The Integrity of the Biblical Canon in Light of Its Historical ...

MCDONALD: The Integrity of the Biblical Canon 103
What we have been suggesting is something like an "unclosed
canon" existing alongside a rather fixed collection of Scriptures (the
writings of Moses) for a period of time and growing in size during
that time. Everett Ferguson argues for the same idea without using
the terms canon 1 and 2 and prefers to speak of a growing and yet
still open collection of sacred Scriptures in the Church in the second
and third centuries CE. 19 This appears to be a fair assessment of the
matter.
When the LXX was produced (ca. 250-225 BCE), it is interesting
that only the Law was translated into Greek, and only later were the
Prophets, which were circulating in a collection ca. 200-180 BCE, and
the Writings, which were circulating in a more loose form ca. 130
BCE or later, also translated and added to the LXX. It is difficult to
know the precise contents of the LXX in the first century BCE or CE
since no copies exist, but that the LXX expanded to include the
Prophets and Writings is certain. The NT writers use the LXX in more
than eighty percent of their references to the OT, and these came
from each of the three categories of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Law,
Prophets, and Writings). But is that all that was included in the LXX?
The answer is that we currently do not know, since the notion of a
growing and separate Alexandrian canon of OT Scriptures that was
popular some years back has been largely rejected as a result of the
work of Albert Sundberg. 20 The authority and reverence given to the
LXX in antiquity is obvious from the sensational description of its
translation in the legendary Letter of Aristeas (ca. 190 BCE-35 CE). 21
For the author of that letter, the Law of Moses was unquestionably
accepted as canon 2. If the Prophets and Writings had already obtained
that status when the LXX was produced, it is puzzling that
they were not also included in the translation or mentioned in the
Letter.
III. THE OT CANON
In regard to the evidence for the formation of the Hebrew Scriptures/
OT, we note that there is a tendency among canon scholars today to
interpret pre-Christian Jewish texts anachronistically, from the perspective
of the second century rabbinic sages or later and also from
19. See his "Introduction," The Bible in the Early Church (Studies in Early Christianity;
ed. Everett Ferguson; New York: Garland, 1993) 3:xi-xiii, and also his "Review
of G. M. Hahneman, the Muratorian Fragment," JTS 44 (1993): 691-83, here 693, 395-96.
20. A. C. Sundberg, The Old Testament of the Early Church (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1964).
21. It is difficult to establish the date of origin for the Letter of Aristeas with any
precision. The termination date is 35 CE since it was referred to by Philo. More likely,
however, it was written around 140-110 BCE.