The Cradle, the Cross, and the Crown (16 page)

⁹⁷
See Trobisch,
First Edition
, 97–98.

⁹⁸
“Length” may not necessarily be a function of word count but pertain to the number of lines or some other form of measurement (Porter, “Pauline Canon,” 115).

⁹⁹
Regarding the question of development in Paul's theology, see chap. 21 below.

¹⁰⁰
See R. Bauckham,
The Theology of the Book of Revelation
, New Testament Theology (Cambridge: University Press, 1993), 144: “It is a work of Christian prophecy that understands itself to be the culmination of the whole biblical tradition.”

¹⁰¹
G. R. Osborne,
Revelation
, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002), 768.

¹⁰²
The preceding observations provide the underlying rationale for why the material is treated in the remainder of this volume the way it is (note especially that the book follows a chronological, rather than canonical, order of Paul's letters). The present remarks also provide the foundation for the final chapter on the subject of the unity and diversity of the NT.

¹⁰³
Kline,
Structure of Biblical Authority
.

¹⁰⁴
See N. Turner, “The Language of Jesus and His Disciples,” in
The Language of the New Testament: Classic Essays
, JSNT-Sup 60, ed. S. E. Porter (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), 174–90; J. Fitzmyer, “The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D.,”
CBQ
32 (1970): 501–31; S. E. Porter,
The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals
, JSNTSup 191 (Sheffield: Academic Press, 2000), 126–80; and id., “Greek of the New Testament,” in
Dictionary of New Testament Background
, 426–35, especially 433–34.

¹⁰⁵
N. R. Lightfoot,
How We Got the Bible
, 3d ed. (New York: MJF, 2003), 33.

¹⁰⁶
Metzger and Ehrman,
Text of the New Testament
, 4.

¹⁰⁷
Ibid., 5.

¹⁰⁸
Ibid.

¹⁰⁹
Elliott, “Manuscripts, the Codex, and the Canon,” 107.

¹¹⁰
Gamble,
Books and Readers
, 58.

¹¹¹
A case in point is the bronze snake that Moses crafted in the wilderness (Num 21:9), which was later worshipped under the name of “Nehushtan” and was eventually destroyed as part of Hezekiah's reforms. Similarly, the tomb of Irenaeus survived into the time of the Reformation, when it was destroyed by the French Calvinists because the Catholics were worshipping it. See G. W. Kitchin,
History of France
, vol. II:
A.D. 1453–1624
, 3d rev. ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1896), 321.

¹¹²
Against B. D. Ehrman,
Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
(San Francisco: Harper, 2005). See D. B. Wallace, “The Gospel According to Bart: A Review Article of
Misquoting Jesus
by Bart Ehrman,”
JETS
49 (2006): 327–49.

¹¹³
The primary witnesses to the OT come from the Masoretic text (the Masoretes were Jewish scribes), preserved in the Cairo Geniza (895), the Leningrad Codex (916), the Codex Babylonicus Petropalitanus (1008), the Aleppo Codex (c. 900), the British Museum Codex (950), and the Reuchlin Codex (1105). See M. R. Norton, “Texts and Manuscripts of the Old Testament,” in
The Origin of the Bible
, ed. P. W. Comfort (Wheaton: Tyndale, 1992), 154–55. The Leningrad Codex remains the oldest complete manuscript and serves as the main source for the Hebrew text. See Wegner,
Journey from Texts to Translations
, 194. However, since the earliest of these manuscripts date from the ninth century, they are removed from the original autographs by a considerable period of time.

Other witnesses include the Talmud (Aramaic translations and commentaries), the Septuagint (or LXX, the Greek translation of the OT), the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS). The latter, discovered during the 1940s and '50s, provide scholars with witnesses to the OT text that can be dated between 250 and 100 BC. Cave four (4Q), for example, has yielded about 40,000 fragments of 400 different manuscripts, 100 of which are biblical, representing every OT book except Esther. Remarkably, a comparison of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Masoretic text reveals that the number of discrepancies is not as great as might have been expected. Thus the manuscript evidence for the OT suggests that the original OT texts were carefully preserved and are accurately represented in our modern Bible.

¹¹⁴
Metzger and Ehrman,
Text of the New Testament
, 52.

¹¹⁵
P. W. Comfort, “Textual Criticism,” in
Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments
, 1171.

¹¹⁶
P. W. Comfort, “Texts and Manuscripts of the New Testament,” in
Origin of the Bible
, 179. See the depiction of P
⁵²
in Aland and Aland,
Text of the New Testament
, 84.

¹¹⁷
P. W. Comfort, “Texts and Manuscripts of the New Testament,” 183.

¹¹⁸
See Metzger and Ehrman (
Text of the New Testament
, 52), who state that there are “approximately 5,700 Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament.” D. B. Wallace, “Challenges in New Testament Textual Criticism for the Twenty-First Century,”
JETS
52 (2009): 96, puts the number of currently known Greek NT manuscripts at 5,760. Wallace's entire article provides a helpful survey of the current state of textual criticism and ably delineates the challenges and the remaining task ahead.

¹¹⁹
G. D. Fee, “Textual Criticism,” in
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels
, ed. J. B. Green, S. McKnight, and I. H. Marshall (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1992), 828.

¹²⁰
Metzger and Ehrman,
Text of the New Testament
, 16–33. See Comfort, “Textual Criticism,” 1172.

¹²¹
Lightfoot,
How We Got the Bible
, 61.

¹²²
For helpful charts describing the types of scribal errors, see Wegner,
Journey from Texts to Translations
, 225–36.

¹²³
Lightfoot,
How We Got the Bible
, 61.

¹²⁴
Comfort, “Textual Criticism,” 1172.

¹²⁵
P. D. Wegner,
A Student's Guide to Textual Criticism of the Bible: Its History, Methods, and Results
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2004), 298.

¹²⁶
See Aland and Aland,
Text of the New Testament
, especially 275–77.

¹²⁷
V. S. Poythress and W. A. Grudem,
The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy: Muting the Masculinity of God's Words
(Nashville: B&H, 2000). See L. Ryken,
The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation
(Wheaton: Crossway, 2002).

¹²⁸
D. A. Carson,
The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 47–76. See M. Silva, “Are Translators Traitors? Some Personal Refl ections,” in
The Challenge of Bible Translation
, ed. G. G. Scorgie, M. L. Strauss, and S. M. Voth (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2002), 37–44.

¹²⁹
J. R. Kohlenberger III, “Inclusive Language in Bible Translation,” in
Perspectives on the TNIV from Leading Scholars and Pastors
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 11.

¹³⁰
D. A. Carson, “The Limits of Functional Equivalence in Bible Translation—and Other Limits, Too,” in
Challenge of Bible Translation
, 65–113; K. L. Barker, “Bible Translation Philosophy with Special Reference to the New International Version,” in
Challenge of Bible Translation
, 51–63. See M. L. Strauss,
Distorting Scripture?
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1998).

¹³¹
G. G. Scorgie, “Introduction and Overview,” in
Challenge of Bible Translation
, 25. The following chart is taken from “About Bible Translations,” www.zondervan.com.

¹³²
D. France, “The Bible in English: An Overview,” in
Challenge of Bible Translation
, 177.

¹³³
Ibid., 179.

¹³⁴
A. E. McGrath,
In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture
(New York: Doubleday, 2001), 19–23.

¹³⁵
France, “Bible in English,” 181. Compare
The Gospel of Saint John in West-Saxon
, ed. J. W. Bright (Boston/London: D. C. Heath & Co., 1906), which presents the first English version of John's Gospel that precedes Wycliffe's translation by 400 years.

¹³⁶
Tyndale's New Testament
, ed. D. Daniell (New Haven/London: Yale Univ. Press, 1995 [1989]).

¹³⁷
Ibid.

¹³⁸
McGrath,
In the Beginning
, 113–29.

¹³⁹
Ibid., 139–48.

¹⁴⁰
France, “Bible in English,” 184.

¹⁴¹
S. J. Mikolaski, “Canon as the Air We Breathe,” in
From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith
, 146–63.

¹⁴²
E.g., A. G. Patzia,
The Making of the New Testament: Origin, Collection, Text and Canon
(Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1995), 105.

¹⁴³
A modified form of this view is found in Metzger (
Canon
, 256) as well, though he clearly recognized the difference between a modern definition of biblical inspiration and the somewhat haphazard use of the word in antiquity.

¹⁴⁴
Sundberg, “Bible Canon,” 371. See Walden (“Luther: The One Who Shaped the Canon,” 1–10) for a somewhat different view.

¹⁴⁵
Sundberg, “Bible Canon,” 371. There is irony in the fact that those who deny the connection between inspiration and canonicity are compelled to discuss it nonetheless.

¹⁴⁶
One need not see a devaluation of the prophetic vision. The argument is from the lesser to the greater (common in Judaism). In essence the logic presents itself as follows: “If the prophetic word is to be obeyed, the word I speak directly to Moses should make you afraid to slander him.”

¹⁴⁷
W. A. Grudem, “Scripture's Self-Attestation and the Problem of Formulating a Doctrine of Scripture,” in
Scripture and Truth
, ed. D. A. Carson and J. D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983), 25.

¹⁴⁸
It is obviously quite a large scroll, for it takes six hours to read only selected parts of the Pentateuch (Ezra “read in it,” Hb.
wayyiqrā
, suggesting the whole was not read). See M. Breneman,
Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther
, NAC (Nashville: B&H, 1993), 224.

¹⁴⁹
See R. L. Harris,
Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1969), 154–77; Bruce,
Canon of Scripture
, 255–69. Contra E. J. Young,
Introduction to the Old Testament
, 2d ed
.
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1950), 41–42 (although Young acknowledges the difference between the gift of prophecy and the prophetic office).

¹⁵⁰
Harris,
Inspiration and Canonicity
, 163; see R. H. Pfeiffer,
The Books of the Old Testament
(New York: Harper, 1957), 13.

¹⁵¹
This does not suggest that the collection into a canon was improper. See M. Grisanti, “Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the OT Canon: The Place of Textual Updating in an Inerrant View of Scripture,”
JETS
44 (2001): 577–98.

¹⁵²
Grudem, “Scripture's Self-Attestation,” 27.

¹⁵³
Ibid., 28.

¹⁵⁴
E.g., Matt 4:4; 12:5; 15:6; 22:40; 23:23; Luke 2:23–24; 4:17; 8:21; 11:28; 16:29,31; 24:25; John 7:19,23,49,51; 8:17; 10:34; 18:31; 19:7.

¹⁵⁵
See Matt 1:22; 2:5,15,17,23; 3:3; 4:14; 5:17; 8:17; 11:13; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 24:15; 26:54; 26:56; 27:9; Mark 1:2; Luke 1:70; 3:4; 4:21; 18:31;24:27,32,44,45; John 1:23,45; 2:22; 6:45; 7:38, 42,52; 12:38; 13:18; 15:25; 17:12; 19:24,28,36,37; 20:9.

¹⁵⁶
Grudem, “Scripture's Self-Attestation,” 38.

¹⁵⁷
The most common ascription of the OT is “the Law and the Prophets.” This in no way affirms suspicion about the third division of the Hebrew Bible. This phrase and sometimes just “the Law” are a shorthand way of referring to the entire OT. See John 10:34 where Jesus cites “the Law” but actually quotes Ps 82:6, and Matt 13:35 where “prophet” introduces the quotation but the reference is to the Writings.

¹⁵⁸
Emphasis added. For a study of the use of the OT in John 10:34–36, see A. J. Köstenberger, “John,” in
Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament
, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 464–67.

¹⁵⁹
A. J. Köstenberger,
John
, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004), 496.

¹⁶⁰
See Luke 16:17: “But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter in the law to drop out.”

¹⁶¹
See L. Morris,
The Gospel According to Matthew
, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1992), 109–10.

¹⁶²
R. Gundry,
Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church Under Persecution
, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 80.

¹⁶³
J. A. Bengel,
Gnomon of the New Testament
, vol. 1, trans. A. R. Fausset (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1857–1858), 149.

¹⁶⁴
See especially R. T. France,
Jesus and the Old Testament: His Application of Old Testament Passages to Himself and His Mission
(London: Tyndale, 1971).

¹⁶⁵
D. Dockery,
Christian Scripture: An Evangelical Perspective on Inspiration, Authority, and Interpretation
(Nashville: B&H, 1995), 28.

¹⁶⁶
See especially R. N. Longenecker,
Biblical Exegesis in the Apostolic Period
, 2d ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999).

¹⁶⁷
Dockery,
Christian Scripture
, 28.