Index

1. The canon of Scripture [The text and canon of Scripture]

2. History of the Old Testament Canon [The Text and Canon of Scripture]

3. History of the New Testament Canon [The Text and Canon of Scripture]

4. Canonization: Criteria and process [The text and canon of Scripture]

The canon of Scripture

Gerald A. Klingbeil

Communication requires a medium and a channel to be effective; therefore, to “hear” God, a medium and a transmission channel are need-ed. The only way to transmit God’s message throughout the ages has been the faithful copying and re-copying of the revealed Word. Because revelation and Scripture are concerned with textual data, to “hear” God in Scripture in the twenty-first century requires that the text and its lim-its must first be established and then interpreted. This chapter seeks to understand the limitations of what should, and should not, be included in Scripture. In addition, it looks at the inspired, canonical text itself, its transmission process, and the manuscripts and translations by which we have access to the text today.

The canon of Scripture cannot be disconnected from questions of authority and normativity, which, in turn, relate to our understanding of revelation and inspiration. What makes one ancient text more authoritative than another for a religious community (whether Jewish or Christian)? As a point of departure, it seems clear that the OT and the NT books were self-authenticating. Their authority rests not upon the fact that someone, whether an important individual or an ecclesiastical authority, included them in the canon but that they were recognized by their religious community as having authority because of their divine origin, and, as a result, were included in the canon. Space limitations will require us to paint rough outline strokes of the picture, paying attention to the major issues and the questions, without necessarily covering every specific problem or issue.

Underlying Concepts and Definitions

The English word “canon” is derived from the Greek term kanōn, meaning a reed, measuring rod, or even curtain rod, which, in turn, is connected to the Hebrew noun qāneh, “reed, rod” (1 Kings 14:15; Job 40:21). In a derived sense, a canon is a body of texts that “has been measured” and found worthy of inclusion in a collection of texts with binding authority for a religious community. Thus, canon must be connected to the concept of Scripture, as well as inspiration. A canonical text is one that is accorded authority in a given religious community and is considered to be “inspired” by God (2 Tim 3:16). However, Scripture presents a wider concept than the more limited canon. We have references to inspired writings, mentioned in the OT and written by authors regarded as inspired whose writings have not been included in the OT canon (1 Chron 29:29). In the OT there exists a close connection between God’s speaking (as authoritative) and the dissemination of this revelation—in either spoken or written form (Exod 17:14; 24:4). Writing down the instructions received from God was a logical consequence, since it provided continuity and future adherence (Deut 31:9-13). Deuteronomy 31:26 indicates the “testimony/function” of this “book of the Law.” Also, in other places in the OT, the Hebrew term ēd, “testimony,” is often connected with verification according to a set standard. (Deut 31:19, 21; Joshua 22:27, 28, 34).

On three specific historical occasions we find the concept of an authoritative written source that needed to be followed: (1) Exodus 24:7 in which the people declare their commitment to the book of the law revealed to Moses on Sinai; (2) 2 Kings 23:3 and 2 Chronicles 34:32 in which the people of Judah accepted the words of the book of the law found in the temple by Hilkiah in the time of king Josiah; (3) Nehemiah 8:9 in which Ezra read the law to the exiles who had returned from Babylon to Jerusalem. As they listened, the people wept, and Nehemiah 8:11 indicates that they had understood the meaning of the reading and of their responsibility. All three events took place during covenant making, or covenant renewal, ceremonies. Therefore, it seems valid to conclude that the covenant relationship between God and His people was determined by their adherence to the “Word of the Lord.”

Logically, this concept required the existence of an authoritative collection of this “Word” of the Lord. Clearly, this collection was not considered a human collection nor a collection based upon the preferences of a specific religious leader or religious tradition. The OT (and NT) authoritative collection (canon) was based upon God’s self-revelation.

The term kanōn was well known and utilized in Hellenistic Greek. In fact, the ancient world was full of canons (or models/regulations) guiding different aspects of human activity. In Galatians 6:16, Paul utilizes the term in the sense of a measure of Christian conduct that can be verified.¹ However, in Scripture it is not used to designate the biblical canon. At the end of the first century A.D., Clement of Rome utilizes the term in reference to the Christian “tradition”². Nearly a century later, Clement of Alexandria refers to the canon of faith.³ From the middle of the fourth century onward, kanōn was used also of the collection of sacred writings of both the OT and the NT.

Eusebius usually is credited as the first to use the term in reference to the binding collection of Christian Scriptures.⁴ However, this does not mean that the concept was not present in NT times. Jesus complied with OT regulations (feasts [John 2:23; 4:45], Sabbath observance, temple services [Luke 21:1], temple tax [Matt 17:24]) and thus indicated their binding character. He refers to OT commands, promises, or other stories in the context of “it is written” (Matt 4:4, 7, 10; 11:10; Mark 7:6; and others), which always appears as a conclusive argument in His discussions.

The early church seems to reflect this attitude concerning the binding authority of the OT, as well. The Bereans check the OT Scriptures daily to verify Paul’s teachings (Acts 17:11). Paul utilizes the strength of the OT in his arguments for financial support of the fledgling ministry (1 Cor 9:9-10, 14), on vengeance being the sole prerogative of God (Rom 12:19-20), and in the case of the universal nature of sin (Rom 3:10ff). Peter argues for a lifestyle of holiness on the basis of the OT (1 Pet 2:4-6). Such evidence suggests the existence of the concept of an authoritative body of texts, utilized to define the limits of rightful living, both in the OT and in the NT. So far, both the OT and the NT demonstrate the concept of canonical writings, i.e., writings that carry authority. This authority is not the result of individual or organizational decisions but rests upon the authority of the written (or spoken) Word itself, which was God-breathed.

However, not all inspired writings came to be included in the canon. This process of canonization, a determination of what to include and of what to exclude, needs to be understood. While definite answers may not be that easy to come by, a historical review can provide the necessary data, which, in turn, needs to be explained in the light of the authority claim of Scripture, based upon the doctrine of revelation. Before undertaking a conceptual explanation of the process of canonization, the following two questions need to be addressed: First, which books/texts were included in this canon, and second, when was the biblical canon closed?

History of the Old Testament Canon

Gerald A. Klingbeil

Traditionally, the Jewish OT has been divided into three main divisions: Law, Prophets, and Writings (see Table 1):

Table 1: The canon of the Hebrew Bible according to Jewish divisions

This threefold division is important for the reconstruction of the canonization process. The earliest datable extrabiblical reference to its existence is found in the prolog of the apocryphal book of Jesus Ben Sirach, which dates to 132 B.C. Other sources, such as Second Maccabees, Philo, and Josephus, cite similar divisions.

The earliest complete codices (i.e. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) both date from the fourth century A.D. and include some apocryphal books. This canon has also been called the Alexandrian canon. However, it is not clear when the apocryphal books were included, and the current evidence suggests a late date for the inclusion of these extra-canonical works. Therefore, it appears to be reasonable to argue that these monumental codices (which only came into use from the third century A.D. onwards) exhibit influences prevalent in the early Christian church, which struggled to define its identity against the background of Rabbinic Judaism.

The issue of the canon of the LXX must be understood in the light of the heightened confrontation and competition between Judaism and the rapidly growing Christian church. Although the LXX originated as a Jewish enterprise, its rapid adoption and authority in the Christian community as an important tool for the evangelization of the Roman world led to a definite rejection of the LXX (including its canon) by Judaism at the beginning of the second century A.D.

Significant differences exist between the Hebrew Jewish canon and the canon preserved in the oldest codices of the LXX. The latter include Tobit, Judith, 1-4 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) and Baruch, as well as additions to the books of Esther and additional material in the book of Daniel (Susanna and Bel and the Dragon), books not found in the Hebrew canon. These differences may have been due to the emerging tensions between Judaism and Christianity. It must be noted that primitive Christianity did not always accept the additional material as authoritative. Athanasius, as well as Jerome, in the fourth century A.D., both mention apocryphal books but clearly distinguish them from the canonical works.

The evidence from Qumran is very informative and important. Complete scrolls and fragments of all the books in the Hebrew canon except Esther have been found at Qumran. This is significant, since most of the scrolls are to be dated between the first century B.C. (with some as early as the second century B.C.) and A.D. 73. Therefore, virtually all books generally connected to the Jewish canon of the OT, already existed as copies in the second/first century B.C. Secondly, the Qumran community seems to have been also familiar with the threefold division already mentioned in the prolog of Jesus Ben Sirach in the second century B.C. This classification is also shared in different NT texts, such as Luke 24:44, and Matthew 23:35 (with its parallel text in Luke 11:51).⁵

Written around A.D. 100, the apocryphal book 2 Esdras (14:45) refers to the OT canon as containing 24 books (plus another 70 “hidden” books). Around A.D. 170, Melito, bishop of Sardis, published his famous list of books belonging to the OT, which includes all books, except possibly Esther. The crucial question that divides modern scholarship is whether the OT had already stabilized by the time of Jesus (or before) or whether this only occurred in the first century A.D. or perhaps even later in the second century A.D.

Much controversy surrounds the so-called “council of Jamnia.” Most discussions of the canon suggest that the rabbis determined the canonicity of the OT writings. Jamnia, on the Mediterranean coast of Palestine, had both a rabbinical school (Beth ha-Midrash) and a legal court (Beth Din, Sanhedrin) during the period A.D. 70–135. The extent of the sacred Scripture was one of many topics discussed there. However, such discussions were not extraordinary, for rabbis argued about them at least once in the previous generation and also several times long after the Jamnia period. It is clear that these rabbinical discussions (and many more) played an important role for orthodox Judaism, since they were later included in the Babylonian Talmud, but they were not formative for the OT canon. At most, they simply confirmed what had long been established and generally accepted.

History of the New Testament Canon

Gerald A. Klingbeil

The history of the NT canon is not as complex as its OT counter-part—partly due to the existence of codices, which represented a tremen-dous innovation in terms of practicality. When discussing the emergence of a canon of the NT church, the primary evidence needs to come from the NT itself. Jesus himself builds his message solidly upon OT law, as can be seen in the famous phrase “you have heard that it was said . . . but I say” (Matt 5:33-34, 38-39, 43-44). In John 10:35 Jesus goes even further, stating that Scripture (graphē) cannot be “broken” (RSV, NIV, NKJV), which logically would require its binding authority. Other early Christian writings utilize Jesus’ commands to argue for the permanence of the marital bond (1 Cor 7:10-11). Specific teachings are based upon the command of Jesus (1 Cor 9:14 [gospel-worker sustenance]; 1 Cor 11:17, 23 [Lord’s Supper]; and 1 Tim 5:17-18 [remuneration of elders]).

Paul develops the concept of the inspiration of Scripture further, including not only the known and established OT canon but also the texts of the new Christian church (2 Tim 3:16; Heb 1:1-2). It is clear that, for the NT writers, the canonicity (binding authority) of their written works is rooted in their inspiration. Second Peter 1:21 emphasizes the process not as “man-made” but rather as “God-moved.” However, most references allude directly to the spoken word, not necessarily to the written record. Luke’s introduction to his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4) refers to the perceived need to have an authoritative written record of the acts, sayings, and message of Jesus to witness in an environment that quickly spurned apocryphal “holy” writings. Beside the authoritative historical record of Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection (the Gospels), the early church soon included other writings as trustworthy. In 2 Peter 3:15-16 the apostle includes the writings of Paul (without being specific) as those inspired by the wisdom that God gave him, thus giving them credibility.

Evidence in the early church fathers suggests that by the close of the first and the beginning of the second, century A.D., there existed a collection of written Christian documents that enjoyed authoritative status. Table 2 illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers.

Canonization: Criteria and process

Gerald A. Klingbeil

Thus far, the canon of both OT and NT has been described in historical terms, i.e., by looking at historical witnesses documenting the process of canonization. These witnesses included the OT or the NT writings them-selves, evidence of the versions, apocryphal and pseudepigraphical books, church fathers, heretics, and also different lists. It was more descriptive than analytical or theological.

Defining valid criteria for the process of canonization is not an easy task. Modern scholarship emphasizes considerably the sociological factor, whereby the religious community determines, to a certain degree, what is holy and authoritative. Additional factors include (1) Prophetic origin; (2) authorship (i.e., the author had to be known); (3) in the case of the NT, apostolicity; (4) antiquity; (5) orthodoxy (i.e., congruence with what has already been revealed); and (6) inspiration.

Clearly, a high view of revelation and inspiration does not provide much space for a sociological interpretation of the process of canonization. Thus, it appears that, while the concept of the reception and acceptance of the authoritative books in a specific historical context is important, it was not the decisive factor in the process of canonization. Rather, it

seems that the most decisive criterion considered by both the OT Hebrew/ Jewish community and the NT Christian community for their acceptance of the canon was the concept of inspiration. Those writings which were inspired, which included a “Thus says the Lord” and which had proven their inspiration to their contemporaries, were, therefore, included. In this scenario it is not the church or a religious community that makes a text canonical but rather the content and origin of the writing, which, in turn, is recognized and accepted by the church. Clearly, the internal testimony of the religious text cannot contradict earlier revelations of God’s will; and, in most cases, the person connected to the writing had to be recognized.

It seems that by the fourth century B.C., the OT canon had been closed, since contemporary intertestamental and Jewish writings do not regard later literature as “worthy” of being counted among the inspired books of the OT. Ezra and Nehemiah (Ezra 7:10; Neh 8:2-8) did play an important role in popularizing the authoritative collection before the people, but they definitely did not “canonize” the OT.

In modern critical scholarship, the supposed second-century B.C. dating of Daniel has been used as an argument for a late formation of the canon. Since there are sufficient excellent arguments in favor of the authentic sixth century B.C. date for the writing of this book, the canonical question involving the “Writings” is not conclusive. The upsurge of apocryphal and pseudepigraphical writings during the intertestamental period bears indirect evidence to the Jewish notion of the closed canon, since it illustrates the concept that, in order for a new work to be accepted as authoritative, it had to be attributed to an already recognized biblical author.

In NT times, both the first and the last book of the Jewish canon are cited by Jesus in a sweeping and important reference to martyrs of the faith (Matt 23:35). Jesus also seems to have been aware of the tripartite division of the Jewish canon, which he utilized to indicate the whole. The rabbinical discussion at Jamnia did not codify a canon; rather, it discussed several books that were challenged from some quarters within Judaism.

In regard to the NT canon, it appears that the closed canon of the OT played an important role in the formation of the NT canon. Modern scholarship opts for a late closing of the canon, relying more on historical or sociological necessities, such as the theological challenges in the turbulent third and fourth centuries A.D., rather than on internal evidence. The single most important factor for canonization—already seen in the case of the OT—is the inspiration of the writings. God is speaking through prophets or through apostles. This provides the authenticity of texts in the community of the church. In addition, the definition of the closing of the NT canon also depends upon the dating of certain books. A closed canon at the end of the second century A.D. can be postulated from the traditional dating of the Muratorian fragment. After the theological struggles of the third century A.D., the fourth century witnessed the official recognition of the already accomplished fact that went hand in hand with the official recognition of the church by the Roman authorities and the church’s new role as state church.

Canonical Criticism

Recent decades have generated a tremendous interest in the so-called canonical criticism. Its goal is to focus upon the biblical text in its final form. Canonical criticism is not a monolithic block, but represents a tremendous variety of methods. Instead of focusing upon individuals it focuses upon the communities that shaped the reception of these writings. It wants to see how the religious community (whether Judaism or the Christian church) handled different interpretations and pressures before reaching an agreed upon authoritative canon. This is obviously an interesting question, and its historical study might provide some clues for challenges to the twenty-first century church. However, it misses the basic ingredient of canonization, i.e., the inspired nature of Scripture. By focusing upon the communities that generated these “inspired” writings, inspiration resides in the community, rather than in an author. This is not the biblical model that regularly focuses upon the individual (Heb 1:1) and the response of that individual to God’s call for service (Isa 6:1-8).

The Canon-within-the-Canon Concept

The “canon-within-the-canon” concept is another important development in the theological reflection about the canon. It suggests that, for specific circumstances or a specific point in time or even a specific religious community, some books are to be valued higher than others. After all, even Martin Luther referred to the book of James as the “straw epistle” The “canon-within-the-canon” concept has also been called the “christological principle.”

The question is, Would it not be acceptable to define a nucleus of books within the accepted canon that contains the most essential and important content? Another metaphor often utilized in this context—and also often seen in recent Adventist publications—is the reference to core points of belief. Core and periphery are two poles also visible in the discussion of the canon within the canon. We observe that the idea of the canon within the canon is closely connected to content criticism. Obviously, it requires an evaluation on the methodological level. By criticizing the content of biblical books, the critic, whether scholar or lay person, actually makes himself the measure of truth, not vice versa. This may be postmodern wisdom, but it is definitely not based upon biblical theology.

Some parts of the New Testament [or the OT] may continually wield greater influence because they are longer and more comprehensive. But to raise pragmatic pastoral choices and the accidents of composition to the obligation to relativize the canon is to deny that there is a canon that must stand as the test of our pastoral choices.¹⁴

The “canon-within-the-canon” concept is actually one side of a tendency to question the validity of the concept of normative authority. Since it does not appear to change the content of the canon outwardly, it is the more dangerous one. On the other hand, it encourages the tendency to expand the canon and include apocryphal or other contemporary religious writings into the accepted canon.

Some interpreters want to distinguish between the NT and the OT in terms of the “canon within the canon,” whereby the NT “obviously” holds the higher authority. But here an important theological principle is at stake. Different levels of inspiration do not exist—at least not according to Scripture. To facilitate the “canon within the canon,” one must assign different levels of inspiration. The only alternative, albeit not as sound in terms of its methodology, would be an arbitrary selection based upon personal preference. Truly, the very idea of a normative and authoritative canon speaks against such a concept.

Establishing the Biblical Text—Textual Criticism

Textual Criticism is an essential ingredient of exegesis, because it provides the textual basis needed for an adequate interpretation and for theology. Generally, however, it is the least noticed and least understood sub-discipline of biblical studies since it does not occupy the “frontrow” of new theological methods or insights. God’s Spirit not only inspired the authors of His Word in ancient times but also saw to it that the transmission of the inspired Word was done in a faithful manner. Both rabbinical instructions and material evidence from Qumran suggest that the transmission process was indeed a holy affair, done with great care and under supervision. Jewish regulations included the type of material used, the size of the columns, the type of ink used, the space requirements between letters and words, and the religious fitness of the copying scribe.

However, there is another important aspect in thinking about the transmission of Scripture: God not only inspired His prophets to write down His message on planet earth, He also guarded the overall process of transmission of his Word (Ps 12:6-7; Rev 22:19, 1SM 15). Nevertheless, both Scripture itself (Acts 7:16, c.f. Gen 23:8; 33:19; Matt 27:9) and Ellen G. White (1SM 16) provide for possible errors of copying and transmission.

It is here that Textual Criticism provides relevant tools to discover possible errors in the transmission process and to identify these errors, thus establishing the most reliable wording of the biblical text. Such errors, however, do not involve doctrinal issues but usually only numbers, names, or places. We must keep in mind the relevant proportions. Only about ten percent of the Hebrew text of the standard edition includes some textual note. Thus, ninety percent of the text stands unquestioned, and even the ten percent with some textual uncertainty does not significantly alter the meaning of the text and not at all the doctrines of Scripture. The following working definition provides a convenient point of departure in order to understand and appreciate the task of Textual Criticism: Textual criticism seeks to establish the most reliable wording of the biblical text by applying specific principles, comparing the most ancient manuscripts and extant versions.

Textual Criticism deals primarily with the transmission of the biblical text and is not an appropriate tool to discover the origin or alleged later redaction (or edition) of any given biblical text, a trend that has become fashionable in recent studies in Textual Criticism.

Ancient texts did not come down to us in printed or digital forms, but for more than 3000 years scribes had to manually copy and re-copy from earlier copies. While it is common to find errors in modern printed material which has been proofread and digitally checked and re-checked many times, the transmission of ancient texts depended entirely upon sound criteria, concentration, and the ability of ancient scribes. It is clear that even these extraordinary scholars occasionally failed, resulting in textual errors in subsequent copies. Often, when the next scribe copied the faulty text, he tried to correct the earlier error, which sometimes resulted in even more confusion.

On the surface, such scribal variations would seem to raise significant challenges, for, after all, the sacred message is involved. In almost every case, however, alternative readings introduce few questions into the actual message being transmitted. The theology involved stands above what are described as minor scribal errors, because the major doctrines of the Bible rest on a broad sweep of teachings.

With respect to sources, the Bible comes to us better attested than any other ancient writings. In most cases we have multiple sources from which to draw, each of which has its limitations, but, in the aggregate, they provide strong evidence for their reliability. For the OT, the Masoretic Text is our most important witness in Hebrew. Discovery of the famous Dead Sea Scrolls has cast new light on how the Scriptures were regarded and preserved. In the main, these texts, some 1000 years older than our other biblical textual sources, confirm both the reading of the traditional Hebrew text and the intensity of efforts to preserve the sacred books intact. Other manuscript sources include the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Septuagint (LXX), and various commentaries and references by later writers. For the NT our sources are relatively abundant, with thousands of manuscripts, some of which are of great antiquity. Among the papyri fragments are a few documents that were produced within a single generation of the time the biblical books were first written. Ancient translations and quotations from early Christian writers provide more sources.

While we cannot here explore the technical methods used to ascertain the correct reading of the original writings, this useful process has become a refined science as well as something of an art. In brief, we can affirm the reliability of the biblical text upon which the translations are based. Because every translation comes with a built-in point of view, consulting several translations helps us grasp the original intention of the Bible writer. We will be wise, however, to select translations that adhere closely to the actual readings of the manuscript sources, being wary of building theological understandings on loose translations that incorporate significant adaptations into their work in an effort to popularize the Bible.

Conclusion

The Seventh-day Adventist understanding of the canon and of the text is based upon a clear understanding of inspiration. The same Holy Spirit who inspired authors in different time periods, in different historical contexts also has remained actively involved in the conservation and transmission of Scripture. One of the main features of the biblical canon is the self-authenticating nature of the texts, since they were “inspired.” As indicated earlier, canonization is not a sociological phenomenon, but a historical affirmation of the authority and “God-breathed” nature of Scripture. Apparently, by the end of the fifth century B.C., the OT canon had been widely determined, with only a few books still being discussed in Jewish circles. Jesus and the apostles understood Scripture as the definite collection witnessed to, and known from, Judaism of the period. The early church adopted the scriptural concept of Judaism and formulated a canon, as well. In general, this process was completed by the second century A.D., although continued discussion surfaces in patristic writings. Canon, as well as Scripture itself, is not based upon tradition but rather upon God’s authoritative speaking and preserving.

Once the limits of the canon have been recognized, the transmission process of Scripture needs to be understood. In order to appreciate the tremendous endeavor of copying the Bible by hand during 2,500 years prior to Gutenberg’s invention of the moveable type press in A.D. 1456, we need to understand the office of the copyist/scribe, the possibility of errors, the nature of the languages employed, and the history of the text and its versions.

Today, even laymen, without access to the original languages, can take advantage of a variety of aids at their disposal, ranging from translations and Bible dictionaries to commentaries written by specialists and other published sources. As always when using such aids, the reader must remain sensitive to the preferences, opinions, and even biases of those who prepared these works. In order for the modern readers to have access to the message of God, it is necessary to approach His Word with respect and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The importance of working more seriously and closely with God’s Word was already pinpointed by Isaiah, who declared, “So is my word that goes out from my mouth; it will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it” (Isa 55:11, NIV).

References

¹ Altogether kanōn appears 4 times in the NT, (Gal 6:16 and 2 Cor 10:13, 15, 16). In 2 Corinthians 10 it refers to an appointed sphere of ministry. See Linda

L. Belleville, “Canon of the New Testament,” in Foundations for Biblical Interpretation. A Complete Library of Tools and Resources, eds. David S. Dockery, Kenneth A. Mathews, and Robert B. Sloan (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1994), p. 375.

² He wrote, “Let us give up idle, vain considerations, and let us turn to the renowned and solemn standard (kanona) that has come down to us.” (1 Clement 7:2 in Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Apostolic Fathers [London: Independent Press, 1950], p. 52).

³ Clement of Alexandria The Stromata 6.15.125.

⁴ Belleville, p. 375, suggests that Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria around A.D. 353 was the first to use the term in the sense of distinguishing authentic Scripture from non-authentic. In A.D. 363 the synod of Laodicea was the first church council to employ the term to distinguish between “canonical” and “noncanonical” books.

⁵ The reference in Matthew 23:35 connects Abel, the first martyr, with Zechariah, the last martyr mentioned in the last book of the Jewish canon (2 Chron 24:20). Genesis and 2 Chronicles represent, according to the Jewish canon, the first and the last books of the canon.

⁶ The table is based upon Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, A Survey of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), p. 21.

⁷ Apocryphal means “hidden” and denotes those books that appeared on the fringes of the canon of either the OT or the NT. A concise introduction to the OT Apocrypha can be found in James H. Charlesworth, “Old Testament Apocrypha,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman, Gary A. Herion, David F. Graf et al., 6 vols. (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1:292-294. Individual helpful studies can be found in George W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981).

⁸ Probably he was quoting Epimenides of Crete (Acts 17:28a; Tit 1:12) and Aratus of Cilicia (Acts 17:28b).

⁹ For example, the doctrine of purgatory has a convenient basis in Wisdom 3:1-6.

¹⁰ It was the bishop of Rome, Basil the Great (c. 330–379) who steered the official theology of the Catholic Church towards the position that “unwritten traditions of apostolic origin, not found in the Scriptures but preserved in the church, could be accepted as having divine authority.” (Peter M. van Bemmelen; “Revelation and Inspiration” in Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, ed. Raoul Dederen, Commentary Reference Series, vol. 12 [Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald, 2000], p. 47).

¹¹ John Van Engen, “Tradition,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids, MI/Carlisle: Baker Books/Paternoster Press, 1984), p. 1105.

¹² Daniel J. Harrington, “Introduction to the Canon,” in The New Interpreter’s Bible. Volume 1: General Articles, ed. Leander E. Keck, 12 vols. (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1994), 1:20.

¹³ J. W. Charly, “Roman Catholic Theology,” in New Dictionary of Theology, eds. Sinclair B. Ferguson and David F. Wright (Leicester/Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1988), p. 598.

¹⁴ D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduction to the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), p. 498.

Selected Bibliography

Beckwith, R. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church and its Background in Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1985.

Black, D. A. New Testament Textual Criticism. A Concise Guide. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994.

Brotzman, E. R. Old Testament Textual Criticism. A Practical Introduction. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1994.

Carson, D. A. and Woodbridge, J. D. Eds. Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon. Grand Rapids, MI/Carlisle, U.K.: Baker Books/Paternoster Press, 1995.

Hasel, G. F. “Divine Inspiration and the Canon of the Bible.” Journal of the Adventist Theological Society 5.1 (1994): 68-105.

Jobes, K. H. and M. Silva. Invitation to the Septuagint. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2000.

Maier, G. Biblical Hermeneutics. Transl. by R. W. Yarbrough. Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1994.

McDonald, L. M. The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. 2d rev. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995.

Metzger, B. M. The Canon of the New Testament. Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford, U.K.: Clarendon Press, 1987.

Oswalt, J. N. “Canonical Criticism: A Review from a Conservative Viewpoint.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 30 (1987): 317-325.

Tov, E. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2d rev. ed. Minneapolis/Assen: Fortress Press/Royal Van Gorcum, 2001.

Ulrich, E. The Dead Sea Scrolls and Origins of the Bible. Studies in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature. Grand Rapids, MI/Leiden: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company/Brill Academic Publishers, 1999.

Waltke, B. K. “Textual Criticism of the Old Testament and Its Relation to Exegesis and Theology.” In New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. W. A. VanGemeren. 5 vols., 1:51-67. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1997.

Würthwein, E. The Text of the Old Testament. 2d rev. ed. Transl. by E. F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.