Chapter 15: The Illusion of Unity

This chapter is part of the book The Sacred Editors: Christianity.

View the entire book

Buy on Amazon

"This is the Word of God. Unchanging. Inerrant. Complete."

Dallas, Texas, Sunday Morning, 2025. Pastor Michael Harrison adjusts his wireless microphone as fifteen thousand congregants settle into cushioned auditorium seats. The massive LED screens flanking the stage display a single verse: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Timothy 3:16, NIV). He lifts his black leather-bound study Bible—spine embossed with gold lettering—and his voice carries through state-of-the-art sound systems to the furthest balcony.

"This morning, we're going to talk about absolute truth," Harrison declares, his words met with murmurs of approval. "In a world of relativism and confusion, we have something solid. Something unchanging. This Bible—the same Bible that has guided Christians for two thousand years—contains everything we need for life and godliness."

The congregation nods in unified appreciation. But outside this sanctuary, the picture grows more complex. Three blocks east, at St. Mary's Catholic Church, Father Rodriguez reads from the same 2 Timothy passage during morning Mass—but his Lectionary includes seven additional books that Pastor Harrison's Bible lacks entirely. The Wisdom of Sirach and 2 Maccabees sit on his altar as canonical Scripture, their ancient wisdom woven into liturgical prayers that his Mexican-American parishioners have inherited from centuries of Catholic tradition.

Across town, at First Presbyterian Church, Dr. Sarah Chen delivers her sermon from the New Revised Standard Version, where 2 Timothy 3:16 reads differently: "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness." The subtle shift from "God-breathed" to "inspired by God" reflects different theological emphases that have divided Protestant communities for decades. Chen's congregation includes biblical scholars who understand that the Greek word theopneustos appears nowhere else in ancient literature, making its precise meaning a matter of scholarly interpretation rather than linguistic certainty.¹

Downtown, the Ethiopian Orthodox Community gathers in a converted warehouse where Bishop Tekle reads from a biblical canon containing eighty-one books—including the Book of Enoch and Jubilees—texts that Western Christianity abandoned over a millennium ago but that Ethiopian Christians have preserved as authentic apostolic Scripture.² His congregation chants responses in Ge'ez, an ancient liturgical language that maintains theological vocabulary lost in modern translations.

Online, thousands more join a livestreamed Bible study led by Pastor Jennifer Walsh, whose Progressive Christian Community questions whether Paul's letters represent authentic apostolic teaching or later ecclesiastical attempts to control women's leadership in early Christian communities. Her digital congregation spans continents, united by shared skepticism about traditional canonical boundaries and enthusiasm for recovering voices that ancient church councils excluded from Scripture.³

Each of these communities claims fidelity to "the Bible." Each believes their particular collection of texts represents authentic divine revelation. Yet they inhabit fundamentally different theological universes, shaped by canonical decisions made centuries ago under circumstances that contemporary believers rarely understand or acknowledge.

The myth of biblical unity—the assumption that Christians throughout history have shared a single, stable scriptural foundation—may be one of the most powerful and misleading beliefs in contemporary religious culture. Behind every confident proclamation about "what the Bible says" lies a complex history of human decisions about which books deserve scriptural status, how ancient languages should be translated into modern vernaculars, and which interpretive traditions deserve ongoing authority.

Historical and Textual Context

From the pulpit to the pew, the idea that there is one Bible—one universal, stable, divinely preserved text—is both psychologically powerful and historically misleading. In reality, what contemporary Christians call "the Bible" represents a patchwork of translations, canons, traditions, and editorial decisions that continue to diverge across denominations, languages, and cultural contexts in ways that fundamentally shape religious experience.

There is no single Christian Bible. The Roman Catholic Church officially recognizes seventy-three books as canonical Scripture, including the deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees, and additions to Esther and Daniel) that provide scriptural foundation for distinctly Catholic teachings about purgatory, saintly intercession, and the efficacy of good works.⁴ Protestant churches typically recognize sixty-six books, following Martin Luther's decision to relocate the deuterocanonical books to a separate "Apocrypha" section before later editions eliminated them entirely.⁵

Eastern Orthodox traditions maintain different canonical arrangements that vary between Greek Orthodox (76 books), Russian Orthodox (77 books), and other national churches, while preserving liturgical and theological emphases that reflect different early Christian communities.⁶ The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church recognizes eighty-one books, including 1 Enoch, Jubilees, and 4 Esdras—texts that provide theological vocabulary and narrative frameworks entirely absent from Western Christianity.⁷

Syriac Christianity preserved alternative Gospel harmonies like the Diatessaron for centuries after Western churches had adopted the four-Gospel canonical arrangement, while Armenian Christianity developed distinctive liturgical traditions that reflect different approaches to biblical interpretation and theological emphasis.⁸ Coptic Christianitymaintained texts and theological traditions that survived Islamic conquest but remained largely unknown to European Christianity until modern archaeological discoveries.

Even within apparently unified Protestant traditions, canonical boundaries remain surprisingly fluid. Seventh-day Adventists accord special authority to Ellen G. White's writings, while Latter-day Saints include the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price as additional scriptural revelation. Jehovah's Witnessesuse their own New World Translation that reflects distinctive theological interpretations, while Pentecostal churchesemphasize ongoing prophetic revelation that can supplement or reinterpret traditional biblical teaching.⁹

Translation differences compound canonical diversity in ways that profoundly affect religious understanding and practice. The King James Version differs substantially from the New Revised Standard Version, which differs from the New International Version, which differs from the Jerusalem Bible or New American Bible. Each translation makes thousands of interpretive choices about gender language, verb tenses, cultural idioms, and theological vocabulary that shape how readers understand divine revelation and moral guidance.

Timothy Michael Law observes that "readers often imagine they're reading the same Bible as the early Christians. They're not. They're reading the product of centuries of change—and a good deal of marketing."¹⁰ The comfortable assumption that contemporary believers share biblical foundations with apostolic Christianity dissolves under historical scrutiny that reveals how extensively modern scriptural collections reflect particular institutional choices rather than universal divine preservation.

The Development of Unity Myths

The illusion of biblical unity didn't emerge accidentally but was actively constructed through institutional processes that served important religious and political functions while obscuring the complex historical development of Christian scriptural traditions.

Early Christian communities approached "Scripture" as a fluid concept that could include Jewish biblical texts, Jesus sayings, apostolic letters, prophetic revelations, and liturgical compositions depending on local needs and theological emphases. Justin Martyr (d. 165) describes Christian worship that included readings from "the memoirs of the apostles" alongside Hebrew biblical texts, but provides no indication that specific book collections had achieved fixed canonical status.¹¹ Clement of Alexandria (d. 215) quotes freely from texts that later Christianity would classify as "apocryphal" or "heretical," suggesting that canonical boundaries remained permeable in educated Christian circles.¹²

Political consolidation under Constantine and his successors encouraged ecclesiastical standardization that extended to biblical collections alongside credal formulations and liturgical practices. The Council of Carthage (397) produced one of the earliest official canonical lists, but regional variation continued for centuries as different Christian communities preserved textual traditions that reflected their particular theological emphases and cultural contexts.¹³

Medieval manuscript culture maintained awareness of textual diversity through scriptural commentaries that acknowledged variant readings, alternative interpretations, and ongoing scholarly debates about biblical meaning. Thomas Aquinas routinely discussed different possible translations of key biblical terms, while medieval copyistspreserved manuscript traditions that included marginalia, alternative readings, and critical notes about textual uncertainty.¹⁴

The printing revolution fundamentally altered this dynamic by creating pressure for standardized editions that could be mass-produced and widely distributed. Erasmus's hastily compiled Textus Receptus (1516) became the foundation for Protestant biblical scholarship not because of its superior manuscript foundation but because it was available in print when theological controversy demanded accessible Greek New Testament texts.¹⁵ The Council of Trent (1546) similarly declared the Latin Vulgate to be "authentic and authoritative" partly to provide a stable textual foundation for Catholic theology in an age of Protestant challenges.¹⁶

Modern denominational consolidation further encouraged the development of unity myths as competing Christian traditions sought to demonstrate their fidelity to authentic biblical teaching. The Westminster Confession (1646) affirmed the Protestant canonical list as divinely established, while Catholic Counter-Reformation literature emphasized the Church's role in preserving authentic Scripture against Protestant innovations.¹⁷ Evangelical movements in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries developed increasingly sophisticated theories of biblical inerrancy that required assumptions about original textual unity that could support claims about contemporary biblical reliability.¹⁸

Bible publishers discovered that commercial success depended on presenting Scripture as a unified, reliable product rather than acknowledging the complex scholarly debates that surrounded textual transmission and canonical development. Popular study Bibles typically minimize discussion of manuscript variants, alternative translations, or canonical differences, while devotional editions eliminate scholarly apparatus entirely to preserve the impression of textual simplicity and divine clarity.¹⁹

This institutional convergence created what John Barton calls "the myth of the book"—the assumption that Christianity had always possessed a single, stable, divinely preserved biblical collection that provided unambiguous guidance for faith and practice.²⁰ This myth served important pastoral and institutional functions by providing believers with confidence in scriptural authority and giving religious leaders clear foundations for theological instruction and moral guidance.

Yet the myth also obscured the rich diversity of early Christian textual culture and made it difficult for modern believers to appreciate the complex human processes through which ancient wisdom had been preserved, interpreted, and transmitted across changing historical circumstances.

What Would Have Changed?

Understanding how myths of biblical unity developed opens important questions about how different approaches to scriptural diversity might have shaped Christian theological development, institutional structure, and interfaith relationships. These alternative scenarios illuminate both what was gained and what was lost through the particular choices that became normative for most contemporary Christianity.

Enhanced Biblical Literacy and Theological Sophistication

If major Bible translations had consistently included comprehensive scholarly apparatus—manuscript variants, historical context, canonical differences, and theological interpretation—Christian communities might have developed significantly greater biblical literacy and more sophisticated approaches to scriptural authority that acknowledged both divine inspiration and human mediation.

Peter Enns argues that transparency about biblical complexity can actually strengthen faith by encouraging "more mature approaches to Scripture that honor both its divine inspiration and its human origins."²¹ Rather than experiencing cognitive dissonance when confronted with evidence of textual development or canonical diversity, believers educated about biblical complexity might have developed greater comfort with interpretive uncertainty and more collaborative approaches to theological reflection.

This educational approach could have affected everything from congregational preaching to theological education to interfaith dialogue. Pastors comfortable with biblical complexity might have preached sermons that acknowledged interpretive possibilities rather than proclaiming single authoritative meanings, while seminary curricula that integrated historical-critical methods with devotional practice might have produced clergy capable of guiding congregations through questions about scriptural authority without resorting to fundamentalist or skeptical extremes.

Cross-Denominational Collaboration and Ecumenical Progress

Greater awareness of canonical diversity and translation differences might have encouraged more productive ecumenical dialogue by helping Christian communities recognize that their theological disagreements often reflected different scriptural foundations rather than fundamental spiritual conflicts.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) argued that acknowledging canonical development could support "more historically informed approaches to biblical authority" that might reduce some barriers to Christian unity.²² Rather than treating Catholic-Protestant differences about deuterocanonical books as irreconcilable theological conflicts, communities aware of canonical history might have pursued collaborative approaches to scriptural interpretation that honored different traditions while seeking common ground.

World Council of Churches initiatives in biblical translation and liturgical development have demonstrated how awareness of textual diversity can actually facilitate rather than hinder Christian cooperation. The Revised Common Lectionary, which provides shared biblical readings across denominational lines, acknowledges canonical differences while creating possibilities for shared worship and theological reflection that transcend traditional boundaries.²³

Such ecumenical development might have affected everything from missionary activity to theological education to political engagement, as Christian communities comfortable with scriptural diversity might have been more capable of presenting united witness on social justice issues while acknowledging theological differences on secondary matters.

Different Approaches to Religious Authority and Institutional Structure

Recognition that "the Bible" represented human editorial choices rather than divine dictation might have encouraged the development of more democratic and collaborative approaches to religious authority that emphasized ongoing community discernment rather than clerical interpretation of fixed scriptural meanings.

Walter Brueggemann suggests that awareness of biblical diversity could support "more dialogical approaches to scriptural interpretation" that invite community participation in theological reflection rather than relying exclusively on pastoral or scholarly authority.²⁴ Christian communities comfortable with canonical complexity might have developed governance structures that emphasized collective wisdom and spiritual discernment alongside traditional hierarchical authority.

This institutional development might have affected women's participation in religious leadership, lay involvement in theological decision-making, and interfaith collaboration on shared social concerns. Churches that understood Scripture as preserved through community stewardship rather than ecclesiastical control might have been more open to diverse forms of spiritual leadership and more collaborative approaches to moral discernment.

Enhanced Interfaith Understanding and Global Christian Diversity

Greater awareness of Christian canonical diversity might have facilitated more productive interfaith dialogue by helping believers recognize that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all grapple with similar challenges about how to preserve ancient revelatory texts while making them meaningful for contemporary communities.

Seyyed Hossein Nasr argues that understanding scriptural development across religious traditions can support "more respectful and informed approaches to interfaith dialogue" that acknowledge both shared challenges and distinctive solutions.²⁵ Christian communities aware of their own canonical complexity might have been more capable of appreciating Jewish debates about Oral Torah and written Scripture, or Islamic discussions about Quranic interpretation and prophetic tradition.

Such interfaith awareness might have particularly affected Christian missions in non-Western contexts, where awareness of canonical diversity could have supported more sensitive approaches to cultural translation that honored local wisdom traditions while sharing Christian spiritual insights. Global Christianity might have developed along more culturally diverse lines if Western missionaries had understood their own scriptural traditions as culturally particularrather than universally normative.

Scholar Debate: One Book or Many Voices?

Contemporary biblical scholarship remains engaged in ongoing debate about how to understand biblical unity and diversity, with important implications for both academic research and popular religious education.

Bart D. Ehrman presents a consistently critical assessment that emphasizes the extent of biblical diversity and the human construction of apparent scriptural unity. In Jesus, Interrupted, Ehrman writes: "Most people who read the Bible have no idea how it came to be—or how much disagreement exists within it."²⁶ His popular writings emphasize how translation choices, canonical decisions, and interpretive traditions have shaped what contemporary believers understand as divine revelation.

Ehrman's approach stresses the political and institutional factors that influenced biblical development, arguing that recognizing these human elements is essential for honest historical scholarship and authentic spiritual reflection. He contends that fundamentalist approaches to biblical authority actually dishonor Scripture by refusing to acknowledge the complex processes through which ancient texts have been preserved and transmitted.

Bruce M. Metzger offers a more moderate scholarly perspective that acknowledges biblical complexity while maintaining confidence in Scripture's theological significance. Metzger argues that understanding canonical development and textual transmission can actually strengthen biblical interpretation by providing historical context for theological reflection.²⁷

From Metzger's perspective, awareness of biblical diversity doesn't threaten scriptural authority but rather reveals the remarkable achievement that biblical preservation represents. He emphasizes how community stewardship across centuries of changing circumstances demonstrates both divine providence and human faithfulness in ways that can inform contemporary approaches to scriptural interpretation.

Karen Armstrong advocates for understanding the Bible as a "library rather than a single book"—a collection that preserves diverse voices in both harmony and tension.²⁸ Armstrong argues that biblical diversity reflects authentic spiritual complexity that invites ongoing theological reflection rather than providing simple answers to complicated questions.

Armstrong's approach emphasizes the contemplative and mystical dimensions of scriptural diversity, suggesting that recognition of biblical complexity can support deeper spiritual practice rather than threatening religious faith. She contends that the tension between different biblical voices provides opportunities for spiritual growth that would be impossible within a completely uniform textual tradition.

Michael J. Kruger presents a conservative evangelical perspective that acknowledges historical development while maintaining confidence in divine oversight of canonical formation. Kruger argues that early Christian communitiespossessed sufficient spiritual discernment to recognize authentic apostolic teaching, and that modern canonical boundaries reflect this ancient wisdom rather than arbitrary human decision-making.²⁹

From Kruger's viewpoint, awareness of canonical development can actually strengthen evangelical confidence in biblical authority by demonstrating how divine providence worked through human historical processes to preserve authentic revelation. He contends that scholarly approaches that emphasize human construction over divine guidance reflect modern prejudices rather than historical evidence.

John Barton offers a comprehensive historical perspective that traces the development of biblical authority from ancient Jewish and Christian origins through contemporary scholarly methodology. In A History of the Bible, Barton argues that understanding scriptural development is essential for responsible contemporary interpretation, but that this understanding need not threaten religious faith or biblical authority.³⁰

Barton emphasizes that early Christian communities approached Scripture with both reverence and flexibility, suggesting that modern believers can maintain similar attitudes toward biblical authority while acknowledging historical complexity. He advocates for approaches that honor both scholarly integrity and devotional practice without requiring believers to choose between historical honesty and spiritual commitment.

N.T. Wright presents a theological perspective that integrates historical scholarship with Christian orthodoxy, arguing that understanding biblical development can actually strengthen rather than threaten traditional Christian teaching. Wright contends that Scripture's authority emerges not from isolation from human history but from its deep embeddedness within God's ongoing relationship with human communities.³¹

From Wright's perspective, biblical diversity reflects the richness of divine revelation rather than human confusion or institutional manipulation. He argues that careful historical study can support more sophisticated theological reflection that honors both biblical complexity and Christian tradition.

Why It Still Matters

The illusion of biblical unity continues to shape contemporary Christian experience in ways that extend far beyond academic theological discussion to practical questions about worship, spiritual formation, moral guidance, and religious authority that affect millions of believers worldwide.

Denominational conflicts often reflect canonical and translational differences that originated centuries ago under very different historical circumstances. Catholic-Protestant disagreements about deuterocanonical books, Orthodox-Westerndifferences about filioque theology, and evangelical-mainline debates about biblical interpretation all reflect scriptural foundations that developed through particular historical processes rather than universal divine revelation.

Understanding canonical diversity could facilitate more productive ecumenical dialogue by helping communities recognize shared spiritual foundations while acknowledging legitimate differences about textual boundaries and interpretive traditions. The World Council of Churches and various bilateral theological commissions have made significant progress on many doctrinal issues, but biblical authority remains a persistent challenge because different Christian traditions literally read different books as Scripture.

Biblical preaching in most contemporary churches continues to assume textual unity and interpretive clarity that historical scholarship has demonstrated to be problematic. Expository sermons that proclaim "what the Bible clearly teaches" typically ignore the complex interpretive processes through which ancient texts are translated, contextualized, and applied to contemporary circumstances.

Greater awareness of biblical complexity could encourage homiletical approaches that acknowledge interpretive possibilities while maintaining confidence in scriptural guidance for Christian faith and practice. Progressive and conservative preachers alike might benefit from approaches that honor both scriptural authority and interpretive humility.

Christian education programs in most denominations continue to present biblical authority in ways that prepare believers poorly for encountering evidence of textual diversity, canonical development, or interpretive complexity. Sunday school curricula and adult education materials typically emphasize biblical unity and divine preservation while minimizing discussion of the human processes through which Scripture has been transmitted and interpreted.

Theological literacy among contemporary Christians might be significantly enhanced by educational approaches that integrate devotional practice with historical awareness, enabling believers to appreciate both the divine inspiration and human mediation that characterize biblical revelation.

Political and social engagement by Christian communities continues to be shaped by assumptions about biblical clarity and authority that ignore the complex interpretive processes through which ancient texts are applied to contemporary circumstances. Religious liberty debates, social justice advocacy, and moral legislation all involve appeals to "biblical teaching" that depend on particular canonical and interpretive traditions rather than universal spiritual principles.

Greater awareness of biblical complexity might encourage more humble and collaborative approaches to public theology that acknowledge interpretive uncertainty while maintaining commitment to scriptural guidance for community life and social engagement.

Global Christianity increasingly encompasses communities that approach Scripture through cultural and linguistic contexts that were unknown to earlier generations of biblical interpreters. Understanding how canonical and translational diversity affected European Christian development can inform contemporary efforts to make biblical texts meaningful to African, Asian, and Latin American Christian communities without imposing Western interpretive frameworks.

The digital revolution now provides unprecedented access to multiple biblical translations, manuscript images, and scholarly tools that enable ordinary believers to engage in comparative textual analysis that was previously limited to academic specialists. This technological development potentially reverses some of printing's standardizing effects by making textual diversity visible and accessible to popular audiences.

Yet most readers still rely primarily on single translations and denominational interpretive traditions, suggesting that technological possibility doesn't automatically translate into changed reading practices or greater appreciation for the complex human processes through which Scripture has been transmitted.

Contemporary Cultural Impact

The illusion of biblical unity continues to shape not only religious communities but broader cultural and political discourse in ways that extend far beyond explicitly theological contexts.

Legal arguments about religious freedom, moral legislation, and constitutional interpretation frequently invoke "biblical principles" or "Judeo-Christian values" without acknowledging the diversity of scriptural traditions and interpretive approaches that these appeals represent. Supreme Court decisions, legislative debates, and political campaigns often assume biblical clarity and unity that historical scholarship has demonstrated to be problematic.

Literary and artistic traditions throughout Western culture continue to reflect canonical choices made centuries ago under specific historical circumstances. The absence of deuterocanonical books from most Protestant cultural contextsmeans that artistic and literary references to Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, or Maccabees remain largely incomprehensible to English-speaking audiences, while Catholic and Orthodox cultural traditions preserve artistic vocabularies unknown to Protestant communities.

Popular media presentations of biblical themes typically assume textual unity and interpretive clarity that ignore the complex processes through which ancient texts have been preserved, translated, and interpreted across different cultural contexts. Hollywood biblical epics, contemporary Christian fiction, and religious broadcasting all reflect particular canonical and interpretive traditions while presenting themselves as representing universal biblical teaching.

Educational institutions throughout Western societies continue to grapple with questions about how to teach about biblical literature and religious history in ways that acknowledge both cultural significance and interpretive complexity. Public school curricula, university courses, and museum exhibitions must navigate between religious sensitivities and scholarly integrity while helping students understand the role of biblical traditions in literary, historical, and cultural development.

Perhaps most significantly, the myth of biblical unity continues to affect how believers and skeptics approach questions about religious authority, scriptural interpretation, and spiritual formation. Both fundamentalist assertions about biblical inerrancy and secular dismissals of religious tradition often assume textual unity and interpretive clarity that historical scholarship has revealed to be problematic.

Understanding the complex history of biblical development offers possibilities for more nuanced approaches to questions about religious authority and spiritual wisdom that acknowledge both divine inspiration and human mediation without requiring believers to choose between historical honesty and spiritual commitment. The Bible's authority emerges not from isolation from human history but from its deep embeddedness within the lived experience of communities seeking to preserve and transmit their most treasured spiritual insights across changing circumstances.

Recognizing biblical diversity as a feature rather than a flaw can actually strengthen rather than threaten confidence in Scripture by revealing the remarkable achievement that biblical transmission represents. The countless human decisionsthat shaped canonical boundaries, translation choices, and interpretive traditions demonstrate both the complexity of divine revelation and the faithfulness of communities that have preserved ancient wisdom across centuries of changing circumstances.

Contemporary Christians who approach Scripture with awareness of its historical development can engage more thoughtfully with both the ancient origins and continuing significance of biblical texts for communities seeking guidance for faithful discipleship. Understanding the illusion of unity prepares believers to appreciate the authentic diversity that has always characterized Christian biblical traditions while maintaining confidence in Scripture's power to guide, challenge, and transform human communities across all the changing circumstances of historical development.

Canonical Comparison Chart

Notes

1. The Greek word theopneustos in 2 Timothy 3:16 is analyzed in I. Howard Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1999), 785-790.
2. For the Ethiopian Orthodox canon, see Roger Cowley, The Traditional Interpretation of the Apocalypse of St. John in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983), 16-20.
3. Progressive Christian approaches to Pauline authorship are discussed in Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins (New York: Crossroad, 1983), 160-204.
4. The Catholic deuterocanonical books are officially defined in the Council of Trent's Decree on the Sacred Books and on Traditions to be Received (1546), in Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, ed. Norman Tanner (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 2:663-665.
5. Luther's canonical decisions are documented in his preface to the German New Testament (1522), translated in Luther's Works, vol. 35, ed. E. Theodore Bachmann (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1960), 357-362.
6. Orthodox canonical variations are detailed in John Anthony McGuckin, The Orthodox Church: An Introduction to Its History, Doctrine, and Spiritual Culture (Oxford: Blackwell, 2008), 12-18.
7. The Ethiopian canonical tradition is analyzed in S. A. B. Mercer, The Ethiopian Liturgy: Its Sources, Development, and Present Form (London: SPCK, 1915), 45-62.
8. Syriac Christianity's textual traditions are examined in Sebastian P. Brock, The Bible in the Syriac Tradition, 2nd ed. (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2006), 15-28.
9. Contemporary Protestant canonical variations are discussed in Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority, 3rd ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 453-472.
10. Timothy Michael Law, When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), 161.
11. Justin Martyr's description appears in First Apology 67, translated in Early Christian Writings, ed. Maxwell Staniforth (London: Penguin Classics, 1968), 129.
12. Clement of Alexandria's biblical citations are analyzed in Carl P. Cosaert, The Text of the Gospels in Clement of Alexandria (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2008), 45-78.
13. The Council of Carthage's canonical decisions are documented in Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1876), 399-412.
14. Medieval awareness of textual diversity is discussed in Beryl Smalley, The Study of the Bible in the Middle Ages, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983), 78-105.
15. Erasmus's editorial process is detailed in Jerry H. Bentley, Humanists and Holy Writ: New Testament Scholarship in the Renaissance (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983), 112-143.
16. The Council of Trent's biblical decisions are analyzed in John W. O'Malley, Trent: What Happened at the Council(Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2013), 89-96.
17. The Westminster Confession's canonical affirmation is found in chapter 1.2-3, in The Constitution of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), Part I: Book of Confessions (Louisville: Office of the General Assembly, 1999), 6.002-6.003.
18. Evangelical inerrancy theories are traced in Mark A. Noll, Between Faith and Criticism: Evangelicals, Scholarship, and the Bible in America, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1991), 11-48.
19. Bible publishing practices are analyzed in Paul C. Gutjahr, An American Bible: A History of the Good Book in the United States, 1777-1880 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1999), 156-189.
20. John Barton, A History of the Bible: The Book and Its Faiths (London: Allen Lane, 2019), 245.
21. Peter Enns, Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005), 168.
22. Joseph Ratzinger, "Biblical Interpretation in Crisis," in God's Word: Scripture—Tradition—Office, ed. Peter Hünermann (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008), 98.
23. The Revised Common Lectionary's development is discussed in Hoyt L. Hickman, A Primer for Church Worship(Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1984), 45-67.
24. Walter Brueggemann, Texts Under Negotiation: The Bible and Postmodern Imagination (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 61-62.
25. Seyyed Hossein Nasr, The Heart of Islam: Enduring Values for Humanity (New York: HarperSanFrancisco, 2002), 45-48.
26. Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (New York: HarperOne, 2009), 17.
27. Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 283-288.
28. Karen Armstrong, The Bible: A Biography (New York: Grove Press, 2007), 12.
29. Michael J. Kruger, Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 273-301.
30. Barton, History of the Bible, 512-515.
31. N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (New York: HarperOne, 2011), 91-132.

Further Reading

Canonical Formation and Biblical Authority

• Barton, John. A History of the Bible: The Book and Its Faiths. London: Allen Lane, 2019.
• McDonald, Lee Martin. The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. 3rd ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007.
• Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
• Kruger, Michael J. Canon Revisited: Establishing the Origins and Authority of the New Testament Books. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012.

Biblical Translation and Textual Diversity

• Law, Timothy Michael. When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible. Oxford: Oxford University Press