A Response to Timothy Easley: Examining the Old Testament Canon in the First Century

Introduction

I recently listened to Timothy Easley’s podcast episode, “The OT Canon in the 1st Century,” on Sermon Audio, and I found it to be an insightful and engaging discussion on the development of the Hebrew Scriptures. Easley presents a well-structured argument about the tripartite division of the Old Testament and its acceptance in the first century, drawing from historical sources and biblical perspectives. Tim is a strong speaker and presenter. 

While I appreciate the depth of research and the clarity with which Easley presents his case, I find myself disagreeing with several of his conclusions. His take assumes a level of uniformity in the Jewish canon that, in my view, does not fully align with the historical and textual evidence available.

In this post, I will engage critically with his arguments and I hope to offer an alternative perspective on the Old Testament canon during the 1st century. My goal is not to dismiss Easley’s point but to engage in a thoughtful dialogue that considers the full scope of evidence available. I encourage readers to listen to his full discussion and weigh the arguments for themselves, perhaps read this article along with listening to Timothy’s Podcast. Listeners can find the transcript of the audio in the link above on a mobile device. 

Now, let’s examine some of the key claims made in the podcast…

*This excerpt is from Church History and Theology by Timothy Easley and is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. Some edits have been made for clarity, such as formatting adjustments like bolding, italics, and coloring. Quotes from the original source will appear in red for differentiation.

In The First 6 Minutes 

Tim openly acknowledges his Protestant bias, which is a fair and genuine admission. Likewise, I will acknowledge my own Catholic bias. However, these admissions, while transparent, ultimately hold little weight in determining the validity of our arguments. What truly matters is the strength of the evidence and reasoning behind each position.

At [8:33]— Setting the Story

Tim explains the Tanakh (TNK) and the differences between the modern rabbinic Jewish canon and the Protestant Old Testament. He discusses the traditional tripartite division of the Hebrew Scriptures into the Torah (Law), Nevi’im (Prophets), and Ketuvim (Writings). Easley presents this structure as if it has been the historical standard for Jewish scripture, arguing that the Bible has always been organized according to this modern rabbinic tripartite format. He then states the following (emphasis added for clarity):

“Typically, unless it’s a Catholic  or an Orthodox Bible, you’re going to be looking at a Bible of 39 books in the Old Testament. They are the same 39 books that are found in the Jewish canon. If you go to a Jewish bookstore and you pick up a copy of their scriptures, it’s going to be called a Tanakh. T-N-K. It’s kind of like an acronym.  T stands for Torah, Nevi’im is for the N, and the K is Ketuvim. These three terms are representative of, in the Jewish canon, the concept of the testament of their scriptures is divided into three sections. Torah is the law. This would be the books of Moses. The Nevi’im are the prophets. “im” is just plural. The Nevi’im are the prophets and then the Ketuvim are the writings. This would be the histories, this would be like 2 Chronicles and all of that. And so they lay that out in a very different way. In the 39 books as we lay out, the Old Testament typically follows another pattern, which starts with the Torah, just like  everyone does, and then actually does the historical books, the Ketuvim first, and then the Nevi’im later.”

This is where Tim fundamentally misrepresents the historical complexity of the matter. He presents the modern rabbinic TNK structure as the historical standard, he fails to acknowledge that this division was not firmly established in the first century CE.

The 3 Main Issues With Tim’s Sermon

First, its important to recognize that Easley is approaching this discussion with a preconceived notion. He assumes that the modern tripartite TNK was already universally accepted in the first century, yet the earliest recorded evidence of a structured tripartite canon appears in the Babylonian Talmud, Baba Batra 14a-15b, compiled in the 5th century CE. As Protestant Scholar Lee Martin McDonald explains in his book The Formation of the Biblical Canon (bolding mine):

“The first time the specific books in the HB are identified is in the second-century CE baraita known as b. Baba Batra 14a–15b (see Chapter 11 §III.A). In Collins’ assessment of this passage, he correctly sees that no awareness of a distinction between canonical and noncanonical books existed at that time. He concludes “all the available evidence suggests that the category of Scriptures, or authoritative writings, was open-ended throughout the Second Temple period.” (The Formation of the Biblical Canon, Vol. 1, p. 272).

“Since there is no clear evidence for a tripartite HB before the middle to late second century CE,34 we should be cautious about declaring its presence before we have solid evidence of its existence. It is best to avoid assuming a tripartite HB canon before or during the ministry of Jesus or even later in the first century CE. Even when a specific number of books were identified as in Josephus and 4 Ezra noted earlier, we do not know what books were included in these texts and neither author reflects a tripartite collection of those scriptures. The first time this happens is in the middle to late second century (b. Baba Batra 14b).” (The Formation of the Biblical Canon, Vol. 1, p. 281)

Easley applies a later rabbinic structure to an earlier 1st century period, assuming that the 1st century Jewish canon neatly conformed to the modern Tanakh arrangement. However, the historical record contradicts this notion.

Going forward, consider this method: Suppose we disregard the modern TNK structure entirely and instead analyze the texts Easley cites on their own terms. Do these sources actually demonstrate a first-century Jewish recognition of the modern TNK arrangement? More specifically, when Jewish texts from this period reference scripture in a tripartite manner, do they precisely mirror the TNK structure as we see in Baba Batra?

The answer is overwhelmingly no.  While some texts may seem resemble a tripartite structure, the actual evidence shows no exact match to the TNK as outlined in Baba Batra. Tim presents an assumption imposed onto history rather than one derived from it. 

Second, Tim has already established the order of the TNK (bolded in red above). The issue with this is it completely contrasts with Josephus. Josephus gives us a fixed canon list. (I’m going to grant the assumption that Josephus canon list here matches the rabbinic canon just for the sake of argument.) This is from (Against Apion 1.40).  Notice how he clearly enumerates three categories(bolding mine): 

“but as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the prophets, who were after Moses, wrote down what was done in their times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God, and precepts for the conduct of human life”

• 5 Books of the Law (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers Deuteronomy).
• 13 Books of the Prophets (Joshua, Judges + Ruth (combined as one book), Samuel (1 & 2 combined), Kings (1 & 2 combined), Isaiah, Jeremiah + Lamentations (combined as one book), Ezekiel, Daniel, The Twelve Minor Prophets (counted as one book), Job, Chronicles (1 & 2 combined), Ezra-Nehemiah (counted as one book), Esther.)
• 4 Book of Writings (Includes “hymns and wisdom literature.”: Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs)

According to Josephus, his canon contains only four books in the ketuvim, and it doesn’t include 1st and 2nd chronicles. This is important for Tim’s later use of Luke’s gospel.

 Additionally,  notice how the key discrepancies—highlighted in blue—demonstrate how several books categorized as Nevi’im (N) by Josephus are instead placed in the Ketuvim (K) in the later rabbinic canon. This makes it impossible to assume that the first-century divisions of Nevi’im and Ketuvim were identical to the later TNK arrangement. Note: Tim acknowledges this around the [1:00:00] minute mark. 

At [11:18]-Misusing 1 & 2 Maccabees to Claim a Closed Canon

He claims “So for instance, when we see in the history of the Jewish people, they were able to perceive that God had ceased sending prophets after the close of the ministry of Malachi. After the days of the last prophets of Haggai and Malachi, once they died, there were no prophets.”

At Around [13:00]

Tim then appeals to 1 Maccabees 9:27 “prophets ceased to appear among them.” and 1 Maccabees 14:41, “Simon should be their leader and high priest forever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise.”

His argument hinges on the claim that there were no prophets between Malachi and John the Baptist, and therefore, no scripture could have been written in this period. By this reasoning, the deuterocanonical books do not belong in the Bible, nor were they considered scripture by the Jews of the time.

If you know anything about Protestant Apologetics, then you know this argument oversimplifies the nature of divine revelation and scriptural authorship.

Tim is correct to point out that 1 Maccabees acknowledges a lack of public prophets but note that the Maccabeans did not believe that all revelation had ceased. In 2 Maccabees 15:11-16, Judah Maccabee himself receives a prophetic dream from God, demonstrating that while he did not hold the office of prophet, he still received divine revelation.

Moreover, Tim’s argument seems like it argues that only prophets could produce scripture.  However, many Old Testament books were written by non-prophets, including David (Psalms), Solomon (Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs), and the author of Esther. The absence of a public prophet does not mean scripture could not be written, nor does it automatically exclude the deuterocanonical books from consideration.

This argument is a well-worn Protestant response to the question of a fixed canon. Catholic Answers  apologist Jimmy Akin addressed this issue in the 90s, pointing out that not all deuterocanonical books were written during this so-called “silent period.“

He notes: “The book of Baruch was written by the secretary of the prophet Jeremiah in 581 B.C., well before the supposed “silent period” began” 

“Though there may not have been a public prophet operating in their day, the Maccabeans did not believe that all revelation had ceased. In 2 Maccabees, Judah Maccabee himself is given a prophetic dream by God (2 Macc. 15:11-16). He did not have the office of prophet, but he received divine revelation.”

Jimmy Akin continues to that the Maccabean period was not an exception in experiencing a lack of public prophets, as similar prophetic gaps occurred throughout biblical history. The Old Testament provides multiple examples where divine revelation continued even when public prophets were absent. 1 Samuel 3:1 describes a time when “the word of the Lord was rare”, yet later, Samuel led a resurgence of prophecy.

Similarly, Lamentations 2:9 states that Jerusalem’s prophets received no visions, yet the book itself is prophetic scripture. Psalm 74:9 also speaks of a time without prophets, yet scripture was still being recorded. These examples demonstrate that prophetic silence was a recurring pattern in biblical history, and the absence of public prophets during the Maccabean era does not mean divine revelation had ceased or that the period lacked spiritual significance

At [16:00]—The Cessation of Prophecy

Tim argues that the prophetic office had ceased, citing 1 Maccabees 12:9:

“Therefore, though we have no need of these things, since we have for our encouragement the holy books that are in our hands.” (1 Maccabees 12:9)

Now he’s going to argue for a unified canon, this is his first attempt at a subtle, yet misleading maneuver.

By quoting this passage, he suggests that the Maccabees possessed a clearly defined, universally recognized canon. He states: “…here’s the point here. Although we have no need of such things, inasmuch as we have as 1our source of encouragement the sacred books in our possession,8 we have decided to request and renewal of our pact of family ties and friendship with you so that we may not become estranged from you for a great many years have elapsed since you last contacted us”

Notice that this assumption is deeply flawed. 1 Maccabees 12:9 does not imply that all Jews shared a single, unified canon, nor does it mean that they adhered to the modern Protestant Old Testament, nor the Baba Batra canon. The verse simply affirms that the Maccabees recognized certain scriptures as authoritative- but nowhere does it define what those books were. The idea that this passage proves the existence of a fixed, universally accepted Jewish canon is entirely speculative.

The Tripartite Assumption

But here is where Tim takes an even more deceptive step: he moves from discussing an undefined set of “holy books” to subtly inserting the modern TNK structure (Torah, Prophets, and Writings) as if it were already recognized in the Maccabean period. By doing this, he imposes a rabbinic framework that was not formally solidified until centuries later. This sleight of hand allows him to argue that the Jewish canon of the first century mirrored the later tripartite division found in Baba Batra 14a-15b—a claim that the historical evidence simply does not support.

*Note that the Septuagint (LXX), along with key manuscript witnesses such as Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Vaticanus, and Codex Sinaiticus, do not adhere to the tripartite structure of the Hebrew Scriptures . Instead, these ancient manuscripts consistently organize the books into a fourfold division, which diverges significantly from the later rabbinic TNK structure.

At [18:00] — “There Was a Canon” Argument

He makes the claim, “First, there was a canon. I want that to sink in fairly hard.  There was a canon and it was recognized even before the first century. That canon was referred to in short as the law and the prophets. It was referred to that way because it is the main sections of what has gone on before is that God expressed  his law and he promised for a Messiah to come.”

 At [18:47] — 2 Maccabees 15:7 Misinterpretation

He argues from a verse form 2 Maccabees 15 saying god told them to hold fast to the law and the prophets. This is where hes going to do something very deceptie.

He says the following: “…this is 2nd Maccabees, chapter 15, verse 7. However, Maccabeus remained confident, firm in his belief that he would receive help from the Lord. He urged his troops to have no fear of the attack of the enemy, but to keep in mind the help that they had received from heaven in former times, and to remain confident that victory would be theirs through the help of the Almighty. He encouraged them by citing the law and the prophets and by reminding them of the struggles they had already survived in the past, and he filled them with fresh enthusiasm. That second Maccabees chapter 15 section makes it clear to us that their sacred writings that they possessed, this is again the view of Jews in approximately 100 BC, That what they are to pull their encouragement from was the sacred writings  and what those sacred writings are called here are the law and the prophets.”

He then goes for evidence from 4 Maccabees and within the span of 7 minutes, he argues that the term “Law and the Prophets” equates to current rabbinjc understanding of law, prophets and writings,” so this is essentially the basis of his argument. Lee Martin McDonald has a section in his canon book refuting this attempt. It’s actually pretty basic and sad, coming from Tim. Again, this is essentially the basis of his argument: Every time law and prophets are mentioned, it refers to the TNK.

At [25:00] — Tim’s Leap from “Law and Prophets” to TNK

This shows us pretty directly that what we have a reference  to when we see the Law and the Prophets, we’re not just strictly  speaking of the Torah and the Nevi’im.  We are talking about all three parts of this. This is not unique, by the way, to 4th Maccabees. This is an example. The term Law and Prophets, as we’re going  to see even in the New Testament, the term Law and Prophets is  a shorthand account for all three parts of the Old Testament scriptures that make up the Torah, the Nevi’im, and the Ketuvim.

Note there is no mention of law prophets and writings… I really have no idea how he comes to this tripartite conclusion without adding later bias from Baba Batra into the text. Tim is simply reading three parts into context here. The text says nothing of a tripartite canon. Again, ask yourself does the text reveal the exact tripartie canon as the modern day TNk? No it doesn’t.

However, Tim is correct on point here: “when we see the Law and the Prophets, we’re not just strictly  speaking of the Torah and the Nevi’im.”  This is a great analysis, Tim; however, it’s odd that you run to the modern TNK division. The term “Law and Prophets” is how jews referred to all sacred literature, not a specific categorization.

As Lee Martin Mcdonald Notes:

“all sacred literature was typically referred to as “the Law and the Prophets.” For most Jews in the first century, their Scriptures were acknowledged as Law and Prophets, even though some of those writings were later assigned to the third part of the HB.”(The Formation of the Biblical Canon, Vol. 1, p.310).

Elsewhere he writes, critiquing another scholar that “all of the sacred writings of the Jews were regularly referred to as the Law and the Prophets” (The Formation of the Biblical Canon, Vol. 1, p.163).

 At [26:15]— Acts 13 As A Tripartite Canon 

At 26:15, Tim turns to Acts 13 to support his claim that whenever the phrase “Law and the Prophets”—or even just “the Law”—is used, it is automatically referencing the full TNK structure (Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim).

This is a critical moment in his argument, as he attempts to establish a direct connection between first-century scriptural references and the later rabbinic tripartite canon.

From 30:00-32:00, he notes the following after Paul refers to “Law and the Prophets”

TNK	Pauls Citations	Acts 13
Torah	Exodus, Judges	Acts13: 17-22
Neviim	2 Sam 7:12-16, Isaiah 55, Habakkuk	Acts 13: 23,34,41
Ketuvim	Pslams	Acts 13:33,35

At [30:52] — Tim Reads Acts 13:16-20

At 30:52, he’s reading from verse 16-20 and says, “Now, here, obviously, Torah, undeniably so. The idea of the Torah has been a settled thing for millennia. So none of that comes as a surprise, right? And also when they’re reading the Law and the Prophets, law is the Torah, so it makes sense.”

Here, Tim’s argument simply falls apart…

For example, John 12:34 refers to Psalms as “Law”:  “We have heard from the Law that the Messiah remains forever. How can you say, ‘The Son of Man must be lifted up’?”  This likely refers to Psalm 110:4 or Daniel 7:14, both from the Writings (Ketuvim), yet it is called “Law.” (Also according to Jospeus this is quoting from the (netuvim and the Ketuvim).

However what Tim would argue in this portion is, this is referring only to the N and K portions of the TNK. However, this shows that Jews in Jesus’ time sometimes referred to all of Scripture as “Law,” not just the Torah.

Continuing on, John 10:34 says: “Jesus answered them, ‘Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?” This quote is from Psalm 82:6—which is in the Writings (Ketuvim, K), not the Torah (T). Yet Jesus calls it “Law”, showing that the term “Law” was sometimes used for all of Scripture, not just Torah.

 And we see this elsewhere; 1 Corinthians 14:21 refers to Isaiah as “Law”. “In the Law it is written: ‘With other tongues and through the lips of foreigners I will speak to this people, but even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”  This is a quotation from Isaiah 28:11-12, which is in the Prophets (Nevi’im), yet Paul calls it the “Law.” We see that Jews sometimes used “Law” to refer to all of Scripture. What Tim would say, though, is this is only referring to the K portion of the TNK. It’s very misleading and a really tricky tactic if you don’t know what’s happening.

[32:12]- A Perfect Match

After seemingly finding what appears to be an exact match to the Baba Batra TNK layout in Acts 13, Tim confidently asserts: “But again, this reference to, I have found in David the son of Jesse, a man after my own heart, is a citation from Psalm 89, which is not part of the Nevi’im, not strictly the Law or the Prophets, but the Writings, the Ketuvim. That’s important, and it’s not the last one.”

At first glance, this may seem like undeniable support for the tripartite TNK structure, as Tim appears to identify a clear reference to all three divisions—Torah, Nevi’im, and Ketuvim within a single passage.

However, notice how he selectively chooses Acts 13 as his proof text while ignoring other passages that contain similar structures but contradict his argument.

For example, consider Matthew 24:15-31, which also references all three sections of the modern TNK:

• Torah (Genesis 6-7) → Matthew 24:38-39
• Ketuvim (Daniel 7:13-14) → Matthew 24:30
• Nevi’im (Isaiah 27:14, Zechariah 9:14) → Matthew 24:31

At face value, this passage might seem to reinforce the existence of a fixed TNK structure in the first century. However, there’s a crucial problem—Josephus would not have classified these references as tripartite. According to Josephus’ canon, this passage only contains Torah and Nevi’im, as Daniel was considered part of the Prophets (Nevi’im), not the Writings (Ketuvim) in his framework.

Notice the flaw in Tim’s argument. If we accept his reasoning, then Matthew 24 should be an even stronger “hit” for a fixed TNK canon—yet by Josephus’ categorization, it is not. Once again, Tim is retroactively imposing the Baba Batra framework onto earlier texts without accounting for the fluidity of scriptural classification in the 1st century.  

The same can be said for is Revelation 1:7, which, like Matthew 24, pulls from all three divisions of the modern TNK structure: 

• Torah (Deuteronomy 32:43) → “Rejoice, O nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants”. 
• Nevi’im (Zechariah 12:10) → “They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him”. 
• Ketuvim (Daniel 7:13) → “Behold, one like a Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven”. 

Yet again, according to Josephus’ Canon, this only includes the Torah and the Nevi’im. 

[42:00]-4QMMT And The Prolgue Sirach

Tim attempts to use 4QMMT, a text from the Dead Sea Scrolls, as evidence for the tripartite canon. He states: “4QMMT is a text among the Dead Sea Scrolls that  contains 22 legal statements about all manner of religious  practices. We’ll come back to the number 22 in a second.  In its exhortation section of this document, it contains a fragmented  yet clearly threefold division of the scriptures referred to 4 as the Book of Moses, the Books of the Prophets, and David.”

He then argues that David, as the primary author of the Psalms, represents the Ketuvim (Writings), which he claims is a direct match to the later rabbinic TNK structure. This, according to Tim, serves as further confirmation that the tripartite canon was already established before the first century. However, Tim’s interpretation misrepresents what the scholarly consensus actually says about 4QMMT.

Here, the scholarship simply disagrees with this interpretation. Andrew E. Steinmann writes in The Oracles of God: The Old Testament 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 pg. 104-107.)

“Only the Greek Prologue, written later than the Book of Ben Sira itself, mentions three categories of books as authoritative for Israel: “the law and the prophets and the other ancestral books”. This seems similar to the tripartite canon of today’s Hebrew Bible. However, the content of the three categories of books is not actually mentioned in the Prologue, and the Book of Ben Sira itself is described as having some of the same authority.

Sir 38:24–39:11, mostly extant in Greek only, does not show any references to a canon in its description of a scribe’s activities. God’s “law” is referred to as an especially important source of wisdom, but a written form or the content of the “law” are not mentioned. Other sources of wisdom including travel and divine inspiration explicitly play an important role. If compared to the Hebrew Bible, at most a one-part canon of “Law” can be seen in the Greek text of Sir 38:24–39:11^LXX. However, the “law” is not equated there with today’s Pentateuch. The passage does not explicitly refer to any written texts, and does not mention writing or reading among the scribe’s activities.

Sir 44–50, the “Praise of the Ancestors”, contains some of the same figures as the first two parts of the tripartite canon of the Hebrew Bible, while figures found in the “Writings” part of this canon are mostly missing. If compared to the Hebrew Bible, at most a bipartite canon of “Law” and “Prophets” can be seen in Sir 44–50. However, the order of figures praised differs from the Hebrew Bible, for example regarding the mentions of David, Job, and Phineas, and the lack of any mentions of Saul or Ezra. Sir 44–50 does not refer to the authority of any written texts except the Book of Ben Sira itself. Sir 48:10 about Elijah does not contain a quotation of Mal 3:23–24 and shares words and contents with a variety of extant texts. The five passages on Enoch, the judges, Isaiah, Job, and the twelve prophets – which are frequently used to argue for canonical references – only refer to persons, never books. They do not contain intertextual references to the Hebrew Bible or the Greek Septuagint or any other texts. Their contents also differ significantly from those found in the Hebrew Bible. At the same time, the passages share words and contents not found in the Hebrew Bible with other literature prior and contemporary to Ben Sira such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees. Since there are numerous differences between these passages in Ben Sira and the Hebrew Bible and, at the same time, similarities with other extant texts, it is unlikely that Ben Sira refers to the Hebrew Bible only and invents changes to most of its words and contents himself in an intentional deviation from the Hebrew Bible. More probably, Ben Sira uses a wide range of contemporary traditions.

The study of the three key passages also demonstrates that even if the Hebrew and Greek texts of Ben Sira are combined, today’s canon of the Hebrew Bible is taken as a point of comparison, and the strongest similarities are highlighted, the Prologue, Sir 38:24–39:11, and Sir 44–50 only indicate a tripartite, one-part, and bipartite canon, rather than any common canon at all. But more importantly, the Greek Prologue contains the only explicit mentions of authoritative written texts. The two key passages in Book of Ben Sira itself show hardly any interest in written texts at all, and do not refer to any textual authority other than the Book of Ben Sira itself.” (Alma Brodersen, The Beginning of the Biblical Canon and Ben Sira Pages, 188-89)”

Furthermore, other scholars show us the same thing. Euchine Ulrich in “Qumran and the Canon of the Old Testament,” in The Biblical Canons, shows us the prolgue to sirach doesn’t support a tripartide canon. (Source from Scriptural Mormonsim). Also, again ,Lee Martin McDonald (Source from Scriptiral Mormonism). 

[47:51]- Tim’s Mentioning of Luke 24. 

At around the 47-minute mark, Tim appeals to Luke 24 as a proof text for the tripartite canon. However, this claim is highly unlikely for several reasons. Once again, we see the problem of anachronistically reading the later tripartite canon into the text. The key question remains: Does Luke 24 explicitly define a structured, threefold canon? The answer is no. There is no direct evidence in the passage that confirms the existence of the tripartite TNK structure as it appears in later rabbinic tradition

“Since Luke later claimed that David, the author of the Psalms, was a prophet (Acts 2:30), it is more likely that “psalms” in Luke was also understood as prophetic literature as we see in Luke 24:27 which reads: “Then beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them the things about himself in all the scriptures.”
Kümmel concludes that it is highly unlikely that Luke intended this reference to psalms to include all of the documents later designated as the Writings.33 Rather, Luke’s reference only to “psalms” here instead of all the Writings supports the view that the third part of the Jewish biblical canon had not yet been defined in the time of Jesus – or even later when Luke was written and only “psalms” was intended. All but one of the references to the Jewish scriptures in the NT is to the Law (or Moses or law of Moses) or to the Law (or “Moses”) and the Prophets. It ismore likely that all of the Jewish scriptures, including the “psalms,” were included in v. 27. Like 24:44, in 24:27 Jesus instructed the disciples in all the scriptures in both places and this presumes that the “psalms” was intended in “all the scriptures” (v. 27) as well as in 24:44.”(The Formation of the Biblical Canon, Vol. 1, p. 281)

[50:00] Luke 11:51 and Zechariah

At around the 50-minute mark, Tim argues that Luke 11:51 supports the tripartite canon by suggesting that the Zechariah mentioned in this verse is significant because the modern Jewish Tanakh ends with 2 Chronicles. However, this claim is deeply misleading and historically unfounded. How can one confidently assert this when Josephus’ canon does not end with 2 Chronicles at all? According to Josephus, the final books of his canon are Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, or Song of Songs. This alone undermines the assumption that Jesus was referencing a structured, tripartite canon ending with Chronicles.

Additionally, Lee Martin McDonald further highlights this issue in his work, citing Protestant scholar Edmond Gallagher, who explicitly rejects the claim that 2 Chronicles held this position in antiquity. Gallagher demonstrates that the idea of 2 Chronicles concluding the Hebrew Bible is entirely dependent on later rabbinic tradition, particularly Baba Batra 14b (2nd century CE). He summarizes there is no first-century evidence to support this claim. Gallagher also argues that 2 Chronicles only assumed its final position after the Hebrew Bible was published in codex form, long after the first century. This means that the canonical order Tim assumes in his argument was likely unknown in the time of Jesus and the apostles. Thus, attempting to use Luke 11:51 as definitive proof of a tripartite canon is anachronistic and based on later Jewish traditions rather than first-century realities. Lee States the following in The Formation of the Biblical Canon, Vol. 1, p. 287: 

 Codices L (Leningrad) and A (Aleppo), for instance, have Chronicles in the first place in the Writings, not the last. Gallagher concludes that “neither Jesus nor anyone else could assert the same [order or sequence] until the late fifteenth century” after the printing press was invented. He also draws attention to the lack of any church father drawing from Matt 23:35 or Luke 11:51 that Jesus had in mind the scope of the biblical canon. Jesus’ point rather was his focus on the
heinous acts taken against pious Jews in antiquity.55 Gallagher also observes that no one before the eighth century CE suggested that Jesus’ reference to Zechariah was to one of the Minor Prophets. He adds “it was apparently, not until the rise of modern biblical criticism that someone thought of relating the mention of Zechariah to the concluding position of Chronicles within the Bible.”56 

Final Questions For Tim 

While I thoroughly enjoyed engaging with and rebutting this podcast, I want to acknowledge that this was an incredibly in-depth discussion. I appreciate the level of research Tim put into his presentation, and I encourage readers to take the time to explore the nuances of this subject. 

I want to end with two questions for Tim, particularly regarding his argument from Jesus’ citations. At around the [1:20:00] mark, Tim makes the following statement:

“How about Jesus? Never a scripture. They can reference books that aren’t canonical. They do that for 1st Enoch, which, you know, vast majority of Christians do not accept. You know, Book of Jude refers to that. That doesn’t make it canonical. A citation of something as scripture would be, thus it is written, or did you not read what the Lord said to you here? Or have you not read the scriptures or this must be fulfilled or what was said by the prophet? Those are citations as scripture. For Jesus and the apostles, they never once cited the Apocrypha as this. That, as a Christian, should mean a lot to you.“

Tim, this is an excellent point. You are absolutely correct in noting that simply citing a text does not automatically make it canonical—this is an important distinction (which I hope you also keep in mind for your argument on the Sadducees). You are also right to observe that Jesus and the apostles never cite any of the deuterocanonical books using explicit formulaic phrases like “scripture says” or “it is written.”

However, this argument cuts both ways. Tim, have you considered that this same standard applies to several books in your own Protestant Old Testament?

By your logic, if Jesus never explicitly quotes a book using “it is written” or “scripture says,” should we question its canonicity? The reality is that Jesus and the apostles never cite several books of the 39-book Protestant Old Testament in this manner either... books like  Esther, Song of Songs, Obadiah, Nahum, Zephaniah,and Ecclesiastes are never mentioned this way. 

So, if you are going to apply this argument to exclude the deuterocanonical books, then be consistent—apply it across the board and be willing to exclude these books from your canon as well. 

Lastly, around [1:10:00] Tim says: “The problem with the Sadducees wasn’t that they had the wrong Canon. The problem with the Sadducees  is they didn’t know how to rightly interpret it. Kind of the same thing with the Pharisees. ” Tim, if the Sadducees truly had the same canon as the Pharisees, then can you explain how they would completely misinterpret such explicit resurrection passages? One thing that is universally agreed upon—and factually stated in the Bible by the Holy Spirit—is that the Sadducees denied the resurrection (Matthew 22:23; Acts 23:8).

Now, consider the weight of that fact. If the Sadducees accepted the full Hebrew Bible, how could they deny the resurrection when Daniel 12:2, Isaiah 26:19, Job 19:25, or Ezekiel 37:12-14 clearly show the resurrection? To put this in perspective, imagine someone claiming they fully accept the Gospels as inspired Scripture, yet they outright deny that Jesus was ever crucified. That would be an outright contradiction, just as it would be for the Sadducees to accept Daniel and Isaiah while rejecting the resurrection. The simplest and most logical conclusion? The Sadducees likely did not accept the full canon that contained these passages. Rather, their rejection of the resurrection aligns with the idea that they adhered only to the Torah, which lacks explicit resurrection doctrine. This directly challenges the assumption that they shared the same canon as the Pharisees.

*This article contains excerpts from Timothy Easley’s Podcast, “The OT Canon in the 1st Century,” used under fair use for the purposes of critique, commentary and discussion. The original audio can be found at “The OT Canon in the 1st Century, This blog is non-commercial and does not seek to profit from this content”.