30 Days in the Bible, Day 28: Daniel 9:1-3

The way we got the Bible we have today is a fascinating study. We use the word “canon” (from the Greek kanon, measuring rod) to describe the official collection of books recognized as Scripture. The Biblical canon formed first from the recognized Jewish canon we now call the Old Testament, then from a collection of writings recognized as inspired written by apostles and their associates which we call the New Testament. Together they make up the full “canon of Scripture.”

Some of the books of the Bible were recognized as authoritative revelation from God very early. We saw in an earlier study how Joshua was told by the Lord to read and meditate on the Law just given a few decades before to Moses. Here in Daniel we see another instance of a Biblical book gaining recognition as Scripture at an early date.

Jeremiah was active as a prophet prior to the fall of Jerusalem to Babylon in 586 BC, and he lived for some years after that in Egypt. He had begun prophesying during the reign of King Josiah, probably around 626 BC. This was approximately 20 years before Daniel was taken captive to Babylon. It is possible that Daniel had heard Jeremiah speak, or at least knew about him, before he went to Babylon.

In our passage about 70 years have passed since then. Daniel read from the prophecy of Jeremiah, and found there indications that the Jewish captivity was coming to an end. He also recognized the book of Jeremiah as part of the Scriptures at that early date. This gave him confidence that what Jeremiah had written was true.

This recognition of a book less than a century old as part of God’s Word (along with the way Daniel’s prophecies were so accurately fulfilled) so bothers some scholars that they try to date the book of Daniel to some 200-300 years later. To do so, they have to deny that the Daniel of the Bible was a historical figure, and that the events of Daniel were just fictional stories designed to make a point. Yet the historical value of Daniel was not challenged until well after it was accepted by the Jews as part of their Scriptures.

The Bible which we have today grew as books such as Jeremiah were recognized to have an authority that went beyond their human authorship. Books that were included in the canon were seen to be inspired, and they were often widely used even prior to being included on any official list. The church did not create the Bible, but took the canon of the Jews and added to it those books that were considered inspired by God. (While I don’t want to oversimplify the direction the process of canonization took, it is far less complex than it is often implied to be by those who wish to cast doubt on the authority of the Bible.)

When we read the Bible today, it is to us an ancient book, dating back anywhere from 1900-3500 years depending on which book you are reading. But we must remember that these books were written, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in times when their words needed to be heard, and that the people of God, Jewish and Christian in turn, heard the Lord’s voice through them. May He speak to us as vividly as we come to the Word today.

The Apocrypha and the Hebrew canon

For my Bible reading project this year, I decided for the first time to read through a Roman Catholic translation, including the Apocrypha. I've read through the books of the Apocrypha before, but I thought it would be informative to read through them as they stand in the Bible. I take them in the order they appear in the New American Bible, Revised Edition, which is the translation I have chosen to read. So today I reached the first of these books, Tobit. (I admit that Tobit is a fascinating story, if a bit strange in detail and with a decided emphasis on almsgiving as a means of righteousness.)

Now my friends will hit me from both sides the fence on this reading choice. My Protestant friends will ask me why I bother to read the Apocryphal books at all. (Some might even question why I'd bother with a non-Protestant translation, but I reading through a variety of translations gives me insights into where many of them come from theologically, and the Word of God is powerful in any good translation-and even in many bad ones!) As someone who has a deep interest in the early church, especially the Ante-Nicene period, I know that while these books were generally not accepted as canonical, they were respected as books that provided spiritual insight that could be helpful. In many respects, they are an OT era parallel to books like the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, and 1 Clement, which were valued by the church but were ultimately determined to be non-canonical.

My Roman Catholic friends, on the other hand, would ask why, if I consider them worthwhile enough to read and respect the opinion of the early church that they have some value, I don't consider them canonical. While there are a number of reasons to reject the Apocrypha (and even the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches view them as having a lesser canonical status), there really is one reason that stands out for me: they were not part of the Hebrew canon.

The Tanakh, as it later came to be called, was generally settled by time of the Hasmoneans. (The story that it was set at the Council of Jamnia in the late 1st or early 2nd century has been widely discredited.) The name comes from the Hebrew words for the three sections of the Hebrew Bible: Torah (Law), Nebi'im (Prophets), and Kethubim (Writings). It consisted of 22 or 24 books, depending on who was doing the division and whether they felt the need to have the same number of books as the Hebrew alphabet had letters. Several of our current 39 OT books were combined: the books of Samuel, the books of Kings, the books of Chronicles, Ezra/Nehemiah, and the Twelve minor prophets. (To get 22, you can combine Judges/Ruth and Jeremaih/Lamentations.)

This three-fold division, with its constituent books, was well-attested by Jesus' time. The Apocrypha lay outside of the Hebrew canon then, and continues to be rejected as canonical by Jews to this day. In my view, the establishment of what we call the Old Testament canon should follow the practice of the Jewish people, for whom it was a remains Scripture. For Christians to add to that canon is to place our (often much later) views on a higher plain than the views of those for whom these words were life.

I will continue to read the Apocrypha, and I anticipate that I will find it informative, spiritually uplifting, and helpful as devotional literature. I will still, however, base my beliefs and my theology on those books that I believe, and that the Jews believe, are the ones inspired by God.