Edward J. Young, “The Canon of the Old Testament,” Carl F.H. Henry, ed., Revelation and the Bible.
Contemporary Evangelical Thought. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1958 / London: The Tyndale Press, 1959.
pp.155-168.
the time of Nehemiah a particular interest had been aroused in preserving the writings and
sayings of the prophets. The actual period of their canonization, however, falls between 300
B.C. and the beginning of the second century B.C. What led to this canonization presumably
at this time is not positively asserted. Possibly it was the spread of Hellenic culture and
possibly also a reaction against the spirit of Ezra. Greater difficulty is conceded with respect
to the third Canon. When the Canon of the Prophets was closed, other writings existed, such
as Ecclesiastes, which belonged neither to the Canon of the Prophets nor to that of the Law,
and these served practically as an appendix to the two existing Canons. The enthusiasm of the
Jewish patriots at the time of the Maccabees, assertedly, may have originated the movement
which sought to expand the Canon by the addition of a third group of writings. The orders of
Antiochus to destroy the Jewish national writings simply enhanced their value in the eyes of
the Jews. Subsequent popular usage brought about a regard for these books as authoritative.
The actual official recognition of the books is probably to be placed about 100 A.D., it is said,
[p.159]
and was the work of the Synod held at Jamnia (Jabney) near Jaffa about 90 A.D.
A modification of this view of Ryle appears in the work of Oesterley and Robinson who,
under the influence of Holscher, find the idea of a canon in the fact that some books are
considered more holy than others. Such an idea, they think, could not have arisen all at once,
but rather “it was only gradually, and by general consensus, that certain books came to have a
special sanctity attached to them” (W. O. E. Oesterley and Theodore H. Robinson, An
Introduction to the Books of the Old Testament, London, 1934, p. 2; G. Holscher, Kanonisch
and Apocryph, Naumberg, 1905). At the same time, these authors reject the idea of a threefold
canonization. What forced the idea of a canon to arise, in their opinion, were Greek culture
and the growth of Greek literature and particularly the spread of Jewish Apocryphal books.
The Jewish scribes had to weed out harmful and erroneous literature, and thus the idea of a
canon arose. The fixing of the Canon, however, as we know it now, was not accomplished
until about A.D. 100. Some Jewish literature, therefore, on this view, underwent a
metamorphosis in its nature. The fixing of the Canon was piecemeal, but when once
completed, the books of the Old Testament were regarded by the Jews as canonical.
According to Bentzen we are to regard Nehemiah 8-10 as indicating the introduction of that
form of the Law which was current in Babylonian Jewish circles of the time. Even as early as
Josiah we find the idea of a normative Law Book, and the belief that God could reveal his will
by means of a holy book. The seventh century was of particular importance for the formation
of the idea of a holy written law. Even earlier, however, is the ancient idea of law as given by
a god, and also the ancient Credo of Israel (Deut. 26:5b-9).
Such ideas, however, did not at once lead to a fixed concept of a canon. In the century after
the Exile the different strands of tradition were united, and so the oldest part of the Old
Testament Canon (the Pentateuch) became an established fact.
The Canon of the Prophets began when Isaiah put upon his disciples the obligation to be the
bearers and preservers of the word (Isa. 8:16), and when Jeremiah had Baruch write down his
warnings. The Exile gave to the words of the prophets the confirmation of history, and before
200 B.C. the prophetical Canon was essentially finished. The third part of the Canon, thinks
Bentzen, is most vaguely defined, as is shown by the different names attributed unto it. The