How 2 Peter Made It into the Bible The story of how the most doubted book in the New Testament was recognized as canonical Darian R. LockettThe issue of 2 Peter’s inclusion into the New Testament canon is of particular interest. More than any other New Testament text, 2 Peter’s authorship and authenticity have been questioned. This is true not only in the modern period (modern critical scholarship almost uniformly deems 2 Peter as written under a false name or pseudonymous), but concerns over the authorship and thus authenticity of 2 Peter reach back to the early church as well. More than any other New Testament text, 2 Peter’s authorship and authenticity have been questioned. The central issues are a lack of citation by early church fathers and the stylistic and literary difference between 1 Peter and 2 Peter combined with the significant literary similarities between 2 Peter and Jude—such that some argue 2 Peter should actually be called 2 Jude! Authorship Problems for 2 Peter Vocabulary and Style Though the authorship of 2 Peter has been disputed from the earliest years of the church, it is only since the beginning of the twentieth century that the scholarly consensus has deemed the letter pseudepigraphal. Both ancient and modern interpreters have noted the sharp differences between 1 Peter and 2 Peter in style and vocabulary. For many, the two letters contain such discrepancies in vocabulary and style that they cannot share the same author. For example, with respect to vocabulary, 2 Peter contains fifty-seven words occurring only once in the New Testament (known as hapax legomena), the largest percentage of any writing in the New Testament. Only twenty-five of these occur in the Greek translation of the Old Testament. This means that 2 Peter uses many words (thirty-two) that do not appear in any other biblical text. Because 1 Peter does not have near the number of nonbiblical terms, many have drawn the conclusion that this is evidence that 2 Peter could not have been written by the same author as 1 Peter. The two letters are also different with respect to style. Unlike 1 Peter, the Greek of 2 Peter is more complicated, repetitive, and somewhat grandiose. Interpreters as early as Jerome noted the stylistic differences: “He [Peter] wrote two epistles, which are called Catholic, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him” (Lives of Illustrious Men 1). Use of the Old Testament Beyond vocabulary and style, perhaps more significantly the two letters differ in their use of the Old Testament. First Peter is heavily dependent on the Old Testament, either citing or alluding to the Old Testament some forty-six times. Second Peter, on the other hand, seems to hardly use the Old Testament at all, perhaps containing as few as five references.1 Many argue that 2 Peter alludes to the Old Testament only five times: Is 52:5 in 2 Pet 2:2; Prov 26:11 in 2 Pet 2:22; Ps 90:43 in 2 Pet 3:8; Is 34:4 in 2 Pet 3:12; and Is 65:17 in 2 Pet 3:13. See Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 138. However, references to the Old Testament might not be as sparse as some note. This difference might be more significant than style or vocabulary because it could indicate different conclusions regarding the authority and theological place of the Old Testament. However, it is possible that scholars have overemphasized 2 Peter’s lack of references to the Old Testament on account of how they track such references. A Traditional Explanation A traditional argument accounting for many of these differences, which finds its roots in the early church, is Jerome’s argument that the one author (Peter) used two different secretaries. Yet, in order to account for the differences between the letters, one would have to assume that rather than merely taking down dictation, the secretary would be given a degree of freedom to compose all or part of the letter. In other words, one, or both, of the letters could have been composed by a secretary, with Peter approving the end product at some point in the process (see Cicero, Letter to Atticus 11.5, for an ancient example). RelatedRevelation’s Place in the Greek BibleClark R. BatesOur Year in ReviewPeter J. GurryThe Pseudepigrapha of Second Temple JudaismDaniel M. Gurtner Evidence for Canonicity 2 Peter’s Own Testimony The internal evidence of the letter suggests Petrine authorship. The letter opens by naming its author as “Simeon Peter” (Symeōn Petros, 2 Pet 1:1) which uses the Aramaic form of Simon. This could indicate a Palestinian setting for the letter (James calls Peter “Simeon” in another Palestinian setting, Acts 15:14) and thus may support the authenticity of Petrine authorship. It might be assumed that a forger would either copy more closely the opening to 1 Peter or use the more common spelling of Simon. Furthermore, the author claims to be an eyewitness of the transfiguration (2 Pet 1:16–18) and refers to Paul as a “dear brother” (3:15). The Church Fathers’ Testimony External evidence, though thinner than for other New Testament letters, offers a mixed portrait of the letter. Second Peter is not included in the Muratorian Fragment which is often seen as an early witness to the New Testament canon. One should note, however, that the Fragment is incomplete and also omits 1 Peter among other texts and thus is not definitive. There are strong similarities between 2 Peter and 1–2 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas (early writings of the apostolic fathers). These similarities could be understood to indicate that the author of 2 Peter used these texts, or, quite the opposite, that these apostolic fathers use 2 Peter as their source. Definitively settling the direction of dependence is likely impossible, but for some this is an indication that 2 Peter was used early on by these early Christian writings. The first unambiguous citation of 2 Peter by name comes to us from Origen. The first unambiguous citation of 2 Peter by name comes to us from Origen (c. 182–251) who quotes the letter six times. Origen notes that some had doubts about the letter, saying, “Peter has left behind one acknowledged epistle, and perhaps a second; for it is questioned” (Eusebius, Hist. eccl. 6.25.11). But it seems that he still considered the letter on par with the authority of 1 Peter (Origen, Hom. In Josh. 7.1). Therefore, in Origen’s estimation the doubts of some which he registers were not serious enough in the end for him to question 2 Peter’s membership in the canon. How much earlier than Origen 2 Peter was known is hard to determine with confidence. Though it is disputed, some argue that the phrase “with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one date” (2 Pet 3:8) is used in Irenaeus (c. 130–200) and that the passage in Irenaeus (Haer. 5.23.2) is closer to 2 Pet 3:8 than to Ps 90:4 (LXX). Also disputed is the claim recorded in Eusebius that Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215) cited 2 Pet 2:19 and wrote a commentary on the letter (in his Hypotyposeis) that is now lost (Hist. eccl. 6.14.1). Furthermore, Justin Martyr (c. 115–165) calls attention to both “false prophets” and “false teachers” in a single passage (Dialogue with Trypho 82.1) which is strikingly similar to 2 Pet 2:1. After the time of Origen, Eusebius (c. 265–339) also registers doubts regarding 2 Peter, noting that the letter was not quoted by the “ancient presbyters” (Hist. eccl. 3.3.1). Furthermore, he lists 2 Peter, along with James, 2–3 John, and Jude, among the “disputed books” (antilegomenoi) yet at the same time acknowledges that these books were “nevertheless … known to most” (Hist. eccl. 3.25.1–4). Church Fathers coming after Origen, including Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianus, and Augustine, all acknowledged the canonical status of 2 Peter. Testimony from Canon Lists Furthermore, in several canon lists, 2 Peter was uniformly named along with the seven Catholic Epistles (James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, and Jude). About fifty years after Eusebius, Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 350) notes, “Receive . . . these the seven Catholic Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude” (Catechesis 4.36).2E. L. Gallagher and J. D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 115. In the Synod of Laodicea (363), each of the Catholic Epistles were listed by name and placed after the four Gospels and Acts and before the Pauline letters. Athanasius’s Easter Letter (367) lists the “Acts of the Apostles and seven letters, called Catholic . . . one by James, two by Peter, then three by John, and after these, one by Jude”(Festal Letters 39.5).3Gallagher and Meade, Biblical Canon, 123. Roughly thirteen years after Athanasius, Amphilochius (c. 380) registers some doubt as he notes: “Of the Catholic Epistles some say we must receive seven, but others say only three should be received—that of James, one, and one of Peter, and those of John, one. And some receive three [of John], and besides these two of Peter and that of Jude a seventh” (Iambi ad Seleucum).4See Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 314. Manuscript Evidence In addition to its mostly uniform inclusion in the canon lists of the fourth century and beyond, 2 Peter was found in several early New Testament manuscripts. P72 (the Bodmer papyrus) is a third or early fourth-century papyrus codex containing the oldest complete text of Jude and 1–2 Peter along with several other ancient Christian texts. The unusual collection of texts suggest that the manuscript was possibly for private use (rather than for reading in the church). The major majuscule codices of the fourth and fifth century combine Acts and the Catholic Epistles into what’s called the Praxapostolos and place it either before (Vaticanus, 4th c. and Alexandrinus 5th c.) or after (Sinaiticus 4th c.) the Pauline corpus. All three of these majuscules include 2 Peter in the Catholic Epistles. Precisely because of its added scrutiny, 2 Peter should be given every confidence as Scripture now. Reason for Confidence Despite the misgivings of some, by the fourth century, 2 Peter was consistently included in the New Testament canon alongside 1 Peter. Though it faced some of the most serious difficulties in its journey into the canon, one might argue that, precisely because of its added scrutiny by early believers, the fact that it was eventually accepted into the canon means it should be given every confidence as Scripture now.Notes1 Many argue that 2 Peter alludes to the Old Testament only five times: Is 52:5 in 2 Pet 2:2; Prov 26:11 in 2 Pet 2:22; Ps 90:43 in 2 Pet 3:8; Is 34:4 in 2 Pet 3:12; and Is 65:17 in 2 Pet 3:13. See Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, WBC (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2003), 138. However, references to the Old Testament might not be as sparse as some note. 2E. L. Gallagher and J. D. Meade, The Biblical Canon Lists from Early Christianity: Texts and Analysis (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 115.3Gallagher and Meade, Biblical Canon, 123.4See Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997), 314.
The Pseudepigrapha of Second Temple Judaism A consideration of Jewish Pseudepigrapha raises the question whether the New Testament contains books written under a false name. Daniel M. GurtnerAt the time the New Testament was written, there were quite a few writings from ancient Judaism in circulation. The most obscure of these is the so-called “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.” The designation “pseudepigrapha” is unfortunate, since it misrepresents what many of these texts are about in several ways. The English word “pseudepigrapha” (sing. pseudepigraphon) is the transliteration of a Greek term that refers to “falsely attributed writing,” from pseudēs (“false”) and epigraphē (“inscription, superscription”). It is often used to designate works falsely related to or even attributed to prominent individuals in the Old Testament. But these points require some clarification. First, the idea of falsehood suggests some level of deceit and thus falsely attributes negative connotations to the very nature of the writing. Second, some works within this category are not identified with a particular individual at all, including with respect to authorship. Third, putting all these writings into a single category may suggest some kind of uniformity between them. Yet unlike other writings, the texts typically identified as pseudepigrapha, even those originating from the Second Temple Period, are not attested as collections in single manuscripts. Also, nearly all the documents in question are preserved exclusively in Christian traditions. In reality, the expression “Old Testament Pseudepigrapha,” then, is a “bucket” category into which documents are often lumped when they do not clearly fit into any others. To begin to understand these documents, then, we must give careful attention to the practice of pseudepigraphy in antiquity in order to gain an appreciation for the cultural phenomena at play. Understanding the Nature of Pseudepigraphy Dr. Gurtner’s recent book introduces the Jewish Pseudepigrapha Why would someone write in the name of someone else? This seems strange to us, since we are used to journalistic-type writing on the one hand, or Stephen King novels where the author has become a cultural celebrity on the other. Yet recall that Mary Ann Evans wrote as George Eliot, and even Benjamin Franklin in his youth wrote as “Silence Dogood,” among several other pen names he used throughout his career. Authors ancient and modern may have a variety of reasons for using such pen names. In antiquity, some libraries, such as the famous Alexandrian library, collected works of well-known writers. Therefore one may write in another’s name to gain a place among well-known writers. This could be done to get a hearing for one’s own views or draw the circumstances of the ancient figure into the context of the real author’s setting. So, for example, the author of 4 Ezra draws from the biblical Ezra. The book of Ezra is set in a context of the return from exile and reconstitution of the temple. Fourth Ezra, drawing from Ezra’s narrative setting, is set after the destruction of the Herodian temple in AD 70, and the similarities between the biblical setting and that of the later author caused the latter to utilize the former in his message. In some instances, the genre of a work may influence the figure to whom it is attributed. Wisdom material would be attributed to Solomon, hymnic writings to David, and legal matters to Moses, etc. In the ancient world, pseudonymity received a mixed reception. In some circles writing in one’s own name may have been perceived as unethical, whereas writing in the name of another is a more modest way of expressing one’s indebtedness to a tradition. The ancient figure serves to lend credence to the views espoused in his name. Among Jews, works written in the name of an esteemed figure are intended to elaborate upon him in some sense—his life, his significance, or some particular about his Jewish piety—and thus attributed to him. In this rubric, texts expand upon traditions associated with their seminal figure. Thus the ancient figure serves to lend credence to the views espoused in his name. The Major Types of Pseudepigraphy There is little agreement about which books are included among the so-called Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, even among published collections. Almost all of them were preserved and hand-copied by Christians, while others are written by Christians in the first place. Here we can limit our overview to a selection of documents that are (1) widely agreed to be Jewish in origin and are still Jewish in their present form, and (2) date from around the time of the New Testament, or at least prior to the end of the Second Jewish Revolt against Rome (AD 135). Apocalypse The most widely attested genre among the Pseudepigrapha is the apocalypse, which typically depicts the reception of some divine disclosure to a person—typically a famous figure from the Hebrew Bible—alongside its interpretation by a heavenly figure such as an angel. First Enoch is a collection of five originally independent writings dating from the fourth century BC to the first century AD As a whole, 1 Enoch represents the oldest of three works associated with the biblical Enoch, the seventh from Adam (Gen. 5:21–24). Second Baruch is an ancient apocalypse featuring Baruch, the scribe of Jeremiah, who is called from his role as companion and secretary to the prophet (Jer. 36:4–10, 26, 32) and placed as a nobleman (Jer. 21:12; 43:2–3; 51:59). In 2 Baruch he becomes recipient of a prophetic revelation, perhaps even successor to Jeremiah, who is an apocalyptic visionary and crucial leader of God’s people in a time of crisis. Like 4 Ezra, this work is written after the destruction of the temple in AD 70 and trying to process this inexplicable tragedy that befell the people of God. Testaments Testaments are drawn from accounts in which a revered figure, typically a father or leader, delivers a discourse in anticipation of his imminent death to his sons, his people, or his successor, similar to what one encounters in the Old Testament with Jacob (Gen. 49) and Moses (Deut. 33–34). The Testament of Moses is a farewell exhortation given to Joshua by Moses before the transfer of leadership of the people of Israel. The ending of the book has been lost, and it is generally assumed that Moses’ death was narrated at some point in the earlier text. The narrative is almost entirely attributed to Moses in the form of a prediction about Israel from their entrance into Canaan until the end of days. The Testament of Job is an embellishment of the biblical book of Job in which Job imparts wisdom to his progeny prior to his impending death with particular emphasis on the virtue of patient endurance. The Aramaic Levi Document is a testament-like text recounting the life story of the patriarch Levi. But the work gives particular attention to Levi’s establishment of the Levitical priesthood, long before the time of Aaron, and sacred laws for sacrifices that he received from his grandfather, Isaac. Related A 17th century icon of Enoch with Elijah in the Historic Museum in Sanok, Poland. Wikipedia The New Testament Use of Jewish PseudepigraphaWhy the New Testament authors sometimes drew on ancient literary works written under false names Daniel M. Gurtner Narratives A variety of narrative texts relating in various ways to the Hebrew Bible were written and preserved among Jews of the Second Temple period. For example, the Book of Jubilees is largely a retelling of the biblical books of Genesis and early parts of Exodus (chs. 1–24). It claims to have been dictated to Moses on Mount Sinai by the “angel of the Presence” (Jub. 1:29; 2:1) alongside the Law at his first ascent up the mountain (Exod. 24:12–18). The Letter of Aristeas is widely regarded as a fictitious accounting for the origins of the Greek translation of the Pentateuch from the Hebrew. Joseph and Aseneth is a fanciful tale of the patriarch Joseph and his Egyptian wife Aseneth, daughter of Potiphera, Priest of On (Gen. 41:45). It describes the repentance and conversion of the gentile Aseneth and her marriage to the pious Jew Joseph. Psalms The various expressions of religious piety among Second Temple Jews occasioned a large assortment of psalms, hymns, and prayers. Among the psalms preserved partially in Hebrew in in the Dead Sea Scrolls (11QPsa; 11Q5), there are six Psalms from the Second Temple period beyond the 150 collected in the Hebrew Bible (Psalms 151–155). A collection of eighteen pseudonymous hymns or poems, attributed to Solomon, are known as the Psalms of Solomon. In general, these convey a Jewish community’s response to persecution and a foreign invasion, likely in reference to the Romans in the first century BC. Pseudepigraphy and the New Testament When considering the pseudepigrapha and the question of canon many scholars think that early Christians adopted the mode of pseudepigraphy from Judaism. And so it is sometimes rather easily claimed, for example, that Paul did not really write the Pastoral Epistles (1–2 Timothy, Titus), but rather it was written by someone else who attributed it to Paul. In other words, they are pseudepigraphical. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: Yet a closer look raises serious objections: most importantly, one can readily recognize that in the pseudepigrapha described above there is little interest in the identity of the “real” author. The importance lies in the idea of the persona utilized by the author in the figure evoked from the Old Testament, and it seems that the identity of the actual authors and/or communities responsible for these documents are almost entirely lost to history. Yet with early Christians, authorship was exceedingly important; the authority of teachings and instructions given to Christian communities rested within the apostolic office. Already during the time of Paul there were those claiming to represent Paul in some sense (e.g., 2 Thess. 2:2). But Paul roundly rejects this (2 Thess. 2:3). Moreover, it is widely regarded that the early church beyond the New Testament likewise recognized the importance of actual authorship and its apostolic affinity, and so routinely rejected the authority of texts shown to be pseudonymous. If Christian communities rejected the practice of pseudepigraphy for its authoritative texts, it remains the case that the Jewish writings surveyed here are nevertheless helpful for understand the New Testament.
How Can You Know We Have the Right Books in the Bible? Any study of the canon must eventually ask how Christians know which books belong and which don’t. Michael J. KrugerEven a brief reflection on the nature of the Bible reveals that it is not like most other books. Rather than being written at (generally) the same time, in the same place, and by a single author, the Bible presents us with a diverse collection of books, authors, time periods, cultures, languages, and theological emphases, all gathered into a single, unified volume. Such a unique book raises some unique questions. Why should we think these particular books are the right ones? Why these 66 and no others? And how could Christians even know such a thing? Is it just a blind leap of faith? Here we come to one of the most fundamental aspects of the study of the canon—and one that is often overlooked—namely, whether Christians have sufficient grounds for knowing which books belong and which books do not. Now, I say this is an “overlooked” question precisely because most studies of the canon tend to be concerned with other matters. Typically, such studies have dealt with what we might call historical questions about the canon: when books were received, how long the canonical process took, and when it was finalized. And these are all important questions in their own right. Even so, the epistemological questions cannot be ignored. Merely cataloging when and how the canon developed does not tell us whether we have the right books. And if we have no basis for knowing whether we have the right books, then our confidence in biblical authority can quickly be shaken. So, let us consider three complementary attributes that all canonical books share—attributes which tell us that these books are given by God. Divine qualities If we want to ascertain whether a book is written by a particular human author, it would be natural to take what we know about that author—style, tendencies, personal characteristics—and look for those qualities in the text. We might say we are looking for the “marks” of that author. The same is true with a divine author. Theologians, from the earliest days of the Christian movement, have argued that God’s own qualities or “marks”—Latin indicia—should be evident in any book that ultimately comes from him. Examples of such qualities in God’s word would be beauty and excellency (Ps. 19:8; 119:103), power and efficacy (Ps. 119:50; Heb. 4:12–13), and unity and harmony (Num. 23:19; Titus 1:2: Heb. 6:18). Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: John Murray makes this precise argument: “If . . . Scripture is divine in its origin, character, and authority, it must bear the marks or evidences of that divinity.”1John Murray, “The Attestation of Scripture,” 22. In other words, through these divine qualities, Christians recognize the voice of their Lord in the Scriptures. As Jesus himself declared, “My sheep hear my voice, and I know them and they follow me” (John 10:27). At this point someone might object that this whole scheme sounds awfully subjective. “I don’t see these divine qualities,” he might say. “And if these qualities are really there, then why do so many people reject the Bible?” “Didn’t early Christians disagree to some extent over which books had these qualities?” But, the objection overlooks the point that not everyone can reliably recognize these spiritual qualities due to the noetic effects of sin (Rom. 3:10–18). Theologians have argued, therefore, that one must have the help of the Holy Spirit—the testimonium spiritus sancti internum—to rightly see the word of God for what it is. Thus—and this is an important point—the divine qualities of Scripture are not just the subjective creation of our minds. No, these qualities are really, objectively in the Scriptures. It’s just that one must have their eyes opened to see them. By way of illustration, one might say that the unbeliever is spiritually tone deaf. He thinks he can hear whether something is “on key,” or “off key.” And when he listens to God’s word, he definitively rejects it as “off key.” But, when he does so, he assumes the problem lies with the Scriptures and not his own hearing. On the contrary, the Scriptures themselves say the opposite: “The natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God . . . he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned” (1 Cor. 2:14). Corporate reception Even though a believer can ascertain whether a book is from God from the divine qualities of the book itself, that is not the only way to know whether a book belongs in the canon. We can also look to the way the church, as a whole, has responded to these books throughout the ages. Put differently, the testimony of the Holy Spirit doesn’t work just on an individual level, but primarily operates at a corporate level. And if the Spirit is at work among God’s people collectively, then we can look to the consensus of God’s people (both in the present and the past) as a reliable guide to which books are from him. As Herman Ridderbos argued, “Christ will establish and build his church by causing the church to accept just this canon and, by means of the assistance and witness of the Holy Spirit, to recognize it as his.”2Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1988), 37. RelatedWhy Are Protestant and Catholic Bibles Different?John D. MeadeDid Nicaea Really Create the Bible?John D. MeadeThe Bible Jesus ReadJohn D. Meade Now, a couple of clarifications are in order. First, saying the consensus of the church is a reliable guide to which books are canonical does not mean the church is infallible. No, we are merely saying the church reliably responds to the divine qualities of these books by the help of the Holy Spirit. Indeed, we might say that the divine qualities were so compelling, that, in some sense, these books imposed themselves on the church. Second, just because the Holy Spirit is at work in the church does not mean the church’s consensus around these books is instantaneous or absolute. Sometimes we have an overly “pristine” expectation about the way God works in the world, as if the Holy Spirit would produce immediate agreement around books within 72 hours of being written. But history is not typically so tidy. Just like any doctrine, sometimes there is disagreement. And it takes time to work things out. But, eventually, the church reached a consensus. By the first century, it seems there was a wide consensus on the Old Testament books, and by the fourth century, it seems there was a wide consensus on the New Testament books. Authoritative authors The third attribute that all canonical books share is that they are authored by God’s authoritative agents. After all, not just anyone could write a book from God. That individual has to be empowered by God’s Spirit to be his mouthpiece. Generally speaking, the Old Testament was regarded as being written by “prophets,” and the New Testament was regarded as being written by “apostles.” In fact, we see these two divine agents—prophets and apostles—pop up in a number of early Christian texts. For example, Peter calls his audience to listen to precisely these two sources: “Remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior through your apostles” (2 Pet. 3:2). We have good historical evidence (which cannot be explored here) that the books in our Bible can be traced either directly to apostles/prophets or at least to a historical situation where that book could reasonably retain the teachings of an apostle/prophet. For example, we accept the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) as from God because we believe Moses was the author. Likewise, we accept books like Romans and Galatians because we think the apostle Paul was the author. And we even accept anonymous books like Hebrews because we have good reasons to think the author received his information directly from apostles (Heb. 2:3–4; 13:23). Conclusion There are multiple ways, therefore, to know a book is from God. Some people may know by apprehending the divine qualities within a book. Others may know by looking to the consensus of God’s people through the ages. And others may know by considering the identity of the human authors themselves. It should also be observed that these three attributes are complementary and mutually reinforcing. If a book has one attribute, then it will have all three. For example, if a book is composed by a divinely inspired prophet, then it will certainly contain divine “marks” within it and will also (in due time) be recognized and received by God’s people by the power of the Holy Spirit. Thus, if we ever have doubts about one of these attributes (say, a book’s authorship), we have two other attributes that provide reassurance. In the end, we can have great confidence about the books in our biblical canon. Christians are not taking a blind leap of faith when we affirm that these are the right books. God has given us a way to know—indeed, multiple ways to know—that these books are from him. Notes1John Murray, “The Attestation of Scripture,” 22.2Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R, 1988), 37.
The Bible Jesus Read The Bible of Jesus’ day was not too different from the list of English translations available on your phone’s Bible app. John D. MeadeHave you ever wondered if the Bible you take down from your shelf, or pull up on BibleGateway.com, is the same as the Scriptures Jesus would have read? We tend to think of what Christians term the Old Testament as the Bible of the Jewish people, but are the 39 books of today’s Protestant Old Testament synonymous with what Jesus would have considered Scripture? And what would Jesus’ Bible-reading experience have been like? We’re used to having a wide choice of English Bible translations, so if we want to explore multiple interpretations of a given passage there are plenty of different editions to compare. What different versions of Scripture would have been available for Jesus to read? Looking at the first-century evidence, a mixed picture emerges. Jesus’ “Bible” (if we can call it that) may not have had an absolutely fixed list of books in the way that a modern English Bible does. However, the concept of multiple translations was already in evidence by the time of Jesus. He would have been familiar with a popular Greek translation of Hebrew Scripture commonly known as the Septuagint, which had already been around for a long time, as well as other Greek and even some Aramaic translations. We could say that Jesus’ Scriptures were like a modern Christian bookshop with its plethora of English translations, each for different purposes. While it is difficult to compare Jesus’ Bible with any one English version of our own day, we could say that Jesus’ Scriptures in their different Hebrew forms and Greek translations were perhaps like a modern Christian bookshop with its plethora of English translations, each for different purposes. What Books Were in Jesus’ Bible? The ancient Near East had many writings and scriptures, but we don’t have a surviving list of Bible books, or a table of contents naming the works of the Hebrew Scriptures from before the time of Jesus. We can look at this period only as through a glass dimly, with few clues. However, a good place to look for what clues there are is at Qumran, where the Dead Sea Scrolls were found. All the books that the Essenes—the Jewish sect which probably produced the scrolls—wrote commentaries on and cited as Scripture (with the words “it is written”) eventually became part of the Jewish canon. (There is one exception to this rule, a citation of a work known as Jubilees, which was very popular at Qumran if the many manuscript remains are any indication.) RelatedHow the Two Testaments Became One BibleMichael DormandyThe Jefferson Bible and the Faith of an American FounderThomas S. KiddThe Bible in the Language of JesusPhilip M. Forness Philo of Alexandria, a Jewish philosopher who died in about AD 40, cited as Scripture the books from Genesis to Deuteronomy (the Pentateuch) as well as other texts that we would recognize from our modern Old Testaments, but he did not provide us with anything like a list of books. The closest statement to this effect from around the time of Jesus comes from the Jewish historian Josephus, who died in around AD 100. Although he doesn’t name the books, he tells us that Jews have only 22 books that are rightly trusted: five books of Moses, 13 books of prophets, and four remaining books of hymns and instructions for life. Although researchers debate the identity of some of these books, Josephus describes a closed canon and claims it had been so for some time (you can read this in his book Against Apion 1.37–42). His 22 books reflect early numbering where several individual books now in the English Old Testament are counted as one. For example, at the time of Jesus, the twelve Minor Prophets were thought of as one book or scroll. However, perhaps the best witness to the books that Jesus would have considered Scripture is the New Testament, which cites and quotes the Torah (the first five books of the Old Testament), many books of the former and latter Prophets, Job, Psalms and Proverbs. The New Testament authors do not cite as Scripture books outside of the Jewish canon but neither do they cite every book of the Jewish canon. By the second century, when early Christians began to list their books, they included only the books of the Jewish Scriptures. Along with the great majority of Jews, Jesus would have had a more or less closed set of Scriptures that mirrors our own. So we can see from this that Josephus was probably right in saying that by the time of his writing every Jew had long considered the 22 books to be divinely inspired. The evidence indicates that some Jews held as Scripture the texts eventually named and listed in the second century, but not all Jews agreed on the status of every book. Along with the great majority of Jews, Jesus would have had a more or less closed set of Scriptures that mirrors our own. It would have included the core books—the Torah, the prophets, the Psalter—but it’s difficult to say what he would have thought about the books at the edges of the canon (such as Esther, Song of Songs, and Ecclesiastes). What Versions Did Jesus Read? By Jesus’ day, the Hebrew Scriptures would have long been completed, and ancient scribes would have already copied them seemingly countless times. In the first century they would have been translated into Greek, and those early Greek translations would have been in the process of revision. We know for certain that the Scriptures were in at least three languages in the Judaea of Jesus’ day. The Dead Sea Scrolls reflect this reality with their Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscript remains. Jesus and his Apostles, therefore, lived in a time when the textual situation was quite complex. Hebrew Manuscripts The textual history of the Hebrew Bible on the whole shows remarkable care and preservation—but not uniformity. The Hebrew text that became the source for the Medieval manuscripts on which our modern Old Testaments are based—known as the Masoretic Text—was the dominant but not the exclusive form before and after the time of Jesus. Other textual forms existed at the time of Jesus, since some scribes copied that dominant text in freer and more creative ways for different purposes. For example, by the time of Jesus, there was a revision of the Hebrew Torah now known as the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP). In John 4:20, Jesus meets a Samaritan woman at a well and they discuss the difference between Jewish religion and Samaritan religion. She tells Jesus, “Our fathers worshipped on this mountain [Mount. Gerizim]” indicating that she must have been familiar with Samaritan scriptures that located the altar for worship on Mount Gerizim (SP Exod. 20:17). Likewise, she knew that the Jewish Scriptures located the place of worship on Mount Zion in Jerusalem (for example Ps. 132:13). Greek Translations In about 280 BC, around the time that the Samaritan Pentateuch was being produced, Jews in Alexandria were engaged in an innovative Greek translation of the Hebrew Torah, commonly called the Septuagint. After the translation of the Torah the Jews had rendered the rest of their Scriptures into Greek by around 100 BC, with some books such as Esther and Ecclesiastes being translated slightly later. Copies of these translations probably made their way to Qumran in the first century BC as we have evidence of Greek manuscript remains of Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy there. Related Illustration by Jordan Daniel Singer The Legacy of the First Revised Bible TranslationsThe modern impulse to get the Bible right in translation has its roots in the Jews who revised the Septuagint. John D. Meade Then the picture becomes more complex, because also in the first century BC some Jews began a tradition of revising older Greek translations to reflect better their interpretation of the Hebrew and to ensure their translations better accorded with the carefully copied Masoretic Text, which was by then the dominant version. A significant scroll of the Minor Prophets was found at Naḥal Ḥever, a cave in the Judaean desert, which exhibits characteristics of revision. Members of this movement for revision, called the kaige tradition, revisited previously existing translations and also produced some new ones, such as Ecclesiastes. What this shows us is that Jews before and around the time of Jesus and the Apostles were revising the older Greek translations and thus creating a complex of Greek versions that are quoted in the books of the New Testament. In this context, some quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament reflect both the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Septuagint (for example Ps. 32:1–2 in Rom. 4:7–8). In other places, the New Testament reflects the Septuagint and not the Hebrew (for example Isa. 1:9 in Rom. 9:29). However the New Testament authors clearly did not consider themselves bound to follow any specific translation, and at times either offer their own translation of the Hebrew (for example Hos. 11:1 in Matt. 2:15) or quote a revision of the Septuagint (Isa. 25:8 in 1 Cor. 15:54). What Did Jesus’ Bible Look Like? Jesus’ “Bible” probably mirrored the Jewish Scriptures, with some dispute over books such as Esther. The question of whether he and his followers read the text in Hebrew or Greek (Luke 4:17–19) is not straightforward. What does seem clear from the evidence is that, alongside the Septuagint, various translations of the dominant Hebrew text as well as revisions of older Greek translations would have been available. Jesus’ Scriptures probably resembled a Christian bookshop or the list of English translations available on a Bible app. Jesus’ Scriptures in their various texts and translations probably resembled a Christian bookshop or the list of English translations available on a Bible app. The Jews had a central, carefully copied Hebrew text that had been adapted in Hebrew manuscripts for different audiences and purposes, and they also had Greek translators conveying its meaning. Jesus’ experience of reading the Scriptures, while perhaps very different from our own in terms of the technology and language, would have had much in common. Opening up a scroll, he would see a text faithfully passed through careful traditions and scribes, not so different from the Bibles in our hands today. This article was originally published in Ink magazine.