From: richard@biblewheel.com
Date: Fri Sep 12 2003 - 18:33:32 EDT
Don Nield wrote:
> It would not surprise me if numerical considerations had some effect on
> the final form of the OT canon. That there are 5 books in the Torah is
> probably not an accident. That there are 12 books of the minor prophets
> suggests some design. With 5 and 12 established, it is not surprising
> that there might be 12 historical books and 5 books in the major
> prophets section and 5 wisdom books. The 22 is probably just a
> consequence of 5+5+12 =22.
> The four gospels plus Acts forms a group of 5, and it is likely that the
> early church saw this group as analogous to the Torah. That leaves 22
> other NT books. That may be a coincidence -- not improbable.
This brings up a number of interesting issues. The modern Jews have had the
Torah (5) and the Minor Prophets (12) for many centuries, but they don't
follow the pattern of the Septuagint which appears to be the basis of the
Christian canonical order. This is particularly significant because we know
that early on they tried to fit their canon into a 22 book pattern, as
witnessed by Josephus. They did this by combining some books (I & II Kings,
Ezra-Nehemiah, etc) and calling the 12 Minor Prophets a single book. Does
this not contradict your the suggestion that they felt free to add or
subtract books to fit their "numerical considerations?" Neither have I seen
any scholar anywhere suggest that such "numerical considerations" had
anything to do with the formation of the 5 books of the Torah or the 12
Minor Prophets. Many reasons have been given, but never numerical ones (to
my knowledge). On the contrary, it looks like their "numerical
considerations" were subjected, as far back as the 1st century AD, to the
limitations imposed by the books of the canon. I would be interested in any
evidence you might have for your hypothesis.
Your assertion that "it is not surprising that there might be 12 historical
books and 5 books in the major prophets" also fails with regards to the
Roman Catholics and Greek Orthodox who have additional books in their Old
Testament Canons. But the real difficulty with your argument is that it
suggests such "numerical considerations" were at play when the saints
vigorously disputed over which books they believed the Spirit of God had
inspired and confirmed as canonical. History tells us quite another story. I
know of no book that was included in or excluded from Scripture because of
any "numerical considerations" whatsoever. Books were included or excluded
on the basis of their *content* - not some pattern that wouldn't be
discovered until the end of the 20th century.
This brings up an important issue relating to the Canon. One of the most
common scholastic stumbling stones is the existence of variations in the
canonical structures of various sects of Christiantity, as if the mere
existence of variations implied that no canon could be designed by God. This
position has always baffled me, since the same scholars would never suggest
that variations in the Greek text invalidated the notion that there was an
inspired original! The same goes for the Canon. Variations do not imply that
there is not one that is true to the divine intent.
Rather than weakening the witness of the Bible Wheel, the variations in the
canon greatly strengthen the argument for the divine design of the 66 book
canon. Arguments like those presented above have the appearance of an
explanation when in fact they explain nothing. For example, the assertion
"That there are 5 books in the Torah is probably not an accident" doesn't
tell us anything about why it does not contain 3, 4, 6, 7, or any other
number of books. The fact therefore remains that the detailed structure of
the Canon Wheel with its sevenfold symmetry is utterly dependent upon the
*integrated* set of choices that come together *only* in the traditional 66
book Christian canon. As demonstrated through simple combinatorics, the raw
probability of such a structure emerging from 66 books arbitrarily divided
into 7 segments is one chance in 688,324. I demonstrate this in my article
"Probabilities: What are the Chances?"
http://www.BibleWheel.com/Wheel/probabilities.asp
But this is not how normal people evaluate beauty and meaning, nor is it how
they recognize a face in the crowd. Who amongst us would conclude the Bible
to be the Word of God on mere numerical considerations or probability
calculations? I present it only in hope that it will help those who are
somehow unable to simply look and see the astounding wonder of God's divine
design of His Holy Bible.
Finally, I would like to point out that one of the great beauties of the
Bible Wheel is that we can now behold the fulfillment of the the early
Jewish intuition of the integration of the books of the Bible with the
Hebrew alphabet in a way no one ever imagined! The Jews couldn't do it
alone. It had to await the coming of Christ and the completion of His Word
in the New Testament. What a witness! Look at the Wheel and see how the NT
segement fits the OT segment like a Key in a Lock. Who really can argue that
this is mere chance? We are talking about the Holy Bible here. And all to
the Glory of God, because not one of the untold thousands whom He used in
the production of His Holy Word can take credit for the final product. It is
the Work of God.
Sola Dei Gloria!
Richard Amiel McGough
Discover the sevenfold symmetric perfection of the Holy Bible at
http://www.BibleWheel.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Fri Sep 12 2003 - 18:33:38 EDT