THE ORDER OF THE TWELVE PROPHETS

What is often confusing to readers of the Bible is the rationale to the order in which the books are presented. It is quite an eye-opener to look through a chronologically arranged Bible such as The Daily Bible, and see the various writings placed approximately into their appropriate time frames for the first time.

It turns out that there is obviously not one single ordering method utilized for all the Bible, but each separate collection has its own rhyme and reason for the way it is organized. Thus, the Pentateuch is organized as a mirror-image, or chiastic, collection with Genesis as prelude, Deuteronomy as epilogue, Exodus-Numbers relating one connected narrative, and the laws in the middle:

    Genesis

            Exodus

                    Leviticus

            Numbers

    Deuteronomy

The History Books generally follow a chronological system for the most part except that Chronicles recaps much of the previous time period of Samuel-Kings. On the other hand, Paul's letters, for example, are roughly arranged starting with the longest and working toward the shortest. But what about the Prophets? The four Major Prophets are ordered both chronologically and in order of decreasing length, with the Lamentations ascribed to Jeremiah appropriately placed right after Jeremiah's book of prophecy. Then we come to the Minor Prophets.

These twelve books apparently circulated from an early date as a collection on a single scroll. C.A. Newsom points out: “By the beginning of the second century B.C.E. [i.e. the politically correct replacement for B.C., standing for 'before common era'] Ben Sira refers to these prophets as 'The

Twelve' (Sir 49:10). The number twelve is symbolic of the twelve sons of Jacob and the twelve tribes of Israel, and considerable editorial work was required to organize these prophetic materials into a grouping of twelve.”

As to the order of these twelve, The Jerusalem Bible compares them to the Major Prophets and concludes that the “arrangement of the twelve minor prophets is more arbitrary.” Childs elaborates, “Unfortunately, the historical factors at work in the collecting and ordering of the prophetic books remain very obscure, and one is largely dependent upon the implications which have been drawn from internal evidence of growth. Even such an obvious problem as explaining how the twelve independent prophetic collections were united into a single book has remained unresolved.”

Complicating the situation is the inescapable fact that the order of the twelve differs in the standard Masoretic Hebrew text from that in the Septuagint (usually abbreviated LXX) and the Dead Sea scrolls. But scholars generally invoke one or more of the following three factors at work in the ordering process: chronology, thematic similarities, and use of catch-words. Let us begin with chronology.

Stuart states that, according to his reckoning, “at least nine of the twelve...are in approximate chronological order [of composition], suggesting that the editor(s) of the Twelve in the Hebrew Bible may consciously have sought to order the books chronologically.”

Similarly, The Jerusalem Bible states: “The Hebrew Bible followed by the Vulgate, arranges these short books in the historical order assigned to them by tradition.” However, Crenshaw says “Apparently, the organizing principle of the Hebrew canon was not chronological to the degree that those individuals who arranged the books in the Greek text valued historical sequence.” In any case, neither ordering is the same as the rough historical order accepted today (see my post titled “Chronology of the Prophets”).

So in addition to a chronological scheme, other factors seem to be at play here. Stuart feels that “the fact that certain of the books might have become habitually grouped with one another because they began circulating in writing on common scrolls about the same time might have accounted for” some of the order we see today. One such proposed grouping would probably be the last three books listed in the Twelve (see my post titled “The Unity of Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi”).

Then there are thematic considerations that seem to account for some of the ordering of these books. For example, there is Boda's thesis of an overall progression of ideas, outlined below:

    1. Hosea, Amos and Micah “call the people to repentance” and “focus on certain future judgment.”

    2. Joel and Jonah “have been placed in proximity to these...prophets [to] contrast the message of Hosea, Amos and Micah by showcasing positive responses using similar vocabulary.”

    3. “The message of repentance disappears in the second phase of the Book of the Twelve, signaled by...the outset of the book of Nahum...[who] declares an irreversible announcement of judgment upon Nineveh.”

    4. “This tone of judgment without an opportunity for repentance...continues into Habakkuk and Zephaniah.”

    “Haggai, however signals the beginning of the final phase...and with it a renewal of the call to repentance.”

Crenshaw also feels that “Both chronological and thematic factors entered into the order of the Twelve.” However, his proposed reconstruction differs from that of Boda:

    1. “Thematic considerations link Joel and Amos, Amos and Obadiah. Moreover, the three books share a common theme, YHWH's day.”

    2. “The reference to Jonah ben Amittai in 2 Kings 14:23-27 as a contemporary of Jereboam II possibly explains the position of the book of Jonah after Obadiah.”

    3. “Because Nahum announces the fall of Nineveh in 612 B.C.E. and Habakkuk alludes to neo-Babylonians in 1:6, these two books follow the order of the series established on the basis of chronology and catchwords.”

    4. Hosea may precede Amos because of its length “and unwillingness to interrupt the clear connections of Joel, Amos, and Obadiah.”

Boda concludes by admitting that “beyond this, one would have to wade through a welter of competing hypotheses regarding the ancient process of ordering these books.”

Note that in item #3 above, Boda alludes to yet another factor: catchwords. Childs states, “At times it would seem that concern for chronological order exerted an important influence on the arrangement, or that catchword connections between books were operative (e.g. Amos 1.2 and Joel 3.16).

Thus, close to the end of the book of Joel (3:16) we read “The LORD roars from Zion, and utters his voice from Jerusalem, and the heavens and the earth shake.” Then in the following book in the Twelve, Amos 1:2 says, “The LORD roars from Zion and utters his voice from Jerusalem; the pastures of the shepherds wither.” To bolster up this connection, Amos 1:1 alludes to an earthquake, matching the shaking of the earth in Joel 3:16.

Schart demonstrates another such pair of catchwords connecting Jonah and Micah. Toward the end of Jonah (4:2) we are given a quotation from Exodus 34:6-7 and that same passage is quoted again at the the end of the following book (Micah 7:18-19) as well as the next one in order (Nahum 1:2-3).

Stuart is another scholar who ascribes at least part of the ordering process to be the presence of these catchwords. He adds, “It is important to remember that for 'catchword' linkages to operate it is only necessary that any two [adjacent] books should share a common vocabulary/theme unit of some sort.”

As a dissenting voice, Sweeney notes that the “unstable structure or sequence of the Book of the Twelve” comparing the standard Hebrew text, the Dead Sea scrolls and various Greek versions “undermines the catch-word arguments that presume the order of the MT [Masoretic Hebrew text] as normative.” However, Sweeney does go out of his way to stress the similarities of the MT and Septuagint in terms of overall themes and areas of emphasis.

In conclusion, we would have to agree with Brevard Childs that the factors at work in the ordering process for these twelve books “remain very obscure.” It is yet another example of the fact that whereas the actual words of the Bible remain inspired, the historical process of ordering and preserving those words is not necessarily so.