I have often wondered why in the Gospel of St. Luke we have the order of Law, Prophets and Psalms (Luke 24:44). I think it may be to do with how the Psalms were viewed in early Judaism. The Qumran community viewed the Psalms as prophecy composed by David (11QPs^a) and so I would suggest that the formula of “law and the prophets” (Luke 16:16) may have been extended by Luke, and the community of faith he was representative of, who added the Psalms as a distinct part of their scripture on the grounds that they are really a subset of the prophets. Any thoughts?
-
-
Quote of the week
Introductory reading
-
Recent Posts
-
Top Posts
-
Recent Comments
James Allman on Qumran and the growth of the… Richard on Athanasius, Mary and Ps. … Rich Walker on Psalm 19 & Philippians… John Conlon on Athanasius, Mary and Ps. … Richard on Law, Prophets and Psalms Author Index
Categories
- Biblical theology
- Book reviews
- Commentary
- Continental Reformers
- Criticism
- Dead Sea Scrolls
- Devotional
- Early Church Fathers
- Eschatology
- Exegesis
- Genres
- Grand Themes
- Hebrew
- Justification
- Mark Futato
- New Testament
- Old Testament
- Poets
- Prayer
- Psalter
- Scholarship
- Scholars
- Alistair G Hunter
- Beth LaNeel Tanner
- Brevard Childs
- Bruce Waltke
- David R. Anderson
- Erhard Gerstenberger
- Erich Zenger
- Eugene Ulrich
- Frank Hossfeld
- Frank Moore Cross
- Gerald Wilson
- H-J Kraus
- Ivan Engnell
- J. Ross Wagner
- James Mays
- John Goldingay
- Marvin Sweeney
- Peter Flint
- Ralph W. Klein
- Randy G. Haney
- Robert E. Wallace
- Sigmund Mowinckel
- Scholars
- Scottish divines
- Scottish Psalter
- Septuagint (LXX)
- Targum
- Temple
- Uncategorized
- Worship
Archives
Meta
Pages
Are you against the idea of a tri-partite canon? Thus, Law, Prophets, and Psalms as a representative of the Writings since most orders place it as the first book in the writings.
Rob, I am not convinced that the tri-partite canon had been settled upon by the time of Jesus and the Apostles. I don’t think the evidence points in that direction.
I don’t think you have to suggest the canon was settled (nor am I suggesting that) in order to see that the Psalms as representative of this third section (incomplete and messy) of the Tanak. It probably was unsettled and that’s likely why its referred to as the Psalms and not the Writings. I would find it difficult to suggest that the Law and the Prophets were not in tact as two parts of the canon. How do you address the Christ’s statement “from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah” that also seems to support a third section of the canon (though again, not necessarily complete)?
Why do you think that statement supports a third section of the canon? I’d be interested to see that fleshed out.