Chapter 6: The Text and the Canon of Scripture (Gerald A. Klingbeil) Flashcards
Communication requires __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_ to be effective; therefore, to “hear” God, __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_ are needed. The only way to transmit God’s message throughout the ages has been __(?)_\_.
Communication requires a medium and a channel to be effective; therefore, to “hear” God, a medium and a transmission channel are needed. 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 __(?)_\_.
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 limits must first be established and then interpreted.
The canon of Scripture cannot be disconnected from questions of __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_, which, in turn, relate to our understanding of __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_.
The canon of Scripture cannot be disconnected from questions of authority and normativity, which, in turn, relate to our understanding of revelation and inspiration.
…it seems clear that the OT and the NT books were __(?)_\_. Their authority rests not upon the fact that someone, whether an important individual or an ecclesiastical authority, included them in the canon but that __(?)_\_.
…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.
The English word “canon” is derived from the Greek term kanōn, meaning __(?)_\_, which, in turn, is connected to the Hebrew noun qāneh, “__(?)_\_” (1 Kings 14:15; Job 40:21). In a derived sense, a canon is __(?)_\_. Thus, cannon must be connected to the concept of __(?)_\_, as well as __(?)_\_. A canonical text is one that __(?)_\_ (2 Tim 3:16). However, __(?)_\_ presents a wider concept than the more limited canon…
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, cannon 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 __(?)_\_writings, mentioned in the OT and written by authors regarded as __(?)_\_ whose writings have not been included in the OT canon (1 Chron 29:29).
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 __(?)_\_(Exod 17:14; 24:4). Writing down the instructions received from God was a logical consequence, since it __(?)_\_ (Deut 31:9-13). Deuteronomy 31:26 indicates the “__(?)_\_” of this “book of the Law.” Also, in other places in the OT, the Hebrew term ēd, “__(?)_\_,” is often connected with __(?)_\_. (Deut 31:19, 21; Joshua 22:27, 28, 34).
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) __(?)_\_; (2) __(?)_\_; (3) __(?)_\_. All three events took place during __(?)_\_, or __(?)_\_, ceremonies. Therefore, it seems valid to conclude that __(?)_\_ 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 __(?)_\_nor __(?)_\_. The OT (and NT) authoritative collection (canon) was based upon __(?)_\_.
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… However, in Scripture [the term kanōn] is not used to designate the biblical canon…
__(?)_\_usually is credited as the first to use the term in reference to the binding collection of Christian Scriptures. [Footnote: Belleville, p. 375, suggests that __(?)_\_, __(?)_\_was the first to use the term in the sense of distinguishing authentic Scripture from non-authentic. In __(?)_\_ the __(?)_\_was the first church council to employ the term to distinguish between “canonical” and “non-canonical” books.] However, this does not mean that __(?)_\_…
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… However, in Scripture [the term kanōn] is not used to designate the biblical canon…
Eusebius usually is credited as the first to use the term in reference to the binding collection of Christian Scriptures. [Footnote: 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 “non-canonical” books.] However, this does not mean that the concept was not present in NT times…
In Galatians 6:16, Paul utilizes the term [kanōn] in the sense of __(?)_\_. [Footnote: 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 __(?)_\_. See Linda L. Belleville, “Canon of the New Testament,” in Foundations…, p. 375.] … At the end of the first century A.D., Clement of Rome utilizes the term in reference to __(?)_\_”. [Footnote: He wrote, “Let us give up idle, vain considerations, and let us turn to __(?)_\_.” citation] Nearly a century later, Clement of Alexandria refers to the canon of __(?)_\_. [Footnote: Clement of Alexandria The Stromata 6.15.125.] From the middle of the fourth century onward, kanōn was used also of __(?)_\_.
In Galatians 6:16, Paul utilizes the term [kanōn] in the sense of a measure of Christian conduct that can be verified. [Footnote: 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…, p. 375.] … At the end of the first century A.D., Clement of Rome utilizes the term in reference to the Christian “tradition”. [Footnote: 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.” citation] Nearly a century later, Clement of Alexandria refers to the canon of faith. [Footnote: Clement of Alexandria The Stromata 6.15.125.] 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.
Klingbeil acknowledges that “in Scripture [the term kanōn] is not used to designate the biblical canon,” but he maintains that “this does not mean that the concept was not present in NT times…” His defense, in large part, proceeds as follows:
Jesus __(?)_\_(feasts [__(?)_\_; __(?)_\_], Sabbath observance, temple services [__(?)_\_], temple tax [__(?)_\_]) and thus __(?)_\_. He refers to OT commands, promises, or other stories in the context of “__(?)_\_” (Matt 4:4, 7, 10; 11:10; Mark 7:6; and others), which __(?)_\_.
The early church seems to __(?)_\_. The Bereans __(?)_\_ (Acts 17:11). Paul utilizes the strength of __(?)_\_in his arguments for __(?)_\_ (1 Cor 9:9-10, 14), on __(?)_\_(Rom 12:19-20), and in the case of __(?)_\_ (Rom 3:10ff). Peter argues for __(?)_\_on the basis of __(?)_\_ (1 Pet 2:4-6). Such evidence suggests the existence of the concept of an authoritative body of texts, utilized to __(?)_\_, both in the OT and in the NT.
Klingbeil acknowledges that “in Scripture [the term kanōn] is not used to designate the biblical canon,” but he maintains that “this does not mean that the concept was not present in NT times…” His defense, in large part, proceeds as follows:
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 biding 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.
[Gerald A Klingbeil maintains that] 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 __(?)_\_but rests upon the authority of __(?)_\_, which was __(?)_\_.
However, not all __(?)_\_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 __(?)_\_. Before undertaking a conceptual explanation of the process of canonization, the following two questions need to be addressed: First, __(?)_\_, and second, __(?)_\_?
[Gerald A Klingbeil maintains that] 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?
Traditionally, the Jewish OT has been divided into three main divisions: Law, Prophets, and Writings… [Name the books contained within the Law (Heb. tōrāh)]
__(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_
Traditionally, the Jewish OT has been divided into three main divisions: Law, Prophets, and Writings… [Name the books contained within the Law (Heb. tōrāh)]
Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers; Deuteronomy
Traditionally, the Jewish OT has been divided into three main divisions: Law, Prophets, and Writings… [Name the books contained within the Prophets (Heb. nebî’îm)]
__(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; “__(?)_\_” (__(?)_\_, __(?)_\_, __(?)_\_, __(?)_\_, __(?)_\_, __(?)_\_, __(?)_\_, __(?)_\_, __(?)_\_, __(?)_\_, __(?)_\_, __(?)_\_)
Traditionally, the Jewish OT has been divided into three main divisions: Law, Prophets, and Writings… [Name the books contained within the Prophets (Heb. nebî’îm)]
Joshua; Judges; 1-2 Samuel; 1-2 Kings; Isaiah; Jeremiah; Ezekiel; “The Twelve Prophets” (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi)
Traditionally, the Jewish OT has been divided into three main divisions: Law, Prophets, and Writings… [Names the books contained within the Writings (Heb. ketûbîm)]
__(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_
Traditionally, the Jewish OT has been divided into three main divisions: Law, Prophets, and Writings… [Names the books contained within the Writings (Heb. ketûbîm)]
Psalms; Proverbs; Job; Song of Songs; Ruth; Lamentations; Ecclesiastes; Esther; Daniel; Ezra; Nehemiah; 1-2 Chronicles
[The] threefold division [distinguishing Law, Prophets, and Writings within “the Jewish OT”] is important for the reconstruction of the canonization process. The earliest datable extrabiblical reference to its existence is found in __(?)_\_, which dates to 132 B.C. Other sources, such as __(?)_\_, __(?)_\_, and __(?)_\_, cite similar divisions.
[The] threefold division [distinguishing Law, Prophets, and Writings within “the Jewish OT”] 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 __(?)_\_(i.e. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) both date from the fourth century A.D. and include some apocryphal books. This canon has also been called __(?)_\_. 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 __(?)_\_ (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 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 [i.e., __(?)_\_] 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 __(?)_\_ enterprise, its rapid adoption and authority in __(?)_\_as an important tool for the evangelization of the Roman world led to a definite rejection of the LXX (including its canon) by __(?)_\_ at the beginning of the second century A.D.
Significant differences exist between __(?)_\_and __(?)_\_. 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 __(?)_\_. These differences may have been due to __(?)_\_. It must be noted that primitive Christianity __(?)_\_. Athanasius, as well as Jerome, in the fourth century A.D., both __(?)_\_ but __(?)_\_.
The issue of the canon of the LXX [i.e., the Septuagint] 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. __(?)_\_have been found at Qumran. This is significant, since most of the scrolls are to be dated between __(?)_\_ (with some as early as __(?)_\_) and __(?)_\_. Therefore, __(?)_\_. Secondly, the Qumran community seems to have been also familiar with __(?)_\_… mentioned in __(?)_\_. This __(?)_\_ is also shared in different NT texts, such as Luke 24:44, and Matthew 23:35 (with its parallel text in Luke 11:51). [Footnote: The reference in Matthew 23:35 connects Abel, the first martyr, with Zechariah, __(?)_\_(2 Chron 24:20). Genesis and 2 Chronicles represent, according to the Jewish canon, __(?)_\_.]
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… 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). [Footnote: 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.]
Written around __(?)_\_, the apocryphal book 2 Esdras (14:45) refers to the OT canon as containing 24 books (plus another 70 “hidden” books).
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 __(?)_\_, Melito, bishop of Sardis, published his famous list of books belonging to the OT, which includes all books, except possibly Esther.
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 [with respect to “the Jewish OT”] is __(?)_\_.
The crucial question that divides modern scholarship [with respect to “the Jewish OT”] 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 __(?)_\_. 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. __(?)_\_ was one of many topics discussed there. However, __(?)_\_. 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 __(?)_\_. At most, __(?)_\_.
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.
[Gerald A. Klingbeil writes that the] history of the NT canon is not as complex as its OT counterpart—partly due to the existence of codices, which represented a tremendous 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… [Examples follow—Part 1/4)]
__(?)_\_builds his message solidly upon OT law, as can be seen in the famous phrase “__(?)_\_” (Matt 5:33-34, 38-39, 43-44). In John 10:35 __(?)_\_goes even further, stating that Scripture (graphē) cannot be “broken” (RSV, NIV, NKJV), which logically would require __(?)_\_.
[Gerald A. Klingbeil writes that the] history of the NT canon is not as complex as its OT counterpart—partly due to the existence of codices, which represented a tremendous 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… [Examples follow—Part 1/4)]
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.
[Gerald A. Klingbeil writes that the] history of the NT canon is not as complex as its OT counterpart—partly due to the existence of codices, which represented a tremendous 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… [Examples follow—Part 2/4)]
…early Christian writings utilize Jesus’ commands to argue for __(?)_\_(1 Cor 7:10-11). Specific teachings are based upon __(?)_\_ (1 Cor 9:14 [__(?)_\_]; 1 Cor 11:17, 23 [__(?)_\_]; and 1 Tim 5:17-18 [__(?)_\_]).
[Gerald A. Klingbeil writes that the] history of the NT canon is not as complex as its OT counterpart—partly due to the existence of codices, which represented a tremendous 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… [Examples follow—Part 2/4)]
…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]).
[Gerald A. Klingbeil writes that the] history of the NT canon is not as complex as its OT counterpart—partly due to the existence of codices, which represented a tremendous 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… [Examples follow—Part 3/4)]
Paul develops the concept of the inspiration of Scripture further, including not only the known and established OT canon but also __(?)_\_(2 Tim 3:16; Heb 1:1-2). It is clear that, for the NT writers, the canonicity (binding authority) of __(?)_\_ is rooted in __(?)_\_. Second Peter 1:21 emphasizes the __(?)_\_ not as “__(?)_\_” but rather as “__(?)_\_.” However, most references allude directly to __(?)_\_, not necessarily to __(?)_\_.
[Gerald A. Klingbeil writes that the] history of the NT canon is not as complex as its OT counterpart—partly due to the existence of codices, which represented a tremendous 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… [Examples follow—Part 3/4)]
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.
[Gerald A. Klingbeil writes that the] history of the NT canon is not as complex as its OT counterpart—partly due to the existence of codices, which represented a tremendous 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… [Examples follow—Part 4/4)]
Luke’s introduction to his Gospel (Luke 1:1-4) refers to the perceived need to __(?)_\_. Beside __(?)_\_ (the __(?)_\_), the early church soon included __(?)_\_ as trustworthy. In 2 Peter 3:15-16 the apostle includes __(?)_\_(without being specific) as those __(?)_\_, thus __(?)_\_.
[Gerald A. Klingbeil writes that the] history of the NT canon is not as complex as its OT counterpart—partly due to the existence of codices, which represented a tremendous 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… [Examples follow—Part 4/4)]
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.
[Gerald A. Klingbeil writes that the] history of the NT canon is not as complex as its OT counterpart—partly due to the existence of codices, which represented a tremendous 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…
[Secondarily, then,] Evidence in __(?)_\_suggests that by the close of the first, and the beginning of the second, century A.D., there existed __(?)_\_…
[Gerald A. Klingbeil writes that the] history of the NT canon is not as complex as its OT counterpart—partly due to the existence of codices, which represented a tremendous 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…
[Secondarily, then,] 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…
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Clement of Rome (c. 60-100): __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Clement of Rome (c. 60-100): Acts (?); Romans; 1 Corinthians; Ephesians; Titus; Hebrews; 1 Peter
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Ignatius (Died c. A.D. 107): __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Ignatius (Died c. A.D. 107): Allusion to Matthew; Luke; John; Romans; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; 1 and 2 Timothy
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Polycarp (c. 70-160): __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Polycarp (c. 70-160): Mark; John; Acts; Romans; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; 2 Thessalonians; 1 and 2 Timothy; Hebrews; 1 Peter
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Justin Martyr (c. 100-165): __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Justin Martyr (c. 100-165): Matthew; Mark(?); Luke; John; Acts; Romans; 1 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Colossians; 2 Thessalonians; Hebrews; 1 Peter
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Marcion (c. A.D. 140): __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Marcion (c. A.D. 140): Luke; Romans; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; 1 and 2 Thessalonians; Philemon
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Irenaeus (c. 150-202): __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; [__(?)_\_]; __(?)_\_
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Irenaeus (c. 150-202): Matthew; Mark; Luke; John; Acts; Romans; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; 1 and 2 Thessalonians; 1 and 2 Timothy; Titus; Hebrews; James; 1 and 2 Peter; 1 and 2 John; [Jude was questioned]; Revelation
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Muratorian Canon (c. A.D. 190): __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Muratorian Canon (c. A.D. 190): Luke; John; Acts; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; 1 and 2 Thessalonians; Romans; Philemon; Titus; 1 and 2 Timothy; 1 and 2 John; Jude; Revelation
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Clement of Alexandria (c. 155-220): __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Clement of Alexandria (c. 155-220): Matthew; Mark; Luke; John; Acts; Romans; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; 1 and 2 Thessalonians; 1 and 2 Timothy; Titus; 1 Peter; 1 John; Jude; Revelation
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Tertullian (c. 160-220): __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Tertullian (c. 160-220): Matthew; Mark; Luke; John; Acts; Romans; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; 1 and 2 Thessalonians; 1 and 2 Timothy; Hebrews; Titus; 1 Peter; 1 and 2 John; Jude; Revelation
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Hippolytus (170-235): __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Hippolytus (170-235): Matthew; Mark; Luke; John; Acts; Romans; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; 1 and 2 Thessalonians; 1 and 2 Timothy; Titus; 1 Peter; 1 John; Jude; Revelation
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Origen (c. 185-254): After traveling extensively, he published, around A.D. 230, a comprehensive list of NT writings that were universally accepted: __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_. Books held in dispute: __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Origen (c. 185-254): After traveling extensively, he published, around A.D. 230, a comprehensive list of NT writings that were universally accepted: Matthew; Mark; Luke; John; Acts; Romans; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; 1 and 2 Thessalonians; 1 and 2 Timothy; Titus; 1 Peter; 1 John; Revelation. Books held in dispute: Hebrews; 2 Peter; 2 and 3 John; James; Jude
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-340): __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_; __(?)_\_
Recalling [Klingbeil’s table which] “illustrates the use of NT canonical writings in the early church fathers” letters, identify the relevant texts used:
Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-340): Matthew; Mark; Luke; John; Acts; Romans; 1 and 2 Corinthians; Galatians; Ephesians; Philippians; Colossians; 1 and 2 Thessalonians; 1 and 2 Timothy; Titus; 1 Peter; 1 John; Revelation