| Part ofa series on the |
| Bible |
|---|
 |
Outline of Bible-related topics Bible portal |
Abiblical canon is a set of texts (also called "books") which a particularJewish orChristian religious community regards as part of theBible.
The English wordcanon comes from theGreekκανώνkanōn, meaning 'rule' or 'measuring stick'. The word has been used to mean "the collection or list of books of the Bible accepted by the Christian Church as genuine and inspired" since the 14th century.[1]
Various biblical canons have developed through debate and agreement on the part of the religious authorities of their respective faiths and denominations. Some books, such as theJewish–Christian gospels, have been excluded from various canons altogether, but manydisputed books are considered to bebiblical apocrypha ordeuterocanonical by many, while some denominations may consider them fully canonical. Differences exist between theHebrew Bible and Christian biblical canons, although the majority of manuscripts are shared in common.
Different religious groups include different books in their biblical canons, in varying orders, and sometimes divide or combine books. The JewishTanakh (sometimes called the Hebrew Bible) contains 24 books divided into three parts: the five books of theTorah ('teaching'); the eight books of theNevi'im ('prophets'); and the eleven books ofKetuvim ('writings'). It is composed mainly inBiblical Hebrew, with portions inAramaic. TheSeptuagint (inKoine Greek), which closely resembles the Hebrew Bible but includes additional texts, is used as the Christian Greek Old Testament, at least in someliturgical contexts. The first part of Christian Bibles is theOld Testament, which contains, at minimum, the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible divided into 39 (Protestant) or 46 (Catholic [including deuterocanonical works]) books that are ordered differently. The second part is theNew Testament, almost always containing 27 books: the fourcanonical gospels,Acts of the Apostles, 21Epistles or letters and theBook of Revelation. TheCatholic Church andEastern Christian churches hold that certaindeuterocanonical books and passages are part of theOld Testament canon. TheEastern Orthodox,Oriental Orthodox, andAssyrian churches may have differences in their lists of accepted books.
Some Christian groups haveother canonical books (open canon) which are considered holy scripture but not part of the Bible.[2]
| Part ofa series on |
| Judaism |
|---|
 |
Rabbinic Judaism (Hebrew:יהדות רבנית) recognizes the twenty-four books of theMasoretic Text, commonly called theTanakh (תַּנַ"ךְ) orHebrew Bible.[3] Evidence suggests that the process of canonization occurred between 200 BC and 200 AD, and a popular position is that theTorah was canonizedc. 400 BC, theProphetsc. 200 BC, and theWritingsc. 100 AD[4] perhaps at a hypotheticalCouncil of Jamnia—however, this position is increasingly criticised by modern scholars.[5][6][7][8][9][10] According toMarc Zvi Brettler, the Jewish scriptures outside the Torah and the Prophets were fluid, with different groups seeing authority in different books.[11]
TheBook of Deuteronomy includes a prohibition against adding or subtracting (4:2,12:32) which might apply to the book itself (i.e. a "closed book", a prohibition against futurescribal editing) or to the instruction received byMoses onMount Sinai.[12] The book of2 Maccabees, itself not a part of the Jewish canon, describesNehemiah (c. 400 BC) as having "founded a library and collected books about the kings and prophets, and the writings of David, and letters of kings about votive offerings" (2:13–15).
TheBook of Nehemiah suggests that the priest-scribeEzra brought the Torah backfrom Babylon toJerusalem and theSecond Temple (8–9) around the same time period. Both 1 and 2 Maccabees suggest thatJudas Maccabeus (c. 167 BC) likewise collected sacred books (3:42–50,2:13–15,15:6–9), indeed some scholars argue that theHasmonean dynasty (140–37 BCE) fixed the Jewish canon.[13]
| Part ofa series on |
| Samaritanism |
|---|
 |
|
Related religious groups |
Another version of the Torah, in theSamaritan alphabet, also exists. This text is associated withSamaritanism and its adherents, theSamaritans (Hebrew:שומרונים;Arabic:السامريون), a people whose emergence as a distinct ethno-religious group began with the Assyrian conquest of Samaria in 722 BC.[14]
.jpg)
The Samaritan Pentateuch's relationship to the Masoretic Text is still disputed. Some differences are minor, such as the ages of different people mentioned in genealogy, while others are major, such as a commandment to be monogamous, which appears only in the Samaritan version. More importantly, the Samaritan text also diverges from the Masoretic in stating that Moses received theTen Commandments onMount Gerizim—notMount Sinai—and that it is upon Mount Gerizim that sacrifices to God should be made—not in Jerusalem. Scholars nonetheless consult the Samaritan version when trying to determine the meaning of text of the originalPentateuch, as well as to trace the development of text-families. Some scrolls among theDead Sea Scrolls have been identified as proto-Samaritan Pentateuch text-type.[15]
Samaritans consider the Torah to be inspired scripture, but do not accept any other parts of the Bible—probably a position also held by theSadducees.[16] They did not expand their canon by adding any Samaritan compositions. There is aSamaritan Book of Joshua; however, while it is held in high regard, it is not considered to be scripture.[17] Other non-canonicalSamaritan religious texts include theMemar Markah ('Teaching of Markah') and theDefter (Prayerbook)—both from the 4th century or later.[18]
The people of the remnants of the Samaritans in modern-dayIsrael andPalestine retain their version of the Torah as fully and authoritatively canonical.[14] They regard themselves as the true "guardians of the Law". This assertion is only reinforced by the claim of the Samaritan community inNablus (an area traditionally associated with the ancient city ofShechem) to possess the oldest existing copy of the Torah—one that they believe to have been penned by Abisha, a grandson ofAaron.[19]
| Part ofa series on |
| Christianity |
|---|
 |
The canon of theCatholic Church was affirmed by theCouncil of Rome (382), theSynod of Hippo (393), two of theCouncils of Carthage (397 and 419), theCouncil of Florence (1431–1449) and finally, as an article of faith, by theCouncil of Trent (1545–1563). Those established theCatholic biblical canon consisting of 46 books in the Old Testament and 27 books in the New Testament for a total of 73 books.[20][21][a][23]
The canons of theChurch of England and EnglishPresbyterians were decided definitively by theThirty-Nine Articles (1563) and theWestminster Confession of Faith (1647), respectively. TheSynod of Jerusalem (1672) established additional canons that are widely accepted throughout theEastern Orthodox Church.
Various forms ofJewish Christianity persisted until around the fifth century, and canonized very different sets of books, includingJewish–Christian gospels which have been lost to history. These and many other works are classified asNew Testament apocrypha by Pauline denominations.[citation needed]
The Old and New Testament canons did not develop independently of each other and mostprimary sources for the canon specify both Old and New Testament books.[citation needed] For the biblical scripture for both Testaments, canonically accepted in major traditions ofChristendom, see§ Canons of various traditions.
For churches which espousesola scriptura it is necessary and critical to have a clear and complete list of the canonical books.[24] For churches which espousesacred Tradition orMagisterium as well as Scripture, the issue can be more organic, as the Bible is an artifact of the church rather thanvice versa.
TheologianWilliam J. Abraham has suggested that in the primitive church and patristic period the "primary purpose in canonizing Scripture was to provide an authorized list of books for use in worship. The primary setting envisaged for the use of Scripture was not that of the science of theology, or that of the debates of scholars, but the spiritual nourishment of the people of God...the factor which ultimately carried the day (for what was in the canon) was actual usage in the Church."[25]: 140
TheEarly Church used theOld Testament, namely theSeptuagint (LXX)[26] among Greek speakers, with a canon perhaps as found in theBryennios List orMelito's canon. TheApostles did not otherwise leave a defined set of newscriptures; instead, theNew Testament developed over time.
Writings attributed to the apostles circulated among the earliestChristian communities. Possible apostolicity was a strong argument used to suggest the canonical status of a book.[25]: 141
The author of 2 Peter includes Pauline epistles in the scriptures that were read in the early church. 2 Peter 3:16 (KJV) reads: "As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, AS THEY DO ALSO THE OTHER SCRIPTURES, unto their own destruction."
ThePauline epistles were circulating in collected forms by the end of the 1st century AD.Justin Martyr, in the early 2nd century, mentions the "memoirs of the Apostles", which Christians (Greek: Χριστιανός) called "gospels", and which were considered to be authoritatively equal to the Old Testament.[27]
Marcion of Sinope was the first Christian leader in recorded history (though later consideredheretical) to propose and delineate a uniquely Christian canon[28] (c. 140). This included 10 epistles fromPaul, as well as an edited version of theGospel of Luke, which today is known as theGospel of Marcion. By doing this, he established a particular way of looking atreligious texts that persists in Christian thought today.[29]
After Marcion, Christians began to divide texts into those that aligned well with thecanon (meaning 'measuring line', 'rule', or 'principle') of accepted theological thought and those that promoted heresy. This played a major role in finalizing the structure of the collection of works called the Bible. It has been proposed that the initial impetus for theproto-orthodox Christian project of canonization flowed from opposition to the list produced by Marcion.[29]
A four-gospel canon (theTetramorph) was asserted byIrenaeus (c. 130 – c. 202 AD) in the following quote:[30]
It is not possible that the gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four-quarters of the earth in which we live, and four universal winds, while the church is scattered throughout all the world, and the 'pillar and ground' of the church is the gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars breathing out immortality on every side, and vivifying men afresh [...] Therefore the gospels are in accord with these things ... For the living creatures are quadriform and the gospel is quadriform [...] These things being so, all who destroy the form of the gospel are vain, unlearned, and also audacious; those [I mean] who represent the aspects of the gospel as being either more in number than as aforesaid, or, on the other hand, fewer.
Irenaeus additionally quotes from passages of all the books that would later be put in the New Testament canon except theLetter to Philemon,II Peter,III John, and theEpistle of Jude inAgainst Heresies, refers to theShepherd of Hermas as "scripture"[31] and appears to regardI Clement as authoritative.
By the early 3rd century, Christian theologians likeOrigen of Alexandria may have been using—or at least were familiar with—the same 27 books found in modern New Testament editions, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of some of the writings (see alsoAntilegomena).[32] Likewise by 200, theMuratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them.[33] Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the 3rd century.[34]
Origen of Alexandria (184/85–253/54), an early scholar involved in the codification of the biblical canon, had a thorough education both in Christian theology and in pagan philosophy, but was posthumously condemned at theSecond Council of Constantinople in 553 since some of his teachings were considered to be heresy. Origen's canon included all of the books in the current New Testament canon except for four books:James,2nd Peter, and the2nd and3rd epistles of John.[35]
He also included theShepherd of Hermas which was later rejected. The religious scholarBruce Metzger described Origen's efforts, saying "The process of canonization represented by Origen proceeded by way of selection, moving from many candidates for inclusion to fewer."[36]
In his Easter letter of 367, PatriarchAthanasius of Alexandria gave a list of exactly the same books that would become theNew Testament–27 book–proto-canon,[37] and used the phrase "being canonized" (kanonizomena) in regard to them.[38]
In 331,Constantine I commissionedEusebius to deliver fifty Bibles for theChurch of Constantinople.Athanasius[39] recordedAlexandrian scribes around 340 preparing Bibles forConstans. Little else is known, though there is plenty of speculation. For example, it is speculated that this may have provided motivation for canon lists, and thatCodex Vaticanus andCodex Sinaiticus are examples of these Bibles. Those codices contain almost a full version of theSeptuagint; Vaticanus lacks only 1–3Maccabees and Sinaiticus lacks 2–3 Maccabees,1 Esdras,Baruch andLetter of Jeremiah.[40] Together with thePeshitta andCodex Alexandrinus, these are the earliest extant Christian Bibles.[41]
There is no evidence among thecanons of the First Council of Nicaea of any determination on the canon; however,Jerome (347–420), in hisPrologue to Judith, makes the claim that theBook of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures".[42]
The Eastern Churches had, in general, a weaker feeling than those in the West for the necessity of making sharp delineations with regard to the canon. They were more conscious of the gradation of spiritual quality among the books that they accepted (for example, the classification of Eusebius, see alsoAntilegomena) and were less often disposed to assert that the books which they rejected possessed no spiritual quality at all. For example, theTrullan Synod of 691–692, whichPope Sergius I (in office 687–701) rejected[43] (see alsoPentarchy), endorsed the following lists of canonical writings: theApostolic Canons (c. 385), theSynod of Laodicea (c. 363), theThird Synod of Carthage (c. 397), and the39th Festal Letter of Athanasius (367).[44] And yet, these lists do not agree. Similarly, the New Testament canons of theSyriac,Armenian,Egyptian Coptic andEthiopian Churches all have minor differences, yet five of these Churches are part of thesame communion and hold the same theological beliefs.[45]
ThePeshitta is the standard version of the Bible for churches in theSyriac tradition. Most of thedeuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are found in the Syriac, and theWisdom of Sirach is held to have been translated from theHebrew and not from theSeptuagint.[46] This New Testament, originally excluding certaindisputed books (2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation), had become a standard by the early 5th century. The five excluded books were added in theHarklean Version (616) ofThomas of Harqel.[47]
The standardUnited Bible Societies 1905 edition of the New Testament of the Peshitta was based on editions prepared by SyriacistsPhilip E. Pusey (d. 1880),George Gwilliam (d. 1914) andJohn Gwyn.[48] All twenty seven books of the common westernNew Testament are included in this British & Foreign Bible Society's 1905 Peshitta edition.
The first Council that accepted the present Catholic canon (theCanon of Trent of 1546) may have been theSynod of Hippo Regius, held in North Africa in 393. A brief summary of the acts was read at and accepted by theCouncil of Carthage (397) and also theCouncil of Carthage (419).[49] These Councils took place under the authority ofAugustine of Hippo (354–430), who regarded the canon as already closed.[50]
Augustine of Hippo declared without qualification that one is to "prefer those that are received by all Catholic Churches to those which some of them do not receive" (On Christian Doctrines 2.12). In the same passage, Augustine asserted that these dissenting churches should be outweighed by the opinions of "the more numerous and weightier churches", which would include Eastern Churches, the prestige of which Augustine stated moved him to include theBook of Hebrews among the canonical writings, though he had reservation about its authorship.[51]
Philip Schaff says that "the council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, ... This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of theRoman see it received whenInnocent I andGelasius I (414) repeated the same index of biblical books. This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by thecouncil of Trent at its fourth session."[52] According to Lee Martin McDonald, theRevelation was added to the list in 419.[49] These councils were convened under the influence ofAugustine of Hippo, who regarded the canon as already closed.[53][54][55]
Pope Damasus I'sCouncil of Rome in 382 (if theDecretum is correctly associated with it) issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above.[37] Likewise, Damasus' commissioning of the LatinVulgate edition of the Bible,c. 383, proved instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West.[56]
In a letter (c. 405) toExsuperius of Toulouse, a Gallic bishop,Pope Innocent I mentioned the sacred books that were already received in the canon.[57] When bishops and Councils spoke on the matter of the Biblical canon, however, they were not defining something new, but instead "were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church".[58] Thus from the 4th century there existed unanimity in theWest concerning the New Testament canon as it is today,[59] with the exception of theBook of Revelation. In the 5th century theEast too, with a few exceptions, came to accept the Book of Revelation and thus came into harmony on the matter of the New Testament canon.[60]
As the primary canon crystallised, non-canonical texts fell into relative disfavour and neglect.[61]
Before theProtestant Reformation, theCouncil of Florence (1439–1443) took place. With the approval of thisecumenical council, PopeEugenius IV (in office 1431–1447) issued severalpapal bulls (decrees) with a view to restoring theEastern churches, which the Catholic Church considered asschismatic bodies, intocommunion with Rome. Catholic theologians regard these documents asinfallible statements ofCatholic doctrine. TheDecretum pro Jacobitis contains a complete list of the books received by the Catholic Church as inspired, but omits the terms "canon" and "canonical". The Council of Florence therefore taught the inspiration of all the Scriptures, but did not formally pronounce itself on canonicity.[62][63]
Martin Luther (1483–1546) proposed that the genuine mark of canonical material was that it preached Christ.[25]: 147 This allowed him to relegate books (including ones that may not have supported his theology) to asecondary status.
Luther moved seven Old Testament books (Tobit, Judith, 1–2 Maccabees, Book of Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch) into a section he called the "Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read".[64]
All of these apocrypha are calledanagignoskomena by the Eastern Orthodox Church per theSynod of Jerusalem.
As with theLutheran Churches,[65] theAnglican Communion accepts "the Apocrypha for instruction in life and manners, but not for the establishment of doctrine",[66] and many "lectionary readings inThe Book of Common Prayer are taken from the Apocrypha", with these lessons being "read in the same ways as those from the Old Testament".[67] The Protestant Apocrypha contains three books (3 Esdras, 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh) that are accepted by many Eastern Orthodox Churches and Oriental Orthodox Churches as canonical, but are regarded as non-canonical by the Catholic Church and are therefore not included in modern Catholic Bibles.[68]
Anabaptists use theLuther Bible, which contains the intertestamental books;Amish wedding ceremonies include "the retelling of the marriage of Tobias and Sarah in the Apocrypha".[69] The fathers of Anabaptism, such asMenno Simons, quoted "them [the Apocrypha] with the same authority and nearly the same frequency as books of theHebrew Bible" and the texts regarding the martyrdoms under Antiochus IV in1 Maccabees and2 Maccabees are held in high esteem by the Anabaptists, who historically faced persecution.[70]
Lutheran and Anglican lectionaries continue to include readings from the Apocrypha.[71]
In response toMartin Luther's demands, theCouncil of Trent on 8 April 1546 approved the presentCatholic Bible canon, which includes thedeuterocanonical books, and the decision was confirmed by ananathema by vote (24 yea, 15 nay, 16 abstain).[72] The council confirmed the same list as produced at theCouncil of Florence in 1442,[73] Augustine's 397–419Councils of Carthage,[52] and probably Damasus' 382Council of Rome.[37][74] The Old Testament books that had been rejected by Luther were later termed "deuterocanonical", not indicating a lesser degree of inspiration, but a later time of final approval. TheSixto-Clementine Vulgate contained in the Appendix several books considered as apocryphal by the council:Prayer of Manasseh,3 Esdras, and4 Esdras.[75]
SeveralProtestant confessions of faith identify the 27 books of the New Testament canon by name, including theFrench Confession of Faith (1559),[76] theBelgic Confession (1561), and theWestminster Confession of Faith (1647). TheSecond Helvetic Confession (1562), affirms "both Testaments to be the true Word of God" and appealing toAugustine'sDe Civitate Dei, it rejected the canonicity of the Apocrypha.[77] TheThirty-Nine Articles, issued by the Church of England in 1563, names the books of the Old Testament, but not the New Testament. The Belgic Confession[78] and the Westminster Confession named the 39 books in the Old Testament and, apart from the aforementioned New Testament books, expressly rejected the canonicity of any others.[79]
The LutheranEpitome of the Formula of Concord of 1577 declared that the prophetic and apostolic Scriptures comprised the Old and New Testaments alone.[80]Luther himself did not accept the canonicity of the Apocrypha although he believed that its books were "Not Held Equal to the Scriptures, but Are Useful and Good to Read".[81] Lutheran and Anglican lectionaries continue to include readings from the Apocrypha.[71]
Various books that were never canonized by any church, but are known to have existed in antiquity, are similar to the New Testament and often claim apostolic authorship, are known as theNew Testament apocrypha. Some of these writings have been cited asscripture by early Christians, but since the fifth century a widespread consensus has emerged limiting the New Testament to the27 books of the modern canon.[82][83] Thus Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant churches generally do not view these New Testament apocrypha as part of the Bible.[83]
Final dogmatic articulations of the canons were made at theCouncil of Trent of 1546 for Roman Catholicism.[84]
Another set of books, largely written during theintertestamental period, are called thedeuterocanon ('second canon') by Catholics, the deuterocanon oranagignoskomena ('worthy of reading') by Eastern Orthodox Churches, and the biblical apocrypha ('hidden things') by Protestants. These are works recognized by the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox Churches as being part of scripture (and thus deuterocanonical rather than apocryphal), but Protestants do not recognize them asdivinely inspired. Some Protestant Bibles—especially the English King James Bible and theLutheran Bible—include an "Apocrypha" section.
Many denominations recognize deuterocanonical books as good, but not on the level of the other books of the Bible.Anglicanism considers the apocrypha worthy of being "read for example of life" but not to be used "to establish any doctrine".[85]Luther made a parallel statement in calling them "not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but [...] useful and good to read."[86]
Additionally, while the books ofJubilees andEnoch are fairly well known among western scholars, 1, 2, and 3Meqabyan are not. The three books of Meqabyan are often called the "Ethiopian Maccabees", but are completely different in content from thebooks of Maccabees that are known or have been canonized in other traditions. Finally, the Book of Joseph ben Gurion, orPseudo-Josephus, is a history of the Jewish people thought to be based upon the writings ofJosephus.[note 1] The Ethiopic version (Zëna Ayhud) has eight parts and is included in theOrthodox Tewahedo broader canon.[note 2][87]
Some ancient copies of thePeshitta used in theSyriac tradition include2 Baruch (divided into the Apocalypse of Baruch and the Letter of Baruch; some copies only include the Letter) and the non-canonicalPsalms 152–155.
TheEthiopian Tewahedo church accepts all of the deuterocanonical books of Catholicism and anagignoskomena of Eastern Orthodoxy except for the four Books of Maccabees.[88] It accepts the 39 protocanonical books along with the following books, called the "narrow canon".[89] The enumeration of books in the Ethiopic Bible varies greatly between different authorities and printings.[90]
Protestants and Catholics[91] use theMasoretic Text of the Jewish Tanakh as the textual basis for their translations of theprotocanonical books (those accepted as canonical by both Jews and all Christians), with various changes derived from a multiplicity of other ancient sources (such as theSeptuagint, theVulgate, theDead Sea Scrolls, etc.), while generally using the Septuagint and Vulgate, now supplemented by the ancient Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts, as the textual basis for thedeuterocanonical books.
Eastern Orthodoxy uses theSeptuagint (translated in the 3rd century BC) as the textual basis for the entire Old Testament in both protocanonical and deuterocanonical books—to use both in the Greek forliturgical purposes, and as the basis for translations into thevernacular.[92][93] Most of the quotations (300 of 400) of the Old Testament in the New Testament, while differing more or less from the version presented by the Masoretic text, align with that of the Septuagint.[94]
Marcionism rejects the Old Testament entirely; Marcion considered the Old Testament and New Testament gods to be different entities.
This table lists seventy-four books and additions. See notes below table.
| Judaism | Western tradition | Eastern Orthodox tradition | Oriental Orthodox tradition | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Books | Samaritan Pentateuch | Hebrew Bible [O 1] | Nonconformist Protestant [O 2] | Lutheran [O 3] | Anglican [O 4] | Latin Catholicism[95] [O 5] | Greek Orthodox[O 6] | Russian Orthodox[O 7] | Georgian Orthodox[O 8][O 9] | Armenian Apostolic[O 10] | Orthodox Tewahedo[96] | Coptic Orthodox[97] | Syriac Orthodox[O 11] | Church of the East[O 12] |
| Torah | Pentateuch | |||||||||||||
| Genesis | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Exodus | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Leviticus | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Numbers | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Deuteronomy | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Nevi'im Rishonim | Historical books | |||||||||||||
| Joshua | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Josue | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Judges | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Ruth | No | Yes (part of Ketuvim) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1 and 2 Samuel | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes 1 and 2 Kingdoms | Yes 1 and 2 Kingdoms | Yes 1 and 2 Kingdoms | Yes 1 and 2 Kingdoms | Yes 1 and 2 Kingdoms | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1 and 2 Kings | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes 3 and 4 Kingdoms | Yes 3 and 4 Kingdoms | Yes 3 and 4 Kingdoms | Yes 3 and 4 Kingdoms | Yes 3 and 4 Kingdoms | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1 and 2 Chronicles | No | Yes (part of Ketuvim) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes 1 and 2 Paralipomenon | Yes 1 and 2 Paralipomenon | Yes 1 and 2 Paralipomenon | Yes 1 and 2 Paralipomenon | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Prayer of Manasseh | No | No | No (Apocrypha)[O 13] | No (Apocrypha)[O 14] | No (Apocrypha)[O 14] | No – (inc. in Appendix in Clementine Vulgate) | No (part of Odes)[O 15] | Yes (part of 2 Paralipomenon)[O 15] | Yes (part of 2 Paralipomenon)[O 15] | No | Yes (part of 2 Chronicles) | No | No | No |
| Ezra (1 Ezra) | No | Yes (part of Ketuvim) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes 1 Esdras | Yes Esdras B' | Yes 1 Esdras | Yes 1 Ezra | Yes 1 Ezra | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Nehemiah (2 Ezra) | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes 2 Esdras | Yes Esdras Γ' or Neemias | Yes Neemias | Yes Neemias | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| 1 Esdras (3 Ezra) | No | No | No (Apocrypha)[O 13] | No | No 1 Esdras (Apocrypha) | No – (inc. in Appendix in Clementine Vulgate as 3 Esdras.)[98] | Yes Esdras A' | Yes 2 Esdras | Yes 2 Ezra | Yes | Yes Ezra Kali | No – inc. in some mss. | No – inc. in some mss. | No – inc. in some mss. |
| 2 Esdras 3–14 (4 Ezra or Apocalypsis of Esdras)[O 16] | No | No | No (Apocrypha)[O 13] | No | No 2 Esdras (Apocrypha) | No – (inc in Appendix in Clementine Vulgate as 4 Esdras.) | No (Greek ms. lost)[O 17] | Yes 3 Esdras[99] | Yes 3 Ezra – inc. as noncanonical[O 18] | No – inc. in some mss [O 19] | Yes Ezra Sutu'el | No – inc. in some mss. | No – inc. in some mss. | No – inc. in some mss. |
| 2 Esdras 1–2; 15–16 (5 and 6 Ezra or Apocalypsis of Esdras)[O 16] | No | No | No (Apocrypha)[O 13] | No | No (part of 2 Esdras apocryphon) | No – (inc. in Appendix in Clementine Vulgate as 4 Esdras.) | No (Greek ms.)[O 20] | Yes 3 Esdras[99] | Yes 3 Ezra – inc. as noncanonical[O 18] | No | No | No | No | No |
| Esther[O 21] | No | Yes (part of Ketuvim) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Additions to Esther | No | No | No (Apocrypha)[O 13] | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Tobit | No | No | No (Apocrypha)[O 13] | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes Tobias (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Judith | No | No | No (Apocrypha)[O 13] | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1 Maccabees[O 22] | No | No | No (Apocrypha[O 13] | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes 1 Machabees (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2 Maccabees[O 22] | No | No | No (Apocrypha)[O 13] | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes 2 Machabees (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3 Maccabees | No | No | No (Apocrypha)[O 13] | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes (?)[100] |
| 4 Maccabees | No | No | No (Apocrypha)[O 13] | No | No | No | No (appendix) | No | Yes – inc. as noncanonical[O 18] | No (early tradition) | No | No (Coptic ms,) | No – inc. in some mss. | Yes (?)[101] |
| 1 Ethiopic Maccabees (1 Meqabyan) | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No |
| 2 and 3 Ethiopic Maccabees[O 23] (2 and 3 Meqabyan) | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No |
| 1 Enoch[O 24] | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No |
| 2 Enoch[O 25][O 24] | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| 3 Enoch[O 26][O 24] | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Jubilees | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | No | No | No |
| Ethiopic Pseudo-Josephus (Zëna Ayhud) | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes (broader canon)[O 27] | No | No | No |
| Josephus'Jewish War VI [O 28][102] | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No – inc. in some mss.[O 28] | Yes (?)[103] |
| Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs | No | No | No | No | No | No | No (Greek ms.) | No | No | No – inc. in some mss. | No | No | No | No |
| Joseph and Asenath | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No – inc. in some mss. | No (early tradition?)[O 29] | No | No | Yes (?)[104] |
| Samaritan Book of Joshua | No (elevated status)[O 30] | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Ketuvim | Wisdom literature | |||||||||||||
| Job | No | Yes Iyov | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Additions to Job | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | No | No |
| Psalms 1–150[O 31] | No | Yes Tehillim | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Psalm 151 | No | No | No (Apocrypha)[O 13] | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No |
| Psalms 152–155 | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No (?) – inc. in some mss. | No (?) – inc. in some mss. |
| Psalms of Solomon[O 32] | No | No | No | No | No | No | No – inc. in some mss. | No | No | No | No | No | No – inc. in some mss. | No – inc. in some mss. |
| Proverbs | No | Yes Mishlei | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes (in 2 books) | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Ecclesiastes | No | Yes Qohelet | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Song of Songs | No | Yes Shir HaShirim | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Canticle of Canticles | Yes Aisma Aismaton | Yes Aisma Aismaton | Yes Aisma Aismaton | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Wisdom or Wisdom of Solomon | No | No | No (Apocrypha)[O 13] | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Wisdom of Sirach or Sirach (1–51)[O 33] | No | No | No (Apocrypha)[O 13] | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes[O 34] Ecclesiasticus (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Prayer of Solomon (Sirach 52)[O 35] | No | No | No | No | No | No (Latin ms.) | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| Nevi'im Akharonim | Prophets | |||||||||||||
| Isaiah | No | Yes Yeshayahu | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Isaias | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Ascension of Isaiah | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No – liturgical (?)[O 36] | No – Ethiopic mss. (early tradition?)[O 37] | No | No | No |
| Jeremiah | No | Yes Yirmeyahu | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Jeremias | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Lamentations (1–5) | No | Yes Eikha (part of Ketuvim) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes[O 38] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes (part ofSäqoqawä Eremyas)[O 39] | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Baruch | No | No | No (Apocrypha)[O 13] | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes[O 40][O 41] | Yes | Yes 2 Baruch | Yes |
| Letter of Jeremiah | No | No | No (Apocrypha)[O 13] | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes (chapter 6 of Baruch) (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes (part of Säqoqawä Eremyas)[O 42][O 39][O 41] | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch (2 Baruch 1–77)[O 43] | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No – inc. in some mss. | Yes (?)[105] |
| Letter of Baruch (2 Baruch 78–86)[O 43] | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes 1 Baruch | No (?) – inc. in some mss.[106] |
| Greek Apocalypse of Baruch (3 Baruch)[O 44] | No | No | No | No | No | No | No (Greek ms.) | No (Slavonic ms.) | No | No | No | No | No | No |
| 4 Baruch | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | No | Yes (part of Säqoqawä Eremyas) | No | No | No |
| Ezekiel | No | Yes Yekhezqel | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Ezechiel | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Daniel | No | Yes (part of Ketuvim) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Additions to Daniel[O 45] | No | No | No (Apocrypha)[O 13] | No (Apocrypha) | No (Apocrypha) | Yes (Deuterocanonical) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Hosea | No | Yes (Trei Asar) | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Osee | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Joel | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Amos | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Obadiah | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Abdias | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Jonah | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Jonas | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Micah | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Micheas | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Nahum | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Habakkuk | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Habacuc | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Zephaniah | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Sophonias | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Haggai | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Aggeus | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Zechariah | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Zacharias | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
| Malachi | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes Malachias | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | |
Although many books of theJewish apocrypha have been variously recognized by different Christian communities, those that are not embraced by any tradition are excluded here.
The order of some books varies among canons. TheTalmud inBava Batra 14b gives its own order for the books inNevi'im andKetuvim. This order is also quoted inMishneh Torah HilchotSeferTorah 7:15. The order of the books of the Torah are universal through all denominations of Judaism, Samaritanism, and Christianity.
The table uses the spellings and names present in modern editions of the Bible, such as theNew American Bible Revised Edition,Revised Standard Version andEnglish Standard Version. The spelling and names in both the 1609–1610Douay Old Testament (and in the 1582 Rheims New Testament) and the 1749 revision byBishop Challoner (the edition currently in print used by many Catholics, and the source of traditional Catholic spellings in English) and in the Septuagint differ from those spellings and names used in modern editions that derive from the Hebrew Masoretic text.[107]
The King James Version references some of these books by the traditional spelling when referring to them in the New Testament, such as "Esaias" (for Isaiah). In the spirit ofecumenism more recent Catholic translations (e.g., theNew American Bible,Jerusalem Bible, and ecumenical translations used by Catholics, such as theRevised Standard Version Catholic Edition) use the same "standardized" (King James Version) spellings and names as Protestant Bibles (e.g., 1 Chronicles, as opposed to the Douay 1 Paralipomenon, 1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings, instead of 1–4 Kings) in theprotocanonicals.
Other New Testament works that are generally considered apocryphal nonetheless appear in some Bibles and manuscripts. For instance, theEpistle to the Laodiceans was included in numerous Latin Vulgate manuscripts, in the eighteen German Bibles prior toLuther's translation, and also a number of early English Bibles, such as Gundulf's Bible and John Wycliffe's English translation—even as recently as 1728,William Whiston considered this epistle to be genuinely Pauline. Likewise, theThird Epistle to the Corinthians[note 3] was once considered to be part of the Armenian Orthodox Bible,[108] but is no longer printed in modern editions. Within the Syriac Orthodox tradition, the Third Epistle to the Corinthians also has a history of significance. BothAphrahat andEphraem of Syria held it in high regard and treated it as if it were canonical.[109]
TheDidache,[note 4]The Shepherd of Hermas,[note 5] and other writings attributed to theApostolic Fathers, were once considered scriptural by various earlyChurch Fathers. They are still being honored in some traditions, though they are no longer considered to be canonical. However, certain canonical books within the Orthodox Tewahedo traditions find their origin in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers as well as theAncient Church Orders. The Orthodox Tewahedo churches recognize these eight additional New Testament books in its broader canon. They are as follows: the four books of Sinodos, the two books of the Covenant, Ethiopic Clement, and the Ethiopic Didascalia.[110]
This table lists fifty-two books. See notes below table.
| Books | Protestant tradition[N 1] | Roman Catholic tradition[95] | Eastern Orthodox tradition[N 2] | Armenian Apostolic tradition[N 3] | Orthodox Tewahedo traditions | Coptic Orthodox tradition[111] | Syriac Christian traditions[N 4] |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canonical gospels[N 5] | |||||||
| Matthew | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes[N 6] |
| Mark[N 7] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes[N 6] |
| Luke | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes[N 6] |
| John[N 7][N 8] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes[N 6] |
| Acts of apostles | |||||||
| Acts[N 7] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Acts of Paul and Thecla[N 9][112][113] | No | No | No | No (early tradition) | No | No | No (early tradition) |
| Acts of Peter | No (Codex Vercellensis) | ||||||
| Pauline epistles | |||||||
| Romans | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1 Corinthians | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2 Corinthians | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 3 Corinthians[N 9][N 10] | No | No | No | No − inc. in some mss. | No | No | No (early tradition) |
| Galatians | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Ephesians | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Philippians | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Colossians | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Laodiceans | No − inc. in Wycliffe and Quaker Bibles.[N 11] | No − inc. in some mss. | No | No | No | No | No |
| 1 Thessalonians | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2 Thessalonians | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1 Timothy | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2 Timothy | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Titus | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Philemon | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Catholic epistles (General epistles) | |||||||
| Hebrews | Yes[N 12] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| James | Yes[N 12] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 1 Peter | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2 Peter | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes[N 4] |
| 1 John[N 7] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| 2 John | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes[N 4] |
| 3 John | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes[N 4] |
| Jude | Yes[N 12] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes[N 4] |
| Apocalypse | |||||||
| Revelation | Yes[N 12] | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes[N 4] |
| Apocalypse of Peter[N 13] | No (Listed as canon in the Muratorian Canon) (Muratorian fragment) | ||||||
| Apostolic Fathers[N 14] andChurch Orders[N 15] | |||||||
| 1 Clement[N 16][111] | No (Listed as canonical in "Canon 85" of theCanons of the Apostles) (CodicesAlexandrinus andHierosolymitanus) | ||||||
| 2 Clement[N 16][111] | No (Listed as canonical in "Canon 85" of theCanons of the Apostles) (CodicesAlexandrinus andHierosolymitanus) | ||||||
| Shepherd of Hermas[N 16] | No (some early traditions)[114] (Codex Claromontanus andCodex Siniaticus) | ||||||
| Epistle of Barnabas[N 16] | No (some early traditions)[115] (Codex Claromontanus,Codex Hierosolymitanus andCodex Siniaticus) | ||||||
| Didache | No (Codex Hierosolymitanus) | ||||||
| Letters of Ignatius of Antioch | No (Codex Hierosolymitanus) | ||||||
| Epistle of Polycarp | No | ||||||
| Martyrdom of Polycarp | No (Ecclesiastical History (Eusebius)) | ||||||
| Martyrium Ignatii | No (Codex Colbertinus) | ||||||
| Epistle to Diognetus[N 17] | No | ||||||
| Protoevangelium of James | No (Bodmer Papyri) | ||||||
| Ser'atä Seyon (Sinodos) | No | No | No | No | Yes (broader canon) | No | No |
| Te'ezaz (Sinodos) | No | No | No | No | Yes (broader canon) | No | No |
| Gessew (Sinodos) | No | No | No | No | Yes (broader canon) | No | No |
| Abtelis (Sinodos) | No | No | No | No | Yes (broader canon) | No | No |
| Book of the Covenant 1 (Mäshafä Kidan) | No | No | No | No | Yes (broader canon) | No | No |
| Book of the Covenant 2 (Mäshafä Kidan) | No | No | No | No | Yes (broader canon) | No | No |
| Ethiopic Clement (Qälëmentos)[N 18] | No | No | No | No | Yes (broader canon) | No | No |
| Ethiopic Didescalia (Didesqelya)[N 18] | No | No | No | No | Yes (broader canon) | No | No |
| Kebra Nagast | No | No | No | No | Yes (broader canon) | No | No |
With many other scholars, I conclude that the fixing of a canonical list was almost certainly the achievement of the Hasmonean dynasty.
With the destruction of the Temple and the state the Sadducees as a party no longer had an object for which to live. They disappear from history, though their views are partly maintained and echoed by the Samaritans, with whom they are frequently identified (see Hippolytus, "Refutatio Hæresium", ix. 29; Epiphanius, l.c. xiv.; and other Church Fathers, who ascribe to the Sadducees the rejection of the Prophets and the Hagiographa; comp. also Sanh. 90b, where "Ẓadduḳim" stands for "Kutim" [Samaritans]; Sifre, Num. 112; Geiger, l.c. pp. 128–129), and by the Karaites (see Maimonides, commentary on Ab. i. 3; Geiger, "Gesammelte Schriften", iii. 283–321; also Anan ben David; Karaites).
... the so-called Septuagint was not in itself formally closed.Attributed to Albert Sundberg's 1964 Harvard dissertation.
Prudentius [348–c. 410] ... intends to demonstrate the superiority of Christianity and was likely aware that at this time the Bible has not replaced other books as much as he wants to think. This passage also presents a possible hint that old Latin translations were replaced with a new canonical version, perhaps alluding to the Vulgate, written by Jerome at the end of the fourth century. By implication, this suggests that uncanonical texts were unlikely to be transcribed—an ideologically and authoritatively endorsed selection process that comes close to modern understandings of censorship.
[...] the bull of Eugenius IV did not deal with thecanonicity of the books which were not found in the Hebrew Text, but simply proclaimed theirinspiration [...].
Lutherans and Anglicans used it only for ethical / devotional matters but did not consider it authoritative in matters of faith.
Canon 24. 'Furthermore, it is not permissible that the translations be produced from other translations already made into other languages; rather, the new translations must be made directly from the original texts, namely ... the Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek, as the case may be, as regards the texts of Sacred Scripture.'
Media related toBiblical canon at Wikimedia Commons| Overview |  | |
|---|---|---|
| Topics | ||
| Hebrew Bible | ||
| Christian Bible | ||
Part of a series on theBiblical canon | ||
|---|---|---|
| Background | | |
| Christian canons | ||
| Bible (Scriptures) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foundations | |||||||||
| History (timeline) (spread) |
| ||||||||
| Denominations (list,members) |
| ||||||||
| Theology |
| ||||||||
| Philosophy | |||||||||
| Other features |
| ||||||||
