78
Levenson, J. 142 nn. 901, 146
n. 1001, 150 n. 108
Lewis, J. P. 5960
Lichtheim, M. 52 n. 2
Lieberman, S. J. 52 n. 5, 113
n. 10
Liedke, G. 139 n. 82, 140 n. 85
Lohse, E. 160 n. 4, 176 n. 43
Lust, J. L. 60 n. 34, 66 n. 48, 98
n. 79
Luz, U. 171 n. 32, 178 n. 48, 179
n. 49, 180 n. 52
McDonald, L. M. 160 n. 4, 161
n. 8
McKnight, E. 215
Maier, J. 92 n. 71
Maori, Y. 149 n. 106
Markschies, C. 160 n. 5
Martinez, F. G. 79 n. 62
Mell, U. 181 n. 55
Metzger, B. M. 159 n. 2
Meyer, E. 63 n. 41
Milgrom, J. 79 n. 61, 140 n. 84,
141 n. 87
Milik, J. T. 64 n. 46
Montanari, F. 54 n. 13
Moore, C. A. 74 n. 55, 82 n. 67
Morris, C. W. 164 n. 14
Mller, P. 177 n. 45
Muner, F. 164 n. 15
Najman, H. 141 n. 88, 142 n. 89
Neubauer, Y. Y. 212 n. 51, 214
Neusner, J. 113 nn. 910, 122
n. 37, 127 n. 54, 142 n. 92
Nevins, D. 134 n. 69
Newsom, C. A. 98 n. 79
Niditch, S. 114 n. 11
Noley, H. 49 n. 111
Oeming, M. 110 n. 3, 167 n. 22
Ohlig, K. H. 160 n. 4
Parsons, E. A. 54 n. 13, 55 n. 15
Perlman, L. 133 n. 66
Person, R. 114 n. 11
Peterson, C. 139 n. 82, 140 n. 85
Pfeiffer, R. 54 n. 13, 55 n. 15
Pregla, A. R. 167 n. 22
Rad, G. von 144, 153 n. 2
Risnen, H. 154
236 Index of Authors
Rawidowicz, S. 206
Rawlinson, H. C. 52 n. 3
Rescher, N. 166 n. 19
Rochberg-Halton, F. 52 n. 5
Rogers, E. F. 44 n. 95
Rosenbloom, N. H. 211 n. 48,
214
Rosenthal, A. 111 n. 6, 113 n. 9,
115 n. 14, 120 n. 31, 121
n. 33, 126 n. 51, 131 n. 64,
143 n. 94
Rterswrden, U. 63 n. 43
Safrai, S. 113 nn. 910, 130 n. 59
Sagi, A. 145 n. 97, 188 n. 8, 193
n. 17, 207 n. 41, 215 n. 58
Sanders, E. P. 117 n. 21, 119
n. 27, 142 n. 92
Sanders, J. A. 623
Sandler, P. 210 n. 44
Satlow, M. 114 n. 13, 127 n. 52,
1478
Schaeder, H. H. 63 n. 41
Schfer, P. 5960, 112 n. 9, 113
n. 10, 115 n. 15, 116 n. 19,
121 n. 33, 123 n. 40, 142 n. 92
Schechter, S. 109 n. 2, 124 n. 42
Schiffman, L. H. 106 n. 88
Schleiermacher, F. D. E. 8,
1630, 3250, 21720
Schmid, H. 27 n. 39
Schmidt, E. A. 54 n. 13
Schniedewind, W. 114 n. 11
Schunack, G. 167 n. 22
Schwartz, B. 124 n. 44
Schwarz, F. H. C. 16 n. 9
Segal, M. 78 n. 59
Shupak, S. N. 52 n. 2
Siebenthal, H. von 173 n. 37
Siegert, F. 92 n. 71
Silman, Y. 111 n. 5, 112 n. 7, 125
n. 48, 133 n. 66, 145 n. 98
Simon, U. 147 n. 103, 149 n. 107
Smend, R. 16 n. 9
Smith, M. 103 n. 84
Sommer, B. D. 38 n. 81, 56, 146
n. 101
Steck, O. H. 60, 86 n. 69
Stegemann, H. 79 n. 64, 102
n. 83, 171 n. 33
Stemberger, G. 5960, 127
n. 53
Steudel, A. 94 n. 75, 102 n. 82
Stolz, F. 171 n. 33
Strugnell, J. 79 n. 64
Sweeney, M. A. 13 n. 2
Talmon, S. 62, 64 n. 46
Tate, W. R. 167 n. 23
Tinker, G. E. 49 n. 111
Torn, K. van der 105 n. 87, 131
Tov, E. 55 n. 17, 64 n. 44, 68
n. 52, 78 nn. 5960, 94 n. 74,
99 n. 80
Trobisch, D. 36 n. 75, 160 n. 4
Troyer, K. de 30 n. 50
Tur-Sinai, N. H. 111 n. 7, 120
n. 31
Uehlinger, C. 131 n. 62
Ulrich, E. 57, 62, 78 n. 59, 99
Urbach, E. E. 113 n. 9, 119 n.
27, 121 nn. 323, 124 n. 44
VanderKam, J. C. 66 n. 48, 104
n. 86
Verheyden, J. C. 35 n. 72
Vielhauer, R. 88 n. 70
Vollenweider, S. 181 n. 55
Wasserman, E. 196 n. 19
Watts, J. W. 63 n. 43
Webster, J. 41 n. 87
Weder, H. 172 n. 36
Weinfeld, M. 131 n. 62
White, S. 78 nn. 5960
Wiesehfer, J. 63 n. 43
Williamson, H. G. M. 78 n. 57
Wolterstorff, N. 37 n. 77
Yadin, A. 116 n. 20, 122 nn. 36,
38
Yadin, Y. 79 n. 63
Zahn, T. 159
Zakovitch, Y. 138 n. 80
Zenger, E. 105 n. 87
Zsengellr, J. 612 n. 37
I. HEBREW BIBLE
Genesis
1: 1 137, 149
50: 20 153
Exodus
13 131 n. 62
13: 9 131 n. 62
17: 14 123 n. 38
19: 20 137
20: 1 137 n. 75
20: 2 137 n. 75
20: 23 14
20: 15 137 n. 75
24: 37 123 n. 38
34: 27 121
Leviticus
6: 2 78, 140
6: 56 78
6: 9 78
6: 1213 78
7: 37 140
22: 28 106
23: 4 194
23: 40 141
23: 42 83, 141
Numbers
6: 237 131 n. 62
24: 1517 98
31: 21 140
Deuteronomy
1: 5 140
6 131 n. 62
6: 69 131
11 131 n. 62
11: 1820 131
13: 6 67
13: 19 82
17: 11 189 n. 10, 200
17: 12 192
17: 17 67
23: 4 140 n. 86
24: 16 82
29: 20 140
30: 14 144
31: 911 123 n. 38
33 94 n. 75
33: 811 98
Joshua
1322 120
II Samuel
7: 1014 94 n. 75, 102
II Kings
14: 6 82, 140
Isaiah
8: 11 101
8: 16 140
10: 3411: 1 101
20 140
Jeremiah
25: 1112 1034
Ezekiel
45: 4 200
Hosea
8: 12 140
INDEX OF REFERENCES
Habakkuk
2: 24 121 n. 33
Zechariah
914 68
Malachi
2: 6 128
Psalms
19: 8 200
37: 28 200
62: 12 199 n. 23
119: 72 111
Job
32: 2 93 n. 72
Ecclesiastes
9: 79 14
Daniel
2 96
9 1034
9: 2 104
9: 24 96
Ezra
1: 1 103
3: 2 140
6: 18 141 n. 88
Nehemiah
8 141 n. 88
8: 14 83, 101
8: 1415 141
10: 35 779
13: 113 140
13: 31 77
II Chronicles
25: 4 823, 101
36: 22 103
II. ANCIENT JEWISH
LITERATURE
Baruch 15 86 n. 69
Ben Sira
38: 34b39: 3 75
39: 13 61
449 80
4450 59
44: 16 80 n. 65
49: 1516 80 n. 65
I Enoch
91: 1217 93
93 93
Jubilees
1: 27 104
4: 26 105
8: 24 53 n. 8
8:19 105
50 105
I Maccabees
12: 9 55 n. 18
II Maccabees
2: 1314 60
Tobit
1: 6 82 n. 67
1: 212 74 n. 55
2:10 74 n. 55
11:19 74 n. 55
14: 34 82, 101
14:10 74 n. 55
III. QUMRAN
CD
5: 2 67
5: 21 67
14: 2 121 n. 33
1QapGen
XIX 10XX 32 70 n. 53
1QpHab 121 n. 33
1QS
I 23 61, 94
Vff. 92
1Q16 93
4QDeut 98
4QJub
a
IV 78 104
4QMMT B 378 106
4QMMT C
1011 94
10: 17 61
4QpaleoJob
c
94
4QRP
c
23: 911 789
4QTestimonia 98
4QtgJob 64
4QtgLev 64
4Q166 88 n. 70
4Q167 88 n. 70
4Q171 93
4Q173 93
4Q174 III 15 101
4Q175 2130 98
4Q177 XI 7 101
4Q185 745
4Q256 IX 1 92
4Q258 I 1 92
4Q265 I 3 101
4Q266 II 20 92
4Q270 7 II 15 92
4Q300 Ia iib 1 96
4Q300 Ia iib 2 96
4Q365 789
4Q370 ii 59 74
4Q379 22 ii 715 98
4Q379 22 ii 1313a 74
4Q460 9 i 3 74
4Q468e 66 n. 47
4Q524 79
11QapPs 75
11QT
a

XXIII 34 79
LV 1314 82
11QT
b
VI 1115 77, 79
11QPs
a
XXVI 915 80
XXVII 10 74
XXVII 11 93 n. 73
11QtgJob 64
11Q11 74
11Q1921 79
IV. JOSEPHUS
Against Apion
1. 29, 42 55
1. 3743 55
1. 38 56
Antiquitates
13. 74 61 n. 37
18. 16 61
V. NEW TESTAMENT
Matthew
1: 216 171
1: 3 171
1: 5 171
240 Index of References
1: 6 171
1: 1112 171
1: 16 171
1: 21 172
1: 23 172
4: 1820 179 n. 50
4: 212 179 n. 50
57 32 n. 58
5: 20 172 n. 34,
180
5: 48 172 n. 34
7: 21 172 n. 34
8: 12 179
9: 9 179 n. 50
10 32 n. 58
13: 152 32 n. 58
13: 42 179
13: 50 179
18: 2135 180
18: 2335 178
22: 114 177
22: 2 178
22: 7 178 n. 48
22: 10b 178
22: 12 179
22: 13b 179
24: 51 179
25: 30 179
25: 3146 180
28: 20 172
Mark
1: 1 172
1: 1415 173
9: 7b 173
10: 45 173
15: 39 153, 173
Luke
1: 12: 52 174
1: 14 173
14: 1524 177
16: 16 61 n. 36
24: 1353 174
24: 27 61 n. 36
24: 31 173
24: 44 61 n. 36
24: 467 173
John
1: 118 174 n. 39
1: 1 174
1: 14 44
3: 121 180 n. 54
3: 36 174 n. 40
5: 39 30
8: 23 14
10: 30 174
15: 1132 181 n. 54
16: 13 38
17: 3 174 n. 40
18: 36 14
20: 31 174
Acts
1: 8 174
4: 12 173
24: 14 61 n. 36
28: 31 174 n. 38
Romans
1: 17 175
1: 1617 175
4: 17 181
5: 1 175, 180
8: 389 180
911 14
11: 336 14
I Corinthians
1: 1 175 n. 41
1: 18 175
1: 20 14
1: 25 14
II Corinthians
1: 1 175 n. 41
5: 1421 175
5: 17 181
Galatians
1: 1 175 n. 41
2: 16 175
3: 1011 121 n. 33
6: 15 181
Philippians
1: 6 50
Titus
3: 5 181 n. 54
Hebrews
1: 12 175
9: 268 175
I Peter
1: 3 181 n. 54
I John
4: 18 49
III John 170
Revelation
1: 8 175
5: 910 175
21: 4 176
22: 13 175
VI. MISHNA
Peah 2: 6 116
Hagigah 1: 8 127 n. 53
Eduyot 8: 7 116
Horayot 1: 1 194
Yadayim
3: 5 59
4: 3 116
VII. TOSEFTA
Sukkah 3: 12 116
VIII. TALMUD
YERUSHALMI
Berakot 1: 8 132 n. 64
Peah
2: 517a 204 n. 30
2: 6 115, 120,
122 n. 38,
125 n. 47,
127 n. 53
Megillah 1: 5 115
Hagigah 1: 8 115, 117
Sota 21c 61 n. 37
Sanhedrin
4: 2 205
22a 115 n. 17
IX. TALMUD BAVLI
Berakot
5a 112 n. 7,
11820,
134 n. 70
11 132 n. 64
47b 61 n. 37
Shabbat
31a 117
63a 197 n. 22
88b 204 n. 33
Eruvin 13b 145 n. 97,
204
Rosh Hashanah 25a 193
Megillah 1: 5 115
Nedarim
22a 119
22b 11920
37b 55
Gittin
60a 124 n. 45,
127 n. 53,
204 n. 30
60b 122 n. 38,
126, 127 n.
53, 145 n.
97
Qiddushin 66a 126, 148
Baba Metsiah 59ab 204
Baba Bathra 14b15a 58, 94
Sanhedrin 34a 199 n. 23,
204 n. 30
Horayot 2b 194
Menakhot 29b 56, 115,
202, 204
Hullin
4b 61 n. 37
22a 61 n. 37
33b 61 n. 37
Temurah 15b16a 133 n. 69
X. MIDRASHIM
Avot deRabbi
Nathan A15/B29 118
Canticum
Rabbah 1: 2 137 n. 75
Exodus Rabbah 123
28: 6 134 n. 70
47: 1 125
Leviticus
Rabbah 22 125 n. 47
Leqah
.
Tov to
Exodus 20: 2 137 n. 75
Kohelet
Rabbah 5: 8 115 n. 15
Mekhilta deRabbi
Ishmael Vayyisa
Par. 1 115
Numeri Rabbah
h
.
uqat 4 116 n. 17
Seder Eliahu
Zuta 2 115 n. 17
Sifra Beh
.
uqotai
8: 12 118
8: 13 115 n. 15
Shemini Par. 1 9 115
Sifre to Deuteronomy
48 115
56: 1 61 n. 37
306 125
351 115, 117
Tanhuma 11 134 n. 70
Ki Tissa 34 124 n. 42
XI. ANCIENT
CHRISTIAN
LITERATURE
Epiphanius of Salamis
Panarion 1. 2.1 61 n. 37
Origen
Commentary on
John 3. 26 61 n. 37
Contra Celsum 1. 49 61 n. 37
Philastrius of Brescia
In librum de
haeresibus 7 61 n. 37
XII. GREEK AND LATIN
AUTHORS
Aristophanes
Equites 11530,
100250 54 n. 12
Aves 95960 54 n. 12
Herodotus
5. 90 54 n. 12
8. 6, 20 54 n. 12
8. 6, 77 54 n. 12
8. 6, 96 54 n. 12
9. 43 54 n. 12
Plato
Res Publica 364e 54 n. 12
Abraham of Minsk 119
Abrahm Ibn Ezra 148
Access 10, 40, 423, 1645,
1679, 182
Actualization 34
Aeschylos 54
Apologetics 234
Apostolicity 34
Aristotle 227
Artapanos 76
Augustine 223
Author 12, 17, 28, 345, 40,
423, 49, 54, 56, 83, 100,
104, 1378, 150, 169, 1723,
17781, 207, 21718, 224,
227, 229
Authority 52, 54, 579, 62, 67,
78, 81, 83, 109, 143, 1478,
161, 187, 1905, 201, 203,
208, 215
Authorization 12, 63, 225, 228
Avraham of Sochochow 139
Barth, K. 2212
Benjamin, W. 224
Bible 1, 4, 6, 89, 11, 13, 15,
278, 478, 1089, 111,
1212, 1289, 136, 13940,
144, 1517, 163, 185, 188,
210, 215, 221, 223, 228
30
Hebrew 8, 13, 48, 512, 55,
578, 60, 625, 67, 75, 934,
99, 106, 131, 142, 155, 229,
231
Buhl, F. 58, 62
Calvin, J. 48
Canonicity 109, 1278, 130, 135
Canonization 65, 1602, 185
Childs, B.S. 221
Christianity 16, 1819, 214,
267, 2932, 346, 39, 45,
479, 102, 1525, 181
Church 1416, 27, 29, 313, 37,
3940, 46, 489, 125, 154,
1613, 1845, 231
Coherence 17, 434, 1667, 183
Coherent 185
Communication 2930, 42, 50,
106, 1656
Community 27, 1112, 14, 29,
33, 41, 50, 57, 61, 103, 109,
144, 153, 160, 163, 165, 175,
179, 182, 216, 228
Comprehensiveness 456
Concept 204, 268, 50, 568,
63
Content 13, 162, 2312, 185
Context 25, 7, 1112, 17, 31,
49, 102, 1478, 161, 165,
1689, 1845, 192, 209,
21113, 231
Continuance 1623
Continuity 3, 5, 7, 9, 1516,
245, 32, 40, 46, 48, 163
Creation 1213, 29, 77, 104, 181,
191, 222, 230
Criticism 10, 46, 66, 152, 188,
20910, 212, 21416, 218,
221
Culture 19, 578, 64, 99100,
107, 122, 148, 208, 210
INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND
NAMES
Decision 4, 11, 14, 48, 153, 166
Demetrios 76
Dermot, M. 223, 231
Determination 19, 24, 35, 39, 47,
1649, 182, 185
Dialogue 22, 43, 150
Difference 11, 14, 24, 41, 135,
1512, 155, 157, 177, 1845,
217
Dilthey, W. 34, 217, 21920
Diversity 5, 11, 1316, 36, 423,
46, 489, 1834, 224
Doctrine 154, 157
Donne, J. 223
Driver, S. 148
Eichhorn, J. G. 32
Enlightenment 219
Essence 8, 16, 1821, 234, 267,
29, 34, 3940, 47, 174
Ethics 21
Euripides 54
Eusebius 77
Evidence 153
Exegesis 1, 147, 196
Existence 36, 112, 191, 196, 222
Experience 23, 17, 2830, 32,
346, 423, 46, 48, 50, 232
Expression 19, 34, 1656
Faith 34, 8, 1011, 29, 42, 44,
46, 144, 163, 1801, 1835,
187
Gemara 112, 118, 125, 12930
God 2, 67, 1112, 1415, 30,
36, 42, 48, 55, 65, 813, 104,
107, 119, 124, 129, 133, 146,
153, 157, 1612, 168, 1708,
180, 184, 186, 191, 2036,
213, 21516, 222, 229, 232
Gospel 15, 159, 1712, 174,
1778, 180, 230
Grace 19, 257
Graetz, H. 58, 62
Griesbach, J. J. 32
Group 60, 76, 96, 98, 109, 160,
1623
Halakha 56, 129, 1868, 201,
205, 209
Halakhic 11, 56, 92, 106, 116,
129, 1867, 18991, 1938,
2023, 2078, 213, 215
Halevi, Y. 136
Haran, M. 148
Hermeneutical 3, 56, 8, 11, 15,
347, 401, 43, 47, 135, 161,
1889, 1923, 2023, 2079,
211, 216
Hermeneutics 2, 188, 197,
21718
Heterogeneity 7, 1612, 168
Heyyot, Z. H. 195
Hillel 148
Hirsch, S. R. 21215
History 3, 56, 1516, 1820,
22, 24, 324, 40, 46, 48, 50,
55, 578, 60, 623, 66, 812,
107, 132, 159, 163, 1704,
1824, 186, 188, 217, 221
Holy Spirit 37, 110
Homer 54
Homogeneity 146
Hug, J.L. 32
Idea 289, 39, 43, 45, 47, 4950,
60, 62, 1023, 105, 110, 112,
144, 222
Identity 9, 19, 25, 28, 37, 412,
46, 56, 160, 1623, 210, 214,
224
Individuality 34, 36, 42, 46
Intention 1112, 26, 34, 41, 46
Intentional 12, 228
Interpretation 14, 67, 1112,
246 Index of Subjects and Names
15, 30, 34, 46, 93, 104, 106
7, 134, 1367, 144, 1478,
1523, 163, 1667, 16970,
1767, 180, 182, 184, 188
91, 1934, 196, 198, 2012,
2059, 21112, 215, 21722,
2301
Islam 19, 102
Israel 15, 77, 107, 117, 11920,
125, 171, 178, 206
Jaeger, W. 227
Jesus Christ 8, 1011, 15, 18, 21,
2532, 346, 402, 44, 467,
50, 1707, 17985, 221,
2301
Judaism 19, 23, 478, 51, 557,
60, 65, 678, 73, 767, 81,
83, 92, 98, 1002, 107, 111,
122, 1279, 1313, 136, 138,
1523, 1556, 1878, 2089,
221
Justification 32, 162, 175
Kemp-Smith, N. 227
Language 8, 13, 19, 26, 34, 41,
47, 50, 67, 110, 1646, 168,
182, 223, 225
Leibniz, G. W. 201
Lessing, G. E. 31
Linguistic 1635, 167
List 7, 9, 12, 1601, 163
Literature 9, 14, 524, 578, 65,
67, 73, 757, 814, 92, 94,
96, 98, 1018, 11112, 114,
117, 119, 121, 134, 138, 140,
1456, 2068, 214
Luther, M. 1415, 48
Maimonides 129, 1978, 208
Meir Loeb Malbim 21112,
21415
Mendelssohn, M. 21011
Messiah 174
Messianism 128
Mishnah 112, 115, 11820,
122, 125, 12930, 142, 148,
194
Monotheism 56
Nahmanides 137, 139, 188203,
2069, 212, 21415
Nissim Gerondi 145
Nouwen, H. 223
Object 1011, 267
Paul VI 110
Paulus, H. E. G. 32
Perception 152
Perspective 3, 810, 12, 18, 39,
43, 46, 48, 128, 159, 1614,
166, 168, 170, 174, 176, 180,
1834, 190
Philo 143
Philo the Epic Poet 76
Philosophy 19, 21, 23
Plato 17
Plurality 3, 56, 1011, 1314,
17, 267, 48, 65, 83, 102,
105, 107, 150, 152, 159, 162,
165
Polemic 23, 48
Politics 1920
Potential 161, 163, 165, 190
Potentiality 161
Prejudgement 21920, 222, 228
Principle 15
Protestant Orthodoxy 22, 27,
30, 33, 40
Protestantism 188, 209, 216
Providence 12, 230
Pseudo-Eupolemos 76
Qumran 9, 57, 636, 78, 84,
924, 989
Radak 148
Rashbam 148
Reader 1112, 16970, 191, 207,
2267
Reality 28, 267, 49, 104, 106,
1567, 167, 189, 205
Reception 161, 163
Redemption 12, 18, 21, 25, 29,
36, 412, 222, 230
Reimarus, H. S. 31, 34
Religion 2, 5, 8, 11, 16, 1821,
237, 3940, 42, 46, 4950,
153, 1556, 186
Revelation 24, 30, 812, 1045,
110, 11516, 1334, 1357,
1456, 175, 188, 207, 213
Ricoeur, P. 2223, 225
Rosenzweig, F. 1367
Ryle, H. E. 58, 62
Salvation 172, 17482
Scripture 9, 1112, 1415, 30,
49, 558, 63, 657, 84, 101
7, 10911, 119, 121, 123,
125, 132, 138, 1424, 1469,
156, 1869, 1912, 197200,
203, 20611, 21316, 218
22, 228, 232
Semantic 10, 401, 1612, 164,
16870, 182, 1845, 202,
212
Semantics 48, 163, 185
Semler, J. S. 33
Septuagint 3, 8, 80, 99
Shammai 148
Shlomo b. Adret 204
Similarity 8, 42, 151
Sin 19, 25, 172, 177
Sophocles 54
Soteriology 1778, 180
Stability 16
Strau, D. F. 35
Symbol 162
Talmud 112, 119, 121, 144,
148, 1556, 190, 194, 1978,
2045
Testament
Old 8, 12, 14, 28, 467, 1545,
230
New 8, 1014, 1617, 2732,
349, 418, 51, 1545, 159
61, 1634, 16870, 1767,
1805, 2301
Text 16, 811, 1617, 2832,
345, 37, 39, 434, 467,
50, 523, 579, 62, 67, 73,
78, 812, 924, 98, 100,
1067, 113, 11517, 120,
122, 12830, 1345, 138,
1468, 150, 152, 1557,
159, 1623, 1678, 170,
1767, 1823, 1846, 188
94, 196202, 20720, 222,
224, 228
Theodotus 76
Theology 12, 15, 223, 26, 28,
478, 10910, 147, 14950,
1523, 155, 157, 181
biblical 17, 10, 48, 50, 109,
111, 143, 146, 14952,
1548, 221
doctrinal 10
exegetical 89, 17, 22, 278,
32, 34, 3940, 45, 50
historical 22, 28
philosophical 16, 18, 20, 223,
278, 50
systematic 9, 14, 17, 22, 39
40, 42, 446, 4950
Time 7, 10, 20, 24, 26, 312,
3940, 45, 73, 92, 101, 160
1, 176, 178, 183
Torah 11, 59, 61, 63, 73, 75, 78,
94, 96, 1045, 11112, 117,
120, 1228, 1301, 133,
135, 137, 13942, 14750,
248 Index of Subjects and Names
1902, 196202, 204, 206,
214
Oral 89, 11135, 13740,
1429
Written 89, 111, 11314,
11629, 13140, 1423,
1479
Tosefta 115, 122, 142
Tradition 312, 15, 17, 25,
278, 37, 423, 456, 48, 75,
10811, 123, 125, 1345,
140, 1423, 146, 1489, 152,
161, 184, 1889, 191, 2034,
20711, 21316, 220
Truth 42, 49, 193, 195
Tsevat, M. 155
Unity 212, 1415, 1720, 238,
349, 426, 489, 65, 1059,
11819, 1225, 128, 1356,
142, 1457, 1501, 153,
1614, 170, 176, 182, 184,
209, 21517, 21922, 225,
2278, 232
objective 3, 12, 16, 446
subjective 3, 12, 16, 44, 46
Verification 402, 445, 47
Wellhausen, J. 148
Wildeboer, G. 58, 62
World 23, 5, 1011, 14, 19, 46,
1612, 1648, 1703, 1835
Yom Tov Ishbili 145, 2046
Zadok Hakohen of Lublin 139

One Scripture or Many (C. Helmer - C. Landmesser)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

One Scripture or Many (C. Helmer - C. Landmesser)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ONE SCRI PTURE OR MANY?

This page intentionally left blank

You might also like