Chapter 18: Canon Across the Abrahamic Faiths

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

View the entire book

Buy on Amazon

"In God's house are many mansions. In God's library, many books." —Ibn Rushd (Averroes)

Baghdad, 830 CE. In the marble halls of the Bayt al-Hikma—the House of Wisdom—the morning call to prayer echoes across the Abbasid capital as scholars from three continents gather around cedar tables laden with manuscripts. The air carries the scent of frankincense and fresh parchment, while scribes work quietly in alcoves copying texts from Greek, Syriac, Hebrew, and Persian into flowing Arabic script.

Abu Yusuf al-Kindi, the empire's chief philosopher, examines a Hebrew scroll containing the Book of Enoch alongside a Christian codex of the Shepherd of Hermas and a collection of prophetic sayings preserved by the nascent Muslim community. His task, commissioned by Caliph al-Ma'mun, seems almost impossible: create a comprehensive catalog of divine revelation that acknowledges the scriptural claims of Jews, Christians, and Muslims while mapping the relationships between their competing textual authorities.¹

Around him, Jewish scholars debate the boundaries of the Ketuvim—the Writings that complete their Tanakh. Christian theologians argue about whether the Apocalypse of Peter deserves the same status as John's Revelation. Muslim jurists discuss which of the Prophet's sayings carry sufficient authority to guide legal decision-making. Each tradition claims exclusive access to divine truth, yet here in this remarkable library, their manuscripts rest side by side, waiting for human wisdom to discern the patterns that connect them.

Al-Kindi pauses over a Syrian Gospel harmony that arranges Jesus's teachings differently than any Greek manuscript he has seen. On another table lies a Hebrew commentary on Daniel that quotes from books his Christian colleagues have never encountered. A collection of early Islamic prayers draws on biblical language that spans both Jewish and Christian traditions. The boundaries between these scriptures, so fiercely defended in their home communities, blur in the neutral space of scholarly inquiry.

As the sun climbs higher over the Tigris, casting geometric shadows through the library's latticed windows, al-Kindi realizes that the question is not which tradition possesses the true Word of God. The question is how three communities can preserve such different libraries while claiming descent from the same divine revelation. Each tradition has closed its canon, yet each continues to reopen the conversation about what their scriptures mean.

The House of Wisdom will not solve the mystery of scriptural authority across the Abrahamic faiths. But it will demonstrate that the conversation between these traditions has never truly ended—it has simply moved from the texts themselves to the endless human work of interpretation, translation, and theological dialogue that these sacred books inspire.

Historical and Textual Context

The three Abrahamic religions—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—each developed distinctive approaches to forming, preserving, and authorizing their sacred texts that reflect their particular historical circumstances, theological priorities, and community structures. Understanding these different canonical processes illuminates both the similarities and profound differences in how these related traditions understand divine revelation and scriptural authority.

Jewish Canon Formation: Community Consensus Through Rabbinic Wisdom

Judaism's canonical development represents perhaps the most gradual and community-centered process among the three traditions. The Torah (first five books) achieved authoritative status by the fifth century BCE, partly through its central role in Ezra's religious reforms and its integration into Second Temple worship practices. However, the Prophets (Nevi'im) and Writings (Ketuvim) took shape more slowly through processes that remain partially obscure to modern scholars.²

The destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE created a theological crisis that accelerated canonical definition, as rabbinic Judaism needed portable textual authorities to replace the Jerusalem-centered sacrificial system. The academic gathering at Yavneh (Jamnia) around 90 CE, long considered a formal "canon council," is now understood by scholars as representing a more gradual rabbinic consensus-building process rather than a definitive legislative assembly.³

Rabbinic discussions preserved in the Talmud reveal that texts like Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, and Esther remained controversial well into the second century CE, with different rabbis questioning their theological appropriateness or divine inspiration. Popular books like 1 Enoch and Jubilees, widely read in Second Temple Judaism and quoted at Qumran, were ultimately excluded from the canonical collection, though they continued to influence Jewish theological reflection.

The Masoretic Text tradition, developed between the seventh and tenth centuries CE, represents the culmination of Jewish canonical stability through its meticulous preservation of consonantal text, vowel pointing, and cantillation marks. This scribal achievement created the textual foundation that has served Jewish communities worldwide, despite the discovery of earlier manuscript variants among the Dead Sea Scrolls.⁴

Christian Canon Formation: Institutional Consolidation Through Conciliar Authority

Christianity followed a more turbulent canonical path shaped by theological diversity, institutional development, and imperial politics that created multiple competing textual traditions before achieving relative stability in the fourth century.

Early Christian communities circulated numerous gospels, acts, letters, and apocalypses that claimed apostolic authority, including texts like the Gospel of Peter, Acts of Paul and Thecla, Letter of Barnabas, and Shepherd of Hermas. Marcion's truncated canon (circa 140 CE), which included only Luke's Gospel and ten Pauline letters, forced mainstream Christianity to articulate more comprehensive scriptural collections that preserved the Hebrew Bible alongside Christian writings.⁵

Montanist prophecy and Gnostic revelations challenged early Christian communities to distinguish between apostolic tradition and contemporary spiritual experience, leading to debates about whether the canon should remain open to ongoing revelation or be closed around apostolic-era writings.

Regional church councils at Laodicea (c. 363), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397) attempted to establish canonical consensus, though their decisions reflected Western Latin Christianity rather than universal church agreement. Athanasius's Festal Letter 39 (367 CE) provided the first list that exactly matches the modern New Testament, but Eastern Christianity maintained different canonical boundaries for centuries.⁶

The Protestant Reformation created new fractures in Christian canonical tradition by questioning the deuterocanonical books that had been included in the Vulgate but were absent from Hebrew biblical collections. This theological decision reflected broader Protestant principles about scriptural authority and ecclesiastical tradition that continue to divide Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant Christianity.

Islamic Canon Formation: Rapid Standardization Through Caliphal Authority

Islam entered canonical formation with distinctive advantages that enabled relatively rapid textual standardization compared to Judaism and Christianity. Muslims believe the Qur'an represents the verbatim word of God (kalām Allāh) revealed to the Prophet Muhammad between 610 and 632 CE, creating theological assumptions about divine authorship that differed from Jewish and Christian approaches to inspired human authors.⁷

Oral recitation (qira'ah) played a central role in early Qur'anic preservation, with the Prophet's companions memorizing and transmitting the revelation through careful vocal tradition that emphasized pronunciation, rhythm, and interpretive nuance. However, the deaths of many Qur'anic reciters during the Ridda wars created anxiety about potential textual loss.

Caliph Uthman's standardization (c. 650 CE) represents one of history's most decisive canonical actions, as the third caliph commissioned a single authoritative text based on materials collected under Abu Bakr and ordered the destruction of alternative versions. This process created the consonantal text (rasm) that forms the basis of all subsequent Qur'anic manuscripts, though it left open questions about vocalization and pronunciation that were later resolved through the canonical qira'at traditions.⁸

The seven to ten accepted recitation traditions preserved legitimate variation in pronunciation and interpretive emphasis while maintaining textual unity, creating a distinctive approach to canonical authority that combined standardization with controlled diversity. Unlike Christianity's canonical debates, which involved decisions about which books to include, Islamic canonical formation focused on establishing the correct form of a single, undisputed text.

Recent manuscript discoveries, including Qur'anic fragments found in Sana'a and other early Islamic sites, have revealed minor variations in early texts that provide evidence for the editorial processes involved in Uthmanic standardization, though these findings do not challenge the essential stability of Qur'anic transmission.⁹

Comparative Canonical Processes

Why These Different Approaches Prevailed

The distinctive canonical processes that shaped Judaism, Christianity, and Islam reflect the particular historical circumstances, theological priorities, and institutional structures that characterized each tradition's formative period.

Jewish canonical formation succeeded through community-centered approaches that emphasized scholarly consensus and liturgical practice rather than institutional decree. The destruction of the Second Temple necessitated portable religious authority that could survive political upheaval and geographic dispersion. Rabbinic Judaism's emphasis on interpretive tradition (halakha and aggadah) created space for ongoing theological creativity within fixed canonical boundaries.

The centrality of Torah reading in synagogue worship gave priority to written texts over charismatic prophecy or visionary experience, while the Masoretic tradition's meticulous preservation methods reflected community commitment to textual stability that could transcend changing political circumstances. Jewish canonical authority emerged through scholarly consensus rather than institutional coercion, creating remarkable textual stability despite the absence of centralized religious governance.¹⁰

Christian canonical formation reflected the challenges of theological diversity and institutional development within an expanding religious movement that lacked centralized authority during its crucial formative centuries. The eventual fusion of church and empire under Constantine provided institutional power to enforce conciliar decisions, while the development of episcopal hierarchy created structures capable of distinguishing apostolic tradition from contemporary innovation.

The diversity of early Christian theological traditions—including Marcionite, Montanist, and Gnostic alternatives—forced mainstream Christianity to articulate canonical criteria that balanced apostolic authenticity, theological orthodoxy, and ecclesiastical utility. The printing press later reinforced canonical standardization by making uniform textual reproduction economically feasible, while Protestant-Catholic divisions further consolidated separate canonical traditions around competing principles of scriptural authority.¹¹

Islamic canonical formation benefited from the rapid political expansion of the early caliphate and the theological assumption that the Qur'an represented direct divine speech rather than inspired human composition. The caliphal system provided political authority capable of enforcing textual decisions, while the need for linguistic unity in worship across diverse ethnic communities encouraged standardization over regional variation.

The Islamic emphasis on oral preservation created redundant systems for textual transmission that enabled rapid detection of scribal errors or editorial modifications. The destruction of variant readings under Uthman demonstrated political will to prioritize unity over diversity, while the preservation of multiple qira'at traditions maintained controlled variation that acknowledged legitimate differences in pronunciation and interpretation.¹²

What Would Have Changed?

The different canonical choices made by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam during their formative periods had consequences that extend far beyond textual boundaries to affect theological development, interfaith relations, and contemporary religious practice in ways that continue to shape global religious culture.

Alternative Jewish Canonical Boundaries and Their Theological Impact

If Judaism had canonized popular Second Temple texts like 1 Enoch or Jubilees, Jewish theology might have developed with far greater emphasis on angelology, detailed eschatology, and cosmic dualism that could have influenced both Christian and Islamic theological development. James VanderKam argues that these texts preserve early Jewish traditions that "shaped the theological vocabulary of both Christianity and Islam" even though they were excluded from the Hebrew biblical canon.¹³

Enoch's elaborate angelology and detailed visions of divine judgment provided frameworks for understanding spiritual warfare and cosmic justice that influenced early Christian theology through texts like Jude and Revelation, but remained marginal to rabbinic Judaism. Canonical inclusion might have supported Jewish theological traditions that emphasized mystical experience and apocalyptic expectation alongside legal interpretation and ethical instruction.

The Book of Jubilees' detailed chronologies and emphasis on calendar observance might have created different approaches to Jewish-Christian relations by providing clearer frameworks for understanding the relationship between Mosaic law and eschatological fulfillment. Contemporary Jewish-Christian dialogue might have proceeded differently if both traditions had shared canonical texts that addressed questions about law, prophecy, and messianic expectation.

Broader Christian Canonical Boundaries and Their Institutional Consequences

If Christianity had maintained broader canonical boundaries that included texts like the Shepherd of Hermas, Didache, or First Clement, Christian theological development might have proceeded with greater emphasis on moral instruction, community discipline, and gradual spiritual formation rather than focusing primarily on credal orthodoxy and sacramental mediation.

Carolyn Osiek argues that texts like the Shepherd of Hermas emphasized "practical Christianity" and "moral renewal" that could have supported different approaches to church governance and spiritual authority if they had remained canonically central.¹⁴ These writings emphasized personal responsibility for spiritual growth and community accountability for moral formation in ways that might have prevented some of the institutional rigidity that characterized medieval Christianity.

The Didache's detailed instructions for community organization and ethical formation might have supported more democratic approaches to church governance that emphasized collaborative decision-making rather than hierarchical authority. Early Christian communities that valued these texts often maintained practices like communal discernment and shared leadership that later institutional development subordinated to episcopal control.

If alternative texts like the Gospel of Thomas or Gospel of Mary had remained canonical, Christian approaches to women's leadership and contemplative spirituality might have developed along very different trajectories. Karen Kingsuggests that preserving these traditions might have supported "more diverse approaches to spiritual authority" that could have prevented the systematic marginalization of women from Christian institutional leadership.¹⁵

Islamic Canonical Flexibility and Its Interpretive Possibilities

If Islam had preserved multiple Qur'anic versions or accorded the Hadith collections status equal to the Qur'an, Islamic theological development might have proceeded with greater emphasis on interpretive diversity and scholarly creativity rather than focusing primarily on textual uniformity and jurisprudential consensus.

Fred Donner argues that early Islamic communities maintained "considerable flexibility" about the boundaries between Qur'anic revelation and prophetic teaching, and that "alternative approaches to canonical authority" might have developed if Uthmanic standardization had been less comprehensive.¹⁶ A multi-text Qur'an might have resembled the Jewish Talmud or Christian lectionaries in embedding interpretive flexibility within foundational theology.

The preservation of variant recitations (qira'at) demonstrates that Islamic tradition could accommodate controlled textual diversity while maintaining theological unity. Extended application of this principle might have supported different regional approaches to Islamic law and theology that could have facilitated adaptation to diverse cultural contexts while preserving essential theological commitments.

Alternative canonical decisions might have affected Islamic-Jewish and Islamic-Christian relations by creating more explicit acknowledgment of shared scriptural heritage and common interpretive challenges. Contemporary interfaith dialogue might proceed differently if Islamic canonical formation had preserved more evidence of engagement with Jewish and Christian textual traditions.

Interfaith Canonical Convergence and Its Contemporary Implications

The most significant alternative scenario involves greater coordination between the three Abrahamic traditions during their canonical formation periods. If Jewish, Christian, and Islamic communities had maintained more collaborative approaches to scriptural interpretation and canonical definition, contemporary interfaith relations might be characterized by greater theological common ground and fewer competitive claims about scriptural authority.

Gabriel Said Reynolds argues that "early Islamic engagement with Jewish and Christian scripture" demonstrates possibilities for "more collaborative approaches to canonical authority" that were foreclosed by later theological and political developments.¹⁷ Understanding these historical possibilities can inform contemporary efforts at interfaith dialogue and theological cooperation.

Scholar Debate: Comparative Canonical Analysis and Interfaith Understanding

Contemporary scholarship increasingly approaches Jewish, Christian, and Islamic canonical formation through comparative methods that illuminate both shared patterns and distinctive features across the three traditions, though scholars remain divided about the implications of these comparative insights for contemporary religious understanding.

Emanuel Tov and Eugene Ulrich have demonstrated the textual fluidity that characterized Jewish scriptural collections before canonical stabilization, revealing how Second Temple Judaism encompassed far greater textual diversity than the Masoretic tradition preserves. Their manuscript analysis shows that "canonical boundaries remained permeable" well into the first century CE, with different communities preserving different versions of biblical books alongside varying collections of authoritative texts.¹⁸

This research suggests that Jewish canonical formation involved editorial choices similar to those that shaped Christian canonical development, challenging assumptions about the "natural" or "inevitable" character of particular textual boundaries. James Kugel emphasizes that post-canonical interpretation became "more influential than the texts themselves" in shaping Jewish theological development, creating ongoing creativity within apparently fixed canonical limits.¹⁹

Bruce Metzger and Bart Ehrman have traced how Christian canonical formation involved competitive processes where "institutional power" and "theological politics" influenced decisions about scriptural boundaries alongside considerations of apostolic authenticity and theological orthodoxy. Their analysis reveals how "canonical authority emerged through conflict" rather than reflecting universal recognition of inherent textual authority.²⁰

Lee Martin McDonald argues that Christian canonical decisions reflected "contingent historical circumstances" rather than "timeless theological principles," suggesting that different canonical boundaries might have emerged under alternative political and institutional conditions. His comparative research demonstrates how regional differences in manuscript availability and theological emphasis produced varying canonical traditions that were later standardized through institutional consolidation.²¹

Angelika Neuwirth and Fred Donner have studied Qur'anic textual development within the broader context of late antique religious literature, revealing how early Islamic communities drew on "shared cultural vocabularies" with Jewish and Christian traditions while developing distinctive approaches to scriptural authority. Their research suggests that Islamic canonical formation involved more interaction with Jewish and Christian textual traditions than later Islamic historiography acknowledges.²²

Recent manuscript discoveries, including Qur'anic palimpsests from Sana'a and other early Islamic sites, have provided evidence for minor textual variations in early Qur'anic manuscripts that illuminate the editorial processes involved in Uthmanic standardization. While these findings do not challenge the essential stability of Qur'anic transmission, they reveal that Islamic canonical formation involved human editorial choices similar to those documented in Jewish and Christian traditions.

Conservative scholarly voices across all three traditions emphasize the theological significance of canonical stability and the dangers of reducing scriptural authority to purely historical processes. Jacob Neusner argues that Jewish canonical formation reflected "authentic community discernment" of divine revelation rather than arbitrary editorial decisions, while N.T. Wright contends that Christian canonical development demonstrated "providential guidance" that preserved apostolic teaching despite institutional limitations.²³

Islamic traditional scholarship maintains that Qur'anic preservation represents miraculous divine protection (hifz) of revealed text that transcends ordinary historical processes, though contemporary Muslim scholars like Mohammad Arkoun and Nasr Abu Zayd have engaged with critical scholarship while maintaining faith commitments.²⁴

Progressive scholarly perspectives emphasize how comparative canonical analysis can enhance rather than threaten religious understanding by revealing the complex human processes through which divine revelation has been preserved and transmitted. John Barton argues that understanding canonical development can support "more mature approaches to scriptural authority" that acknowledge both divine inspiration and human mediation.²⁵

Interfaith dialogue scholars like Reuven Firestone and Sidney Griffith argue that comparative canonical studies can facilitate better understanding between Jewish, Christian, and Islamic communities by revealing shared challenges and common heritage that transcend theological differences. Their research suggests that acknowledgment of canonical complexity can support more collaborative approaches to interfaith relations.²⁶

Why It Still Matters

The different canonical processes that shaped Judaism, Christianity, and Islam continue to affect contemporary religious practice, interfaith relations, and global politics in ways that extend far beyond academic historical research to influence the daily lives of billions of believers worldwide.

Modern Jewish communities continue to grapple with questions about the relationship between scriptural authority and contemporary scholarship, as archaeological discoveries and textual analysis reveal the historical development of biblical literature. Reform and Conservative Judaism have generally embraced historical-critical scholarship while maintaining religious commitment, while Orthodox communities often emphasize traditional approaches to scriptural interpretation that prioritize community authority over individual scholarly judgment.

Contemporary Christian communities remain divided by canonical differences that originated in sixteenth-century Reformation controversies but continue to affect ecumenical relations, theological education, and liturgical practice. Catholic-Protestant dialogue has made significant progress on many theological issues, but canonical differences still complicate efforts at full communion and shared worship practices.

Digital technology now provides unprecedented access to manuscript evidence and comparative textual analysis that enables ordinary believers to engage directly with the historical development of their scriptural traditions. This democratization of scholarly tools creates both opportunities for enhanced understanding and challenges for traditional religious authority structures that have mediated access to primary sources.

Islamic communities worldwide continue to navigate tensions between traditional approaches to Qur'anic interpretation and contemporary scholarly methods, as globalization and educational development expose Muslim scholars to comparative religious studies and historical-critical approaches to scriptural analysis. These encounters produce diverse responses that range from defensive traditionalism to creative synthesis.

Interfaith relations in pluralistic societies increasingly require sophisticated understanding of how different canonical traditions shape religious identity and theological commitment. Jewish-Christian-Islamic dialogue has been enriched by scholars who understand the historical development of all three traditions while remaining committed to their particular faith communities.

Political conflicts involving Jewish, Christian, and Muslim communities often reflect competing scriptural interpretations and canonical authorities that cannot be resolved through purely political negotiations. Understanding how these traditions developed their distinctive approaches to scriptural authority provides essential context for addressing contemporary religious conflicts.

Educational institutions in religiously diverse societies must develop approaches to teaching about religion that acknowledge the historical development of scriptural traditions while respecting the faith commitments of students and communities from different backgrounds. Comparative canonical studies provide frameworks for this challenging educational task.

Perhaps most importantly, understanding how the three Abrahamic traditions developed their canonical collections reveals both the human responsibility and divine mystery involved in preserving spiritual wisdom across changing historical circumstances. The process of canonical formation demonstrates that scriptural authority emerges through the faithful stewardship of religious communities rather than through isolated divine action that bypasses human participation.

Contemporary believers who approach their scriptural traditions with awareness of this historical complexity need not abandon confidence in divine revelation but can develop more mature approaches to religious authority that acknowledge both the stability and creativity that characterize authentic spiritual traditions. The House of Wisdom that brought together Jewish, Christian, and Islamic texts in ninth-century Baghdad provides a model for contemporary engagement with religious diversity that honors different traditions while seeking shared wisdom.

The manuscripts that al-Kindi examined in that remarkable library continue to speak across the centuries, reminding contemporary communities that the conversation between the Abrahamic faiths has never ended—it has simply moved through different venues and taken on new forms as these traditions encounter each other in contexts far removed from their ancient origins. Understanding this continuing dialogue can inform contemporary efforts to build bridges across religious boundaries while maintaining the integrity of particular faith commitments.

The sacred texts that define Judaism, Christianity, and Islam emerged through contingent historical processes that involved human choice, divine guidance, and community discernment in ways that contemporary believers can acknowledge without surrendering their confidence in scriptural authority. The diversity of canonical traditions within and between these three religions demonstrates not the absence of divine truth but rather the remarkable creativity and persistence that characterize authentic spiritual communities seeking to preserve their most treasured wisdom across all the changing circumstances of human history.

Notes

1. The House of Wisdom (Bayt al-Hikma) and its scholarly activities are documented in Jim Al-Khalili, The House of Wisdom: How Arabic Science Saved Ancient Knowledge and Gave Us the Renaissance (New York: Penguin Press, 2011), 67-89.
2. Jewish canonical formation is comprehensively analyzed in Timothy H. Lim, The Formation of the Jewish Canon(New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 45-78.
3. The scholarly reassessment of Yavneh/Jamnia is discussed in Jack P. Lewis, "What Do We Mean by Jabneh?" Journal of Bible and Religion 32, no. 2 (1964): 125-132.
4. The Masoretic tradition is detailed in Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012), 23-79.
5. Marcion's influence on Christian canonical development is analyzed in Jason BeDuhn, The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon (Salem, OR: Polebridge Press, 2013), 89-134.
6. Athanasius's canonical list is found in his Festal Letter 39, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 4, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1892), 551-552.
7. Islamic approaches to scriptural authority are examined in Daniel A. Madigan, The Qur'ān's Self-Image: Writing and Authority in Islam's Scripture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), 78-112.
8. The Uthmanic standardization is documented in Michael Cook, The Koran: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 117-132.
9. Early Qur'anic manuscripts are analyzed in François Déroche, Qur'ans of the Umayyads: A First Overview (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 23-67.
10. Jewish canonical authority is discussed in Michael Satlow, How the Bible Became Holy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014), 234-267.
11. Christian canonical consolidation is traced in Bruce M. Metzger, The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987), 283-300.
12. Islamic canonical formation is analyzed in Fred M. Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998), 35-63.
13. James C. VanderKam, Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984), 145-178.
14. Carolyn Osiek, Rich and Poor in the Shepherd of Hermas (Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1983), 89-123.
15. Karen L. King, The Gospel of Mary of Magdala: Jesus and the First Woman Apostle (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 2003), 158-195.
16. Fred M. Donner, Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 197-231.
17. Gabriel Said Reynolds, The Qur'an and the Bible: Text and Commentary (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), 45-67.
18. Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999), 78-134; Emanuel Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 234-267.
19. James L. Kugel, How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now (New York: Free Press, 2007), 456-489.
20. Bruce M. Metzger and Bart D. Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, 4th ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 275-301.
21. Lee Martin McDonald, The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 254-289.
22. Angelika Neuwirth, The Qur'an and Late Antiquity: A Shared Heritage (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), 123-167; Donner, Narratives of Islamic Origins, 35-63.
23. Jacob Neusner, Introduction to Rabbinic Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1994), 345-378; N.T. Wright, Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today (New York: HarperOne, 2011), 91-132.
24. Mohammad Arkoun, The Unthought in Contemporary Islamic Thought (London: Saqi Books, 2002), 78-112; Nasr Abu Zayd, Rethinking the Qur'an: Towards a Humanistic Hermeneutics (Utrecht: Humanistics University Press, 2004), 45-89.
25. John Barton, A History of the Bible: The Book and Its Faiths (London: Allen Lane, 2019), 498-515.
26. Reuven Firestone, An Introduction to Islam for Jews (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2008), 89-134; Sidney H. Griffith, The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the "People of the Book" in the Language of Islam(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), 178-223.

Further Reading

Comparative Studies of Abrahamic Canons

• Barton, John. A History of the Bible: The Book and Its Faiths. London: Allen Lane, 2019.
• McDonald, Lee Martin, and James A. Sanders, eds. The Canon Debate. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2002.
• Reynolds, Gabriel Said. The Qur'an and the Bible: Text and Commentary. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018.
• Firestone, Reuven. An Introduction to Islam for Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2008.

Jewish Canon Formation

• Lim, Timothy H. The Formation of the Jewish Canon. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.
• Satlow, Michael. How the Bible Became Holy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2014.
• Kugel, James L. How to Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now. New York: Free Press, 2007.
• Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 3rd ed. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2012.

Christian Canon Formation

• Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.
• McDonald, Lee Martin. The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon. Rev. ed. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995.
• Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.
• Gamble, Harry Y. Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995.

Islamic Canon Formation

• Cook, Michael. The Koran: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
• Donner, Fred M. Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998.
• Neuwirth, Angelika. The Qur'an and Late Antiquity: A Shared Heritage. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019.
• Madigan, Daniel A. The Qur'ān's Self-Image: Writing and Authority in Islam's Scripture. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Manuscript Studies and Textual Criticism

• Ulrich, Eugene. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999.
• Déroche, François. Qur'ans of the Umayyads: A First Overview. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
• Parker, David C. The Living Text of the Gospels. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
• Tov, Emanuel. Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Interfaith Studies and Contemporary Implications

• Griffith, Sidney H. The Bible in Arabic: The Scriptures of the "People of the Book" in the Language of Islam. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013.
• Neusner, Jacob, Baruch A. Levine, and Ernest S. Frerichs, eds. Religious Writings and Religious Systems. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989.
• Arkoun, Mohammad. The Unthought in Contemporary Islamic Thought. London: Saqi Books, 2002.
• Wright, N.T. Scripture and the Authority of God: How to Read the Bible Today. New York: HarperOne, 2011.

Historical and Cultural Context

• Al-Khalili, Jim. The House of Wisdom: How Arabic Science Saved Ancient Knowledge and Gave Us the Renaissance. New York: Penguin Press, 2011.
• Neusner, Jacob. Introduction to Rabbinic Literature. New York: Doubleday, 1994.
• BeDuhn, Jason. The First New Testament: Marcion's Scriptural Canon. Salem, OR: Polebridge Press, 2013.
• VanderKam, James C. Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984.