4QMMT and the Canon
While we have seen that the Scriptures were often
classified into the Law (the Pentateuch) the Prophets (the rest of the books),
one document from Qumran, the Halakhic Letter (4QMMT), seems to indicate a
different classification of the books. This letter is one of the oldest Qumran documents.
It was written by a leader of the Qumran sect (perhaps the Teacher of
Righteousness) to the leader of its opponents, perhaps Jonathan (160-143 BC) or
Simon (143-135 BC). Near the end of the epilogue we read:
[כתב]נו אליכה שתבין בספר מושה [ו]בספר[י הנ]ביאים ובדוי[ר ] [במעשי] דור ודור . . .
. . . we have wr[itten] to you so that you may carefully
study the book of Moses [and] the books of [the p]rophets
and Davi[d events of] past generations.
This section from 4QMMT is fragmentary and difficult to
reconstruct. However, because of some repetition in this section, a number of
the lacunae can be supplied with confidence. The only exception is the large
gap at the end of line 10 and beginning of line 11.
We can see that the author of this Halakhic letter was
probably working with a concept of a threefold division of the OT into Law and
Prophets and David. This, however, is not identical to later Jewish divisions
of the Law, Prophets and Writings. Only the book of Psalms in the section known
as the Writings could reasonably be characterized as the words of David. Ruth,
by its contents (without any reference to other factors that indicate
authorship) could theoretically have been written by David, but no one, ancient
or modern is known to have held this view. Proverbs, Song of Songs and
Ecclesiastes could be assigned to Solomon, but not to David. It is impossible
to see how Job, Lamentations, Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah or Chronicles
could be characterized as words of David. Therefore, it would appear that the author
of 4QMMT is making a threefold distinction by singling out Psalms as unique.
The phrase that is reconstructed, [events of pas]t
generations, may or may not refer to another book, depending on whether the
reconstruction is accurate. Ellis would understand this phrase as referring to
the book of Chronicles, preferring to translate “[and in the words of the days]
from generation to generation.” Apparently, he is restoring the Hebrew text as דור
ודור [ובדברי הימים]. Since הימים דבריis the Hebrew title of Chronicles, this
would mean that two books of the Writings, Psalms and Chronicles, are mentioned
together as a designation for the Writings as a whole. However, this
restoration is completely speculative and without any hard evidence to support
it. Since Ellis’ suggestion is without foundation, we are on far firmer ground to
believe we are dealing with a slight modification of the twofold classification
of Scriptures.
What conclusions can we draw from 4QMMT? We can probably
come to three conclusions:
1. The author of 4QMMT is assuming that both he and his
intended reader(s) accept a common set of authoritative books and that they can
be divided into three divisions. This assumption appears to point to a widespread
(if not necessarily pan-Jewish) acceptance of a set of Scriptures.
2. The lone distinction made among non-Mosaic books was
the singling out of Psalms. Perhaps this was recognition that some of the books
in the second division were different in genre. Psalms certainly is distinct in
being a book of nothing but hymns. This distinction may have also been
highlighted by the unique role Psalms played in liturgical usage.
3. 4QMMT may show us the beginning of the development of
the threefold division of the OT books found in later rabbinic texts. In
4QMMT we do not have three distinct divisions identical to the divisions in the
later Hebrew canon. The only conclusion one could draw from all the
evidence to this point is that the canon may have been closed in two stages:
first, the Law and later the Prophets and Psalms (including the books now
classified among the Writings). (Andrew E. Steinmann, The Oracles of God:
The Old Testament Canon [Saint Paul, Miss.: Concordia Publishing House,
1999], 69-71, emphasis in original)
