Deep Dive into Introduction to Biblical Interpretation by William W. Klein, Craig L. Blomberg, and Robert L. Hubbard Jr. - The Canon and Translations

The word "canon" derives from the Greek term kanōn, meaning "list," "rule," or "standard" for the collection of books accepted as uniquely authoritative. The establishment of both the Old Testament (OT) and New Testament (NT) canons relied on specific historical and theological standards.

The OT canon of the Hebrew Scriptures—divided into the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings—was fixed primarily by the criterion of dating. Jewish tradition held that divinely inspired prophecy ceased after the time of Ezra and the Minor Prophets (circa 450–400 BC). Therefore, the Apocryphal books, written during the intertestamental period, were excluded as they were deemed too late to be considered inspired Scripture by the Jewish community in Palestine.

The NT canon was defined by three rigorous criteria, with inspiration seen as a consequence, not the initial measure, of authority. First, Apostolicity required that a text originate in the first century and have direct connections to an apostle or their close associate, such as Mark with Peter or Luke with Paul. Second, Orthodoxy ensured that the doctrine and ethics promoted by the texts cohered in sound teaching, resisting heretical doctrines. Third, Catholicity demanded that the writings be preserved and prove useful across a large number of churches from the earliest generations. This collection of twenty-seven books was widely confirmed by the late second century (as seen in the Muratorian fragment) and officially endorsed by Athanasius in AD 367.

Modern Bible translations are evaluated based on their utilization of the most reliable textual evidence and their translation philosophy. The two primary methods are formal equivalence (or literal translation), which prioritizes preserving the exact form and structure of the original Greek or Hebrew, often aiding technical study but potentially sacrificing clarity. Conversely, dynamic equivalence prioritizes clarity and intelligibility, communicating the overall meaning and sense of the text in natural modern language, even if it requires rephrasing sentences or clarifying idioms. A third approach, optimal equivalence, seeks a balance between these two goals.

Reformed Theologian GPT: https://chat.openai.com/g/g-XXwzX1gnv-reformed-theologian

https://buymeacoffee.com/edi2730