Restoring the Original Bible - by Ernest L. Martin

[gregoryfl]

Yes, I their order is:

1 Gen
2 Exo
3 Lev
4 Num
5 Deu
6 Jos
7 Jdg
7 Sam
8 Kgs
9 Isa
10 Jer
11 Eze
12 Hos-Mal
13 Chr
14 Psa
15 Job
16 Pro
17 Rut
18 Sos
19 Ec
20 Lam
21 Est
22 Dan
23 Ezr-Neh

As to why Chronicles would have been separated, while Sam and Kings would be counted as one book, I do not know.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

Yes, I their order is:

1 Gen
2 Exo
3 Lev
4 Num
5 Deu
6 Jos
7 Jdg
7 Sam
8 Kgs
9 Isa
10 Jer
11 Eze
12 Hos-Mal
13 Chr
14 Psa
15 Job
16 Pro
17 Rut
18 Sos
19 Ec
20 Lam
21 Est
22 Dan
23 Ezr-Neh

As to why Chronicles would have been separated, while Sam and Kings would be counted as one book, I do not know.

So why do you think the modern Jewish order of the Tanakh is correct? The Jews gave us two primary patterns, both with minor variations. Namely, the order of the LXX and the order of the modern Tanakh. The LXX order is vastly superior on a number of counts. Consider the Kethuvim. It is a miscellaneous collection of history, poetry, and prophecy. It looks like a snapshot from a time before the books were properly ordered as they are in the LXX (with the various books placed in their proper categories).

[gregoryfl]

When did I say that I believed it was correct? I was merely sharing why I believe they grouped certain books together as they did, that's all.

[Richard Amiel McGough]

When did I say that I believed it was correct? I was merely sharing why I believe they grouped certain books together as they did, that's all.

Ah ... that makes perfect sense.

But that leads to another question - why do you think that is the pattern that they were using to try to fit the books into a pattern of 22? I agree completely that they joined Judges and Ruth and Jeremiah with Lamentations because there are records of that. So I would guess that the original attempt was something like this, which is the same as your first example except that I separate Samuel and Kings and unite 1 & 2 Chronicles:

1 Gen
2 Exo
3 Lev
4 Num
5 Deu
6 Jos
7 Jdg/Rth
8 1,2Sa
9 1,2Ki
10 Isa
11 Jer/Lam
12 Eze
13 Hos-Mal
14 Psa
15 Pro
16 Job
17 Sos
18 Ecc
19 Est
20 Dan
21 Ez/Neh
22 1Ch,2Ch

[gregoryfl]

Ah ... that makes perfect sense.

But that leads to another question - why do you think that is the pattern that they were using to try to fit the books into a pattern of 22? I agree completely that they joined Judges and Ruth and Jeremiah with Lamentations because there are records of that. So I would guess that the original attempt was something like this, which is the same as your first example except that I separate Samuel and Kings and unite 1 & 2 Chronicles:

1 Gen
2 Exo
3 Lev
4 Num
5 Deu
6 Jos
7 Jdg/Rth
8 1,2Sa
9 1,2Ki
10 Isa
11 Jer/Lam
12 Eze
13 Hos-Mal
14 Psa
15 Pro
16 Job
17 Sos
18 Ecc
19 Est
20 Dan
21 Ez/Neh
22 1Ch,2Ch

It appears as though they were linking the completed scriptures with the 22 letters of their alephbet. The only different I would make is that there is manuscript evidence that the LXX arranged 1,2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings as one book in 4 parts, only later in history split into 4 separate books. Is there any known manuscript evidence that 1,2 Chronicles was ever composed as 1 book?

Ron

[Richard Amiel McGough]

It appears as though they were linking the completed scriptures with the 22 letters of their alephbet. The only different I would make is that there is manuscript evidence that the LXX arranged 1,2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings as one book in 4 parts, only later in history split into 4 separate books. Is there any known manuscript evidence that 1,2 Chronicles was ever composed as 1 book?

Ron

Yes, I believe it is quite evident that they were attempting to force an alphabetic correlation. We have many witnesses from the early church that confirm the correlation between the books and the 22 letters.

I'm not sure that I would agree that "the LXX arranged 1,2 Samuel and 1,2 Kings as one book in 4 parts, only later in history split into 4 separate books." How would we distinguish between those two possibilities? It seems to me that all we know is that the LXX contained four books with numbered names 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 3 Kings, 4 Kings. How could we know whether they were thought of as "one book in four parts" or simply "four books with a continuous theme concerning the Kings?"

I briefly scanned my resources (a rather large collection of exhaustive scholastic works on the canon) but have not been able to find a discussion of whether Chronicles was originally a single work. I'll report back if I find something.

Also, have you considered the absurd anachronism of placing Chronicles after Ezra/Nehemiah? It seems to me that the Jewish canon is defective relative to the Christian OT in every way.

Richard