Greek Participles - Particularly Substantival Participles - Especially Generic Substantival Participles - Some Study

Introduction

We start our consideration of the Greek participle, by going back to Classical Greek.  For this analysis, I'm relying on van Emde Boas' Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek, (pp. 606-35). I have supplemented with Mastronarde's Introduction to Attic Greek (pp. 225-33), which provides additional detail, with a focus on the study of Attic Greek, as well as with Hansen's Greek: an Intensive Course (pp. 208-30), which provides a lot of the same material for the study of ancient Greek.

These days, however, the study of Greek by English-speakers is heavily weighted toward the study of what is often referred to as "New Testament Greek."  

Huffman's The Handy Guide to New Testament Greek (pp. 75-80) provides a concise and helpful explanation of participles.  Wenham's The Elements of New Testament Greek (pp. 147-55) provides a concise description, more geared toward classroom use and, I suspect, more aimed at those just beginning their study of Greek.  Machen's classic, New Testament Greek for Beginners (pp. 87-108) has three lessons on participles, diving into more detail but providing clear explanations. Notwithstanding its name, Machen's treatment is - to my mind at least - slightly more advanced than Wenham's. 

Matthewson's Intermediate Greek Grammar (pp. 205-26) has a helpful chapter on participles, as does Köstenberger's Going Deeper with New Testament Greek (pp. 321-60). Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (pp. 612-55) similarly devotes a chapter to the subject.  Interestingly, both Huffman and Matthewson quote Wallace as to the view that "Mastery of the syntax of participles is mastery of Greek syntax." (Wallace, p. 613; Matthewson, p. 205; Huffman, p. 79) 

For the purposes of my particular study, Blass's treatment was interesting in that relevant material was found both under the study of Tense (section 339, pp. 174-5) and Mood (sections 411-25, pp. 212-20).

Participles Generally 

van Emde Boas explains (section 52.1, p. 606, bold in original, internal citation omitted):

Participles are verbal adjectives:

- they are like adjectives in that they are marked for case, number and gender, and follow the rules of agreement; 

- they are like verbs in that they are marked for tense-aspect and voice, and may be construed with an object, complement, etc.; modified by adverbs; etc.

Huffman notes that, unlike finite verbs, participles do not have mood or person (p. 75).  Matthewson spells it out more fully: "The participle is a nonfinite verb form, that is, like the infinitive, it is not limited by person, nor does it possess mood." (p. 205)

van Emde Boas goes on to explain (section 52.2, pp. 606-7, bold in original) that participles can have three uses: "Supplementary" (i.e., "as an obligatory constituent with verbs"), "Circumstantial" (e.g., "to express a circumstance, cause, condition, motivation, purpose, etc."), and "Attributive/substantival," as well as in "various periphrastic constructions."  Hansen puts it this way (p. 204, bold in original): "There are three major uses of the participle in Greek, the attributive, the circumstantial, and the supplementary."  At page 213, however, Hansen acknowledges (italics in original), "As with all adjectives, the attributive participle can be used substantively." Huffman divides the uses into adjectival, adverbial circumstantial, adverbial non-circumstantial, and independent verbal (pp. 75-78).  Wenham says: "There are two uses: the adjectival participle and the adverbial participle." (p. 151)  However, Wenham goes on to say: "The adjectival participle is generally preceded by an article (with which it agrees). This so-called articular participle is occasionally used in English in expressions like 'the living', 'the missing'. In the New Testament it is very common." (p. 151, italics in original) Matthew notes: "though the presence of the article guarantees that a participle is adjectival, the absence of the article does not guarantee that it is adverbial" (p. 206). Wenham cautions: "any number of qualifying words may be inserted between the article and the participle" (p. 151).  Matthewson insists (p. 206, italics in original): "it is important to distinguish the form of a participle (a participle is a participle is a participle!) from the variety of ways it can function (as a substantive; attributive or adverbial modifier; predicate; etc.)."  Ultimately, Matthewson classifies participles first into the categories of adjectival or verbal, and then into their sub-categories (for adjectival: attributive modifiers, predicate adjectives, and substantives; for verbal: adverbial modifiers, supplementary to verbs, and as predicates), and separately treats genitive absolutes and periphrastic constructions (p. 206). Köstenberger provides a handy chart showing up to three levels of classification of participles, in which he divides the major category of adjectival participles into "Attributive" and "Substantival" (p. 326). Wallace notes that the adjectival side of the participle "is seen in both substantival (independent) and adjectival (dependent) uses." (pp. 613-4)

Attributive/Substantival

For the purposes of my analysis, the specific sub-topic I'm most interested in is "attributive/substantival" category of usage. Machen divides these as two uses "234. The Attributive Participle" (p. 90) and "235. Substantive Use of the Participle" (p. 91). Machen provides a note about translation (p. 92, italics in original): "The Greek ὁ does not mean the man or the one or he. It means the, and it is just as simple an article as the article in the phrase the cat or the dog or the house. But in English we do not use the article with the substantive participle. Therefore we have to reproduce the idea of the Greek ὁ λέγων by a phrase of which the individual parts have absolutely nothing to do with the individual parts of the Greek phrase. It is only the total meaning of the English phrase which is the same as the total meaning of the Greek phrase." Wenham (p. 151, parenthesis in original) says: "The examples below mean literally 'the believing (ones)', 'the sowing (man)', 'the having-been-sown-by-the-wayside (man).'." In those examples, the words "ones" and "man" are provided for the reason that Machen more eloquently explains. Köstenberger explains (p. 321): "Participles usually take more than one word to translate. With a noun, for example, often a one-to-one correspondence between Greek and English can be made (ἄγγελος = angel). With a participle, however, up to six words might be needed (ὁ τεχθεὶς = "the one who has been born")."

van Emde Boas provides some examples as well as the following explanation of the attributive/substantival use: "the participle is used, normally with the article, in noun phrases, as modifier (attributive use) or head (substantival use)." (p. 607) Under the topic of "Placement of Participles," (52.3, p. 607), van Emde Boas explains that "attributive participles naturally occur in attributive position" (bold in original). Mastronarde similarly divides the uses of the participle and notes that "The substantival use of the attributive participle is extremely common in Greek" (p. 226). Huffman divides the adjectival use into "Attributive (Dependent Adjectival) Participle" (with four sub-categories), "Predicate (Dependent Adjectival) Participle" (with four subcategories), "Substantival (Independent Adjectival) Participle," and "(Pendant) Nominative Absolute Participle." (pp. 75-76)  In my view, Huffman's final category could be rolled up with his third category for our purposes, though admittedly there is a nuanced difference between them.  For the interested reader, p. 80 of Huffman provides a very handy "Participle Usage Identification Guide" with what amounts to a flow chart to identify usage.  

Tense/Aspect of Participles 

van Emde Boas also includes several sections (52.3 to 52.6) on the "Tense/Aspect and 'Mood' of Participles" (pp. 607-10).  For my purposes, I'm most interested in present tense participles and their interaction with perfect tense verbs that are what I usually think of as "main verbs," but what van Emde Boas refers to as "matrix verbs."  van Emde Boas explains (52.4, p. 607, bold in original, internal citations omitted) "Each of the tense-aspect stems has its own participle: the difference between the stems is aspectual (except for the future stem). In the case of the participle, these aspectual differences lead to a relative-tense interpretation in a large majority of cases: The present participle typically expresses an action simultaneous with that of the matrix verb ... The perfect participle typically refers to a state (or lasting effects), simultaneous with the matrix verb, resulting from a previously completed action ... ."  Huffman makes similar observations but seems to suggest that the relative time determination is for adverbial participles (as distinct, presumably, from adjectival and substantival participles): "With adverbial participles, the relationship of its action to the main verb's action must be determined, particularly its time." (p. 75) Machen simply says, "The tense of the participle is relative to the time of the leading verb." (p. 90) Köstenberger (p. 324, fn. 5) explains what he calls the traditional view with this quotation: "'In general, time is absolute in the indicative, relative in the participles, and nonexistent in the other moods" (Wallace,  498; emphasis original)."

Köstenberger (pp. 324-5) notes two further views on time in participles, one associated with Porter and the other with Picirilli, ultimately siding with Picirilli.  Porter's view, per Köstenberger, is that the order of the participle indicates the relative time (antecedent placement implying antecedent time).  Picirilli's view, per Köstenberger, is that "participles never communicate time (even relative time) but that the time of the participles can only be determined by context." (p. 325)  Köstenberger cites some statistical analysis showing that 80% of aorist adverbial participles and 90% of present adverbial participles "are contemporaneous with the action of the main verb." (p. 325) Wallace argues (p. 613): "The context has more influence on participles than on any other area of Greek grammar. ... One's exegetical skills get tested more with participles than with any other part of speech."  Blass suggests: "Participles originally had no temporal function, but denoted only the Aktionsart; their relation to the finite verb was derived from the context." (p. 174)

By contrast to the way van Emde Boas explains things, Mastronarde suggests (p. 225, italics in original, internal citations omitted): "In most constructions, the participle (like the infinitive) conveys by its tense a distinction in verbal aspect rather than time. ... The present participle conveys the aspect of the present stem: that is, continuous or repeated action. In practice, it most often refers to an action contemporaneous with the action of the main verb of the sentence and is usually translated in English by a present participle (X'ing, being X'ed). But in the proper context, the present participle may refer to an action antecedent or subsequent to that of the main verb .... The present participle may also have conative force." Wallace borrows a keen observation regarding an important nuanced difference between the infinitive and the participle: "although participles and infinitives are often translated the same (especially when the infinitive is translated as a gerund), the is a distinct difference. 'Whereas the infinitive is abstract, specking of the act or fact of doing, the participle is concrete, speaking of the person who or thing which does.'[FN18: Williams, Grammar Notes, 50. Cf. also Robertson, Grammar, 1101-02.]"

After acknowledging that participles indicate relative time, Mathewson explains (p. 205, footnote omitted): "As with finite verbs, the key feature of participles is not time but verbal aspect, or how the author chooses to represent an action: aorist participles convey perfective aspect; present participles convey imperfective aspect; perfect participles convey stative aspect." (pp. 205-6)  After briefly discussing the rare future participle, Mathewson openly disagrees with Wallace by saying: "No matter what the function of the participle (see below), it still always communicates verbal aspect.[fn3: Contra Wallace (615-16) who thinks the aspect is sometimes reduced." (p. 206) Wallace specifically notes that many nouns in Hellenistic Greek "in a former life were participles" and that the "constant pressure from the adjectival side finally caved in any remnants of verbal aspect" for such former participles (now nouns) and suggested that "when a participle is a substantival, its aspectual force is more susceptible to reduction in force." (p. 625, italics in original) 

Hansen provides a third, though arguably similar, perspective (p. 203, formatting changed, italics in original): "The tense of a Greek participle for the most part shows aspect but often in context it is clear that there is a definite temporal relationship between the participle and the main verb. 1. The present participle shows progressive/repeated aspect; its action is most often simultaneous with that of the main verb, and it can usually be translated by the English present participle, e.g., "educating, educating for oneself, being educated."

Wallace, however, provides an important observation regarding a category of substantival participles: "many substantival participles in the NT are used in generic utterances. The πας ὁ ἀκούων (or ἀγαπῶν,  ποιῶν, etc.) formula is always or almost always generic. As such it is expected to involve a gnomic idea. Most of these instances involve the present participle. But if they are already gnomic, we would be hard-pressed to make something more out of them-such as a progressive idea." (pp. 615-16, italics in original, footnotes omitted)  Wallace goes on to point out the absurdity of suggesting that "everyone who divorces his wife" should be taken in some kind of repetitive ongoing way.  In footnote, Wallace suggests that a progressive sense may still be present in a gnomic statement, suggesting that the verb to pisteuwn (believe) may be a good candidate. Wallace makes a concerted argument for this point at pp. 620-1, especially in footnote 22 on the latter page.  The former page provides the amusing, but persuasive, point that calling John "the one baptizing" does not mean that John is "the one who continually baptizes", particularly in Mark 6:14, where he is referred to this way after his decapitation.  

In the next section (52.5, pp. 608-9, bold in original, internal citations omitted), van Emde Boas points out that there are numerous exceptions to the general rule: "Although the relative-tense interpretation of the stems of the participle outlined above is usually valid, there are numerous exceptions. In such cases, a different interpretation of a certain tense-aspect stem takes precedence over (or is present in addition to) the conventional relative-tense interpretation. .. A present participle may be used to refer to an ongoing, habitual or repeated action preceding the action of the matrix verb; the present participle in such cases is sometimes called an "imperfect participle". An explicit indication is usually present ... . Present participles of the telic verbs may also have a conative interpretation, or an interpretation as a resultative present ... ."  Köstenberger (p. 323) quotes Wallace (p. 639), who notes: "Result participles are invariably present participles that follow the main verb ...." 

After discussion of the supplementary and circumstantial uses (which do not concern our present study), van Emde Boas provides greater depth regarding "The Participle in Noun Phrases" at pp. 631-4, before concluding the chapter with discussion of the periphrastic uses.  van Emde Boas makes a distinction between "Attributive Use (as Modifier) and Substantival Use (as Head)" and specifically states: "The participle can be used with an article in noun phrases, either as a modifier (attributive use) or as head (substantival use). ... Note 2: some substantivally used participles developed into nouns" providing the example of archon (chief), which developed from archw (rule) (52.46, p. 631). van Emde Boas, section 52.47 (p. 632), notes: "Occasionally, attributive/substantival participles occur without an article" providing a couple of examples. 

Generic Use

Important to our present study, at section 52.48, "Generic Use," van Emde Boas explains (p. 623, bold in original, internal citations omitted): "When the article is used with a participle (especially with present participles), it often has generic value, with the sense 'whoever ...'. The negative in this case is μή" and provides some examples. Mastronarde (p. 229) in a section on "Negation of Particples" provides a helpful discussion of the distinction between negation with οὐ as opposed to negation with μή, and states that "The negative μή is used when the participle refers to an action that is conditional or generic...." Hansen provides a similar explanation of the οὐ / μή distinction but then goes on to observe (p. 216): "Without the negative or an adverb or conjunction to help distinguish the circumstantial participles, only context allows one to chose from among all the possibilities," and offers an example in which the possibilities are "Being harmed," "When we are harmed," "Since we are harmed," "If we are harmed," and "Although we are harmed."  Blass mentions that "When the participle has a generic meaning, πᾶς may be inserted, and even then the article is usually used ...." (pp. 212-3)

"Tense/Aspect of Attribute and Substantival Participles" is the next section (52.49), here van Emde Boas explains (p. 633, bold in original, internal citations and bullet formatting omitted): "The aspectual distinctions between different tense stems are fully relevant for attributive and substantival participles. Such distinctions typically typically result in an interpretation of relative sense; for instance ... γεγενημένα in (129) refers to a state simultaneous with εἴη; Not infrequently, however, other connotations of aspect are equally or more relevant." At this point, van Emde Boas offers example 137, in which example when speaking about births and deaths generically, a present participle is used, whereas when discussing concrete births and deaths, aorist participles are used.

Section 52.50 relates to "Participles in Apposition," which relates an interesting (though essentially irrelevant to the present discussion) use of participles, particularly those of εἰμί (e.g., ὤν).  This is more interesting in connection with my length treatment of Revelation 16:5. 

There are other sections of van Emde Boas' work that are potentially informative to our discussion, such as "The Article as Substantivizer" where, at section 28.23, van Emde Boas indicates (p. 335, bold in original, internal citations omitted) "When a word (group) other than a noun is modified by the definite article, it is 'substantivized' (i.e., 'turned into a noun'), and serves as head of a noun phrase."  At section 28.25, van Emde Boas further explains (p. 335, bold in original, internal citations omitted): "The following types of word or phrase are frequently substantivized in this way: ... Participles (in any tense and voice; the article is often generic)."

Bibliography

Blass, Friedrich, and Albert Debrunner. A Greek Grammar of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Translated and revised by Robert W. Funk. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961. Section 339 "The Present and Aorist Participles", (pp. 174-5); and "The Participle," Sections 411-25, pp. 212-20)

van Emde Boas, Evert; Albert Rijksbaron, Luuk Huitink, and Mathieu de Bakker. The Cambridge Grammar of Classical Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, first published 2019 (version 5, April 2024).  Chapter 52, "The Participle" (pp. 606-35).

Hansen, Hardy, and Gerald M. Quinn. Greek: An Intensive Course. 2nd rev. ed. New York: Fordham University Press, 1992. Unit 8, Sections 65-71 (pp. 208-30)

Huffman, Douglas S. The Handy Guide to New Testament Greek. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2012. (pp. 75-80)

Köstenberger, Andreas J., Benjamin L. Merkle, and Robert L. Plummer. Going Deeper with New Testament Greek: An Intermediate Study of the Grammar and Syntax of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Nashville: B&H Academic, 2020. Chapter 10 "Participles" (pp. 321-60).  

Machen, J. Gresham. New Testament Greek for Beginners. New York: Macmillan, (originally published 1923). (Ithaca Classics 2024.) Lesson XVIII, "Present Participles. Use of Participles" (pp. 87-95), Lesson XIX, "Aorist Participles Active and Middle. Use of Participles (Continued). The Negatives οὐ and μή" (pp. 96-102), and Lesson XX, "Aorist Passive Participle. Genitive Absolute" (pp. 103-8).

Mastronarde, Donald J. Introduction to Attic Greek. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013. Unit 27, "Uses of the Participle I" (pp. 225-33)

Mathewson, David L., and Elodie Ballantine Emig. Intermediate Greek Grammar: Syntax for Students of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, (originally published 2016, paperback edition 2019).  Chapter 10 "Participles" (pp. 205-26).

Wallace, Daniel B. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996. Chapter "Participles" (pp. 612-55).

Wenham, John W. The Elements of New Testament Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965. Lesson 36 "Participles" (pp. 147-55)

Appendix: Item of interest

At page 209, Matthewson provides the following example (bold in original, one typo of ἀπό for ἀπὸ corrected, formatting altered):

χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁ ὢν καὶ ὁ ἦν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος (Rev 1:4)

Grace to you and peace from the one who is and who was and who is coming.

The participles are the objects of a preposition. Notice the grammatical incongruity with the nominative used after the preposition ἀπὸ (we would expect the genitive). This incongruity is likely intentional on the part of the author and is meant to get the readers to sit up and take notice. This is probably because the author wants to draw attention to the nature of this expression as a title and its OT antecedent (Exod. 3:14).

Matthewson footnotes what I believe to be his own work on Revelation. In any event, This explanation is similar to what I've discussed in the broader context of discussing the improvement needed to the KJV at Revelation 16:5.

Patriarchy before the Fall?

In a recent article Aaron P. Mize (a minister serving as a pastor of an OPC congregation) writes (link to article):

Scripture never presents patriarchy as the created or redeemed norm. It is a feature of the fallen world Christ overturns, not a structure he institutes.

Later in the article, he writes:

Patriarchy appears nowhere in the pre-fall order.  

I suppose, of course, this depends on what you mean by "Partriarchy". The word "patriarchy" has been loaded with a lot of baggage in recent decades.  However, inspired by the Holy Spirit, the Apostle Paul wrote:

1 Corinthians 11:7-9 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

Mize seems to believe that a male/female authority relations are somehow only a result of the fall, and consequently something that is being or will be overturned by redemption.  For example, Mize writes:

When God creates humankind male and female in his image, he communicates shared dominion and fellowship—not subordination of one to the other.

This sentence immediately precedes the section heading "Creation: Mutual Dominion, Not Male Rule." Mize goes on to argue (the emphasis and signal are Mize's):

The divine commission in Genesis 1:26–28 is joint: “Let them have dominion” (emphasis added). Both man and woman bear God’s image, both receive the mandate, both share the blessing.

Of course, the antecedent of "them" in vs. 26 is אָדָם (adam, man), and the blessing in verse 28, while also plural, includes being fruitful and multiplying, which is something performed by the female, as well as replenishing and subduing the earth, which is something performed by the male.  While this division might not be immediately obvious from 1:26-28, it becomes apparent when the curse affects the woman's reproduction (Genesis 3:16) and the man's cultivation (Genesis 3:17).

Likewise, of course, women don't multiply on their own, and there is no reason to suppose that women cannot participate alongside men in earth's cultivation, even if that is not their primary calling.  Moreover, surely the creation is under the joint rule of humanity, including men, women, and children, not solely under the rule of men.  

The question is, how can Mize's view be squared with 1 Corinthians 11?  Unfortunately for the reader, Mize does not engage this important text.  1 Corinthians 11 argues for male headship from the creation order.  Moreover, 1 Corinthians 11 is supported by Genesis.

Genesis 2:18 18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

Regarding this verse, Mize expresses his opinion thus:

Genesis 2 deepens the picture by portraying the woman as the כְּנֶגְדּוֹ עֵזֶר (ʿēzer kenegdô), “a helper corresponding to him.” The term עֵזֶר (ʿēzer) is most often used of God himself as Israel’s helper (Deut. 33:29; Ps. 33:20). It conveys strength and partnership, not subordination. 

The strength of Mize's argument here is that the term 'ezer does refer to the help or assistance itself or a person who helps or aids another person.  However, that term does not in itself convey any suggestion that the person is subordinate to the other.  As Mize observes, the majority of the uses are references to God helping humans, but it would be absurd to suppose that God is subordinate to humans.

The weakness of Mize's argument here is that God was not created for the purpose of helping man.  Moreover, consider the incarnation.  Although the Logos was in no way our subordinate, when Jesus was incarnated he took on the position of a servant:

Matthew 20:25-28 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant: Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.

Paul explains it this way:

Phillippians 2:5-8 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

A full-orbed Christology includes both the humiliation and exaltation of Christ.  Christ took on a position of service, and we should not feel ashamed to serve others.

The incarnation, however, differs from the Creation of mankind.  In the creation of mankind, Adam was first created, and then God created the woman specifically for the purpose of aiding the man.  That is not TurretinFan's argument: that's Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 11.

2 John 1 and the Textus Receptus - Room to Improve the King James Version

Nick Sayers (in his 2 John Bible Study video) has identified an interesting difference between Beza's 1598 Greek New Testament, the primary basis of the New Testament of the King James Version, and Scrivener's Textus Receptus, the usual TR edition that TR advocates reference.  This difference highlights an opportunity to improve the King James Version.

Here is the KJV:

2 John 1 (KJV) The elder unto the elect lady and her children, whom I love in the truth; and not I only, but also all they that have known the truth;

The phrase "in the truth" should be rendered "truly" or "in truth" (for a more word-for-word translation) rather than "in the truth."  Beza identified this issue as early as 1556, and suggested changing the Vulgate translation of "in veritate" ("in truth" or "in the truth" - Latin lacks articles) to "verè" ("truly") to better convey the sense of the Greek.  Beza, in his annotations (discussed in more detail below), recognized the connection between John's Greek phrase ἐν ἀληθείᾳ (en aletheia - in truth) and a corresponding Hebrew word b'emet, which has the sense of "in truth" or really/seriously.  Thus, Beza argued that the text ought to be translated with "verè" to convey the sense rather than "in veritate," though the latter is a word-for-word formal equivalent translation.

An odd thing happened, though, and Beza's main text in 1598 did not align with his Latin text nor with the (much, much later) text of Scrivener.

Beza's 1598 edition has the text of 2 John 1 as follows: 

(source)

The relevant difference is the presence (in Beza) of an article before the word aletheia (truth) the first time it appears in the verse:

2 John 1 (Scrivener) ὁ πρεσβύτεροσ ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ, καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν

2 John 1 (Beza) ὁ πρεσβύτεροσ ἐκλεκτῇ κυρίᾳ, καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις αὐτῆς, οὓς ἐγὼ ἀγαπῶ ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος, ἀλλὰ καὶ πάντες οἱ ἐγνωκότες τὴν ἀλήθειαν

One might wonder whether Beza's annotations shed any light.  Beza's Annotation is as follows:

(source)

In the following transcription, I've added modern vowel points to the Hebrew b'emet, meaning "in truth" or "really/seriously" although for reasons unknown to me, Beza used unpointed letters (perhaps it was all his printer had available?).

¶ Verè, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, Heb. בֶּאֱמֶת [beemeth.] Vulg. & Erasm. ad verbum, In veritate. ¶ Veritatem, τὴν ἀλήθειαν. i. Christum, vel Evangelium. quae phrasis saepe, apud Ioannem praefertim, occurrit. Idem itiam eiusmodi unius verbi geminatione gaudet: sicut singulis penè paginis licet observare, tum in Evangelio, tum in epistola superiore.

My own amateurish translation:

¶ Truly, ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, Heb. בֶּאֱמֶת [beemeth.] Vulg. & Erasm. word for word, In veritate (“In truth”). ¶ “The truth,” τὴν ἀληθείᾳ. that is, Christ, or the Gospel; which manner of speaking occurs often, especially with John. He also indeed delights in such a doubling of one word: just as in almost every single page it can be observed, both in the Gospel and in the former epistle.

Note, however, that Beza's own Latin follows "truly" (verè) not "in the truth" in all his editions, including the 1598.  Moreover, while we may question the Greek and/or Hebrew skills of some of the King James translators, we certainly must believe that they knew how to read Latin, and could tell the difference between the Latin for "Truly" and the Latin for "In [the] truth".  

Moreover, note that while Beza's annotation may be a little confusing in view of the text as printed, Beza's annotation is best understood not as proposing the alternative reading "love in the truth" for "truly love" but rather as referring to the portion of the text about "knowing the truth".  In other words, Beza is saying that John is making a play on words, referring to his sincere love and also knowing about Christ and/or the Gospel.

It does not seem that there is any textual critical basis for adding the article into the text.  For example, 

Stephanus' 1550 (Beza's primary source for textual critical material) does not offer any textual variant information regarding 2 John 1 and does not include the article in the main text:

(source)

Furthermore, Beza's own editions, before and after the 1598 edition, are inconsistent.  

1604. The 1604 "minor" edition (which does not have full annotations) omits the article in the text:

(source, vol. 2)

1594. The 1594 Annotations-only printing contains the same annotation:

(source at [1237])

1590. The 1590 "minor" edition (which does not have full annotations) omits the article in the text:

(source, at [899])

1589. The same text (with the article) and annotation as in the 1598 are present in Beza's 1588/89:

(source)

1582. Likewise in Beza's 1582, the article and the annotations are present:

(source, at [990])

1580. The 1580 "minor" edition (which does not have full annotations) omits the article in the text:

(source)

1575. The Latin-only 1575 edition has the same Latin text as Beza offers consistently throughout:

(source)

1567. In the 1567 "minor" edition (which does not have full annotations), the text omits the article:

(source, at [775])

1565. Likewise, in his 1565 edition, his text omits the article, despite his annotations:

(source, at [1073])

(source, at [1074])

1557. Beza's Latin edition of 1556/57 includes the same annotation:

(source, at vol. 2, [1178])

In summary, all his editions have the Latin for "truly" and all his editions with annotations seem to have essentially the same annotations.  On the other hand, Beza's three final major editions of 1582, 1589, and 1598 all have the article, but the first major Greek edition (1565) and all the other minor editions lack the article.  

The article issue is not listed among the NT Conjectures. Likewise, I could not find any mention of this change in "Beyond What Is Written: Erasmus and Beza as Conjectural Critics of the New Testament," by Jan Krans.  Based on the collation provided via INTF, I was not able to locate any transcribed manuscript with an article in the position that Beza places it here.  So, if a deliberate insertion, it would seem to be a conjectural emendation of the text.

Given the presence of the "truly" reading in Beza's Latin and the presence of the seemingly conflicting annotation in all of the editions that have article present in the text, I think it's most reasonable to assume that the presence of the article in the text in the major editions of 1582, 1588/89, and 1598 was a typographic error in the 1582 that was subsequently copied in the following major editions without being noticed by Beza.

The King James translators, who we believe relied upon Beza's 1598 as their primary text, seem to have followed Beza's main text over his annotation.  They did not translate as "in truth," "truly," "indeed," or the like.  Instead, they translated as "in the truth" without any indication that "the" was being supplied:

(source)

Blaney's 1769 KJV similarly does not italicize the "the" in the verse:

(source)

Matthew Verschuur's "Pure Cambridge Edition" (published in 2006) claims to be scrupulous about italics and likewise does not italicize:

(source)

On the other hand, although Wycliffe's 1398 had "in treuthe" (source), English translations starting with Tyndale had included the English article (I have not extensively researched whether there were any better English translations available at the time).

1568 Bishops' Bible (per BibleHub)

2 John 1: The elder to the elect Lady & her chyldren, whom I loue in the trueth: and not I only, but also all that haue knowen ye trueth:

1560 Geneva Bible (scanned)

2 John 1: The Elder to the elect Ladie, and her children, whome I loue in [a] the trueth: and not I onely, but also all that have knowen ye trueth, [a: According to godliness & not with anie wordlie affection.]

Tyndale New Testament (per WikiSource) 

2 John 1: The elder to the electe lady and her chyldren which I love in the trueth: and not I only but also all that have knowe the trueth

Given that the King James translators were aiming to edit the Bishops' Bible only where the originals demanded it, and given that Beza's 1598 seemed to support for the article present in the Bishops' Bible, it seems that King James translators followed Beza's main text over his Latin translation and his annotations, thereby maintaining Tyndale's improvable translation.

As can be seen from Beza's notes, Tyndale did not have a Greek text with the article in front of him.  He had Erasmus' 1516 text and annotations.  The annotations on 2 John (reproduced below in their entirety) did not mention this issue, and the main text lacked the article:

(source)

(source) 

An interesting collision of a weak (but by 1611 already traditional) translation by Tyndale coupled with either a typographic error or conjectural emendation in Beza's 1598 resulted in the King James Version at 2 John 1 having some room for minor improvement by omitting the definite article.

Second Prologue to Sirach

Codex 248 (aka Cod. Vat. Gr. 347) has been referred to as "one of the most important manuscript witnesses for GKI" (NETS, p. 716).  However, when translating Sirach for the New English Translation of the Septuagint, Benjamin G. Wright decided against translating the alternative prologue found in this codex.  The alternative prologue reads as follows (courtesy of Cambridge University Press), with my amateur translation attempt inserted interlinearly:

ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΟΣ

Ecclesiasticus

Σοφία Ἰησοῦ υἱοῦ Σειράχ·

Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach

Ἰησοῦς οὗτος Σειράχ μὲν ἦν υἱός, ἔγγονος δὲ Ἰησοῦ ὁμωνύμου αὐτῷ·

This Jesus was a son of Sirach, and a grandson of Jesus who bore the same name as he.

οὗτος οὖν ἐν χρόνοις κάτω γέγονε μετὰ τὴν αἰχμαλωσίαν καὶ ἀνάκλησιν, καὶ μετὰ τοὺς προφήτας σχεδὸν ἅπαντας·

Therefore this one came to be in later times, after the captivity and the return, and after almost all the prophets.

ὃν πᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ, καθὰ καὶ αὐτὸς μαρτυρεῖ, φιλόπονος τε γέγονεν ἀνὴρ Ἑβραῖος καὶ φρονιμώτατος, ὃς οὐ μόνον τὰ ἑτέρων τῶν πρὸ αὐτοῦ συνετῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀποφθέγματα συνήγαγεν, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτὸς ἰδία τινὰ ἀπεφθέγξατο, πολλῆς συνέσεως καὶ σοφίας γέμοντα·

Concerning whom everyone from Jesus, just as he himself also testifies, he became a labor-loving man, a Hebrew and most prudent, who not only gathered together the sayings of other intelligent men before him, but also himself uttered certain things of his own, being full of much understanding and wisdom.

ἐπεὶ οὖν τὴν βίβλον ταύτην ὁ πρὸς Ἰησοῦ σχεδὸν τε συντετελεγμένην καταλιπὼν ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ᾤχετο, Σειρὰχ οὗτος μετ’ αὐτὸν πάλιν λαβὼν τῷ οἰκείῳ παιδὶ κατέλιπε, Ἰησοῦς ὃς ὁ αὐτῆς λαβόμενος, εἰς ἓν ἅπαν συναγαγών, σοφίαν ἐπ’ αὐτῷ καὶ τὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπὸ τῆς σοφίας ἐκλάμψαντα ἐκ τοῦ τῆς σοφίας ὀνόματος ἀγαπητὸν ἔχειν τὸν ἀκροατὴν πρὸς τὴν αὐτῆς τῆς βίβλου μελέτην ἐπισπεύσας·

Since therefore he left this book nearly completed to Jesus and departed from among men, this Sirach, after him, again having taken it, left it to his own child, Jesus, who having received it, gathering it all into one, hastened that the hearer might have from the name of wisdom, both the wisdom upon it and the things of the father shining forth from wisdom, beloved toward the study of the book itself.

λόγους οὖν φρονήσεως καὶ αἰνίγματα τε καὶ παραβολὰς παρέχει, καὶ μερικὰς τῶν παλαιῶν θεοφίλων ἱστορίας, περὶ τε ἀνδρῶν εὐαρεστησάντων τῷ θεῷ, καὶ εὐχὴν καὶ ὕμνον αὐτοῦ·

Therefore he provides words of prudence, and riddles and parables, and some of the ancient histories of those who loved God, both concerning men who were pleasing to God, and also a prayer and his hymn.

ἔτι δὲ ὁ θεὸς εὐεργετῶν ἠξίωσε τὸν λαὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὧν ἔπληξε κακῶν τοὺς ἐχθροὺς αὐτῶν, ὅπως τοῦ Σολομῶντος οὗτος ὁ Ἰησοῦς γέγονεν, οὐδὲν ἧττον ἐκείνου περὶ τὴν σοφίαν καὶ παιδείαν εὐδοκιμήσας, πολυμαθὴς ἀληθῶς καὶ ὡς καὶ καλούμενος.

And further, God, doing good, deemed his people worthy, and of the evils with which he struck their enemies, so that this Jesus became like Solomon, having prospered no less than that one concerning wisdom and instruction, truly much-learned and even as he is called.

Canon Debate - Affirmative Constructive Argument

How do we know that there are only 39 books in the Old Testament?  Ultimately, the Holy Spirit, who is the author of the Old Testament, leads us to believe what He has authored.  This is not mere fideism. Instead, the evidence abounds, both within the canonical Scriptures and outside the Scriptures.

The core of the issue is this:

1. We should, by default, not accept books as being Scripture until they have been shown to be Scripture;

2. Scripture teaches us about Scripture, and based on what Scripture teaches us about Scripture, we can identify various "exclusionary criteria" that can narrow the range of books that could even possibly be considered Scripture;

3. Once we apply those criteria (especially in view of our need to be careful not to add to God's Word), we are at exactly the 39 book canon.

1. The Known Scriptures

Let’s find the Old Testament Scriptures.  What do we know about them?  We know they were known to Timothy, even as a child:

2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

It’s not just Timothy, of course, but the Jewish people generally were given the Scriptures:

Romans 3:1-2 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit [is there] of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

So, let’s ask the Jews what the Scriptures are. If we do, we discover that they have exactly the same books that we do, even though they don’t enumerate the books as 39, but as 22 or 24, and don’t necessarily put them in the same order we do.

2. The Affirmative Burden of this Debate

In debate theory, the Affirmative has the burden, and the Negative has the presumption.  That doesn’t apply in the usual way to this debate, of course, because imagine the absurdity of thinking that your default position as the audience should be that every book ever written is part of the Old Testament or that your default position as the audience should be that at least one part of the Old Testament is missing!  Beyond debate theory, we have a Scriptural reason for rejecting books by default. 

Scripture teaches us:

Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish [ought] from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

Deuteronomy 12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

So the affirmative burden is rightly placed on the one affirming some book beyond the 39 to be Scripture, and the negative presumption against their inclusion is based on sound Scriptural reasoning. Whoever affirms something, must demonstrate it.

But we know that the Biblical canon is more than just the Pentateuch, it’s more than just Proverbs, and it’s more than just Revelation.  So, what does Scripture teach us about Scripture, so we can know if a book is Scripture and - more significantly for this debate - how can we exclude books?

3. The Existence of a Canon

The objective canon is an artifact of revelation.  Even if no human knows what it is, the set of the authoritative books, inspired by God, exists as a result of God doing the work of inspiration.  But there was already recognition of that set of canonical books.

In John’s Gospel, Jesus said:

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

In Luke’s Gospel, Luke tells us, about Jesus:

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Taken together, these verses inform us that there was a group of writings known as the “Scriptures” that was known to Jesus and to the first century audience of Luke. Unfortunately for tonight’s debate, there is not a single tidy list of all the book names provided in the New Testament.  However, we are not left entirely without information about the books.  

For example, we have these books referred to as “Moses and all the prophets” in Luke 24:27, which we’ve just read.  With some variation, this shorthand way of describing the Old Testament is used over a half dozen times in Luke, John, and Acts.

Luke 16:29, 31 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. ... And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Acts 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

Acts 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into [his] lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and [out of] the prophets, from morning till evening.

Similarly, Jesus in Matthew’s gospel refers to the Old Testament as “the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12).  This formula is also used over a half dozen times in the New Testament, including some cases that overlap, with expressions like “law of Moses and the prophets”

Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Matthew 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Luke 16:16 The law and the prophets [were] until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Luke 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

John 1:45 Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, We have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.

Acts 13:15 And after the reading of the law and the prophets the rulers of the synagogue sent unto them, saying, [Ye] men [and] brethren, if ye have any word of exhortation for the people, say on.

Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

Acts 28:23 And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into [his] lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and [out of] the prophets, from morning till evening.

Romans 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

This manner of expression was not new to the New Testament.  The liturgical reference, in Acts 13:15, to “after the reading of the law and the prophets” refers to an order of worship in the synagogue in the first century, a tradition that was established under Ezra.

Nehemiah 8:7-8 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people [stood] in their place. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused [them] to understand the reading.

Jesus himself participated in this custom (which, incidentally, is why we do so as well):

Luke 4:16-20 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave [it] again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

There is also intertestamental literature that testifies to a belief that collection of writings took place in the time of Nehemiah:

2 Maccabees 2:13 (KJV) The same things also were reported in the writings and commentaries of Neemias; and how he founding a library gathered together the acts of the kings, and the prophets, and of David, and the epistles of the kings concerning the holy gifts.

Intertestamental literature likewise includes the expression “law and prophets.” For example, the Greek prologue to the book of Sirach uses a related expression a few times, and 2 Maccabees uses it once:

Ecclesiasticus (aka Sirach) 1:1 (KJV) Whereas many and great things have been delivered unto us by the law and the prophets, and by others that have followed their steps, for the which things Israel ought to be commended for learning and wisdom; and whereof not only the readers must needs become skilful themselves, but also they that desire to learn be able to profit them which are without, both by speaking and writing: my grandfather Jesus, when he had much given himself to the reading of the law, and the prophets, and other books of our fathers, and had gotten therein good judgment, was drawn on also himself to write something pertaining to learning and wisdom; to the intent that those which are desirous to learn, and are addicted to these things, might profit much more in living according to the law. Wherefore let me intreat you to read it with favour and attention, and to pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words, which we have laboured to interpret. For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. For in the eight and thirtieth year coming into Egypt, when Euergetes was king, and continuing there some time, I found a book of no small learning: therefore I thought it most necessary for me to bestow some diligence and travail to interpret it; using great watchfulness and skill in that space to bring the book to an end, and set it forth for them also, which in a strange country are willing to learn, being prepared before in manners to live after the law. All wisdom cometh from the Lord, and is with him for ever.

2 Maccabees 15:9 (KJV) And so comforting them out of the law and the prophets, and withal putting them in mind of the battles that they won afore, he made them more cheerful.

Even the “Community Rule” scroll recovered from the Qumran caves has similar references:

Column I, lines 1-3  … Book of the Community Rule, that they may seek God with a whole heart and soul. and do good and right before Him as He commanded by the hand of Moses and all His servants the Prophets;

Column VIII, lines 15-16 15.  This (path) is the study of the Law which He commanded by the hand of Moses, that they may do according to all that has been revealed from age to age, and as Prophets have revealed by His Holy Spirit.

Philo of Alexandria, writing On the Contemplative Life around the time of Christ’s earthly ministry, wrote (section III. (25)):

And in every house there is a sacred shrine which is called the holy place, and the monastery in which they retire by themselves and perform all the mysteries of a holy life, bringing in nothing, neither meat, nor drink, nor anything else which is indispensable towards supplying the necessities of the body, but studying in that place the laws and the sacred oracles of God enunciated by the holy prophets, and hymns, and psalms, and all kinds of other things by reason of which knowledge and piety are increased and brought to perfection.

The text of Sirach itself refers to the established collection of the twelve prophets:

Ecclesiasticus 49:10 (KJV) And of the twelve prophets let the memorial be blessed, and let their bones flourish again out of their place: for they comforted Jacob, and delivered them by assured hope.

Moreover, reference to the Pentateuch as the “law of Moses” is attested in the canonical books of the Old Testament in numerous places:

Joshua 8:31-32 As Moses the servant of the LORD commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up [any] iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the LORD, and sacrificed peace offerings. And he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel.

Joshua 23:6 Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside therefrom [to] the right hand or [to] the left;

1 Kings 2:3 And keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in his ways, to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and his testimonies, as it is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself:

2 Kings 14:6 But the children of the murderers he slew not: according unto that which is written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the children be put to death for the fathers; but every man shall be put to death for his own sin.

2 Kings 23:25 And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there [any] like him.

2 Chronicles 23:18 Also Jehoiada appointed the offices of the house of the LORD by the hand of the priests the Levites, whom David had distributed in the house of the LORD, to offer the burnt offerings of the LORD, as [it is] written in the law of Moses, with rejoicing and with singing, [as it was ordained] by David.

2 Chronicles 30:16 And they stood in their place after their manner, according to the law of Moses the man of God: the priests sprinkled the blood, [which they received] of the hand of the Levites.

Ezra 3:2 Then stood up Jeshua the son of Jozadak, and his brethren the priests, and Zerubbabel the son of Shealtiel, and his brethren, and builded the altar of the God of Israel, to offer burnt offerings thereon, as [it is] written in the law of Moses the man of God.

Ezra 7:6 This Ezra went up from Babylon; and he [was] a ready scribe in the law of Moses, which the LORD God of Israel had given: and the king granted him all his request, according to the hand of the LORD his God upon him.

Nehemiah 8:1 And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that [was] before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.

Daniel 9:11, 13 Yea, all Israel have transgressed thy law, even by departing, that they might not obey thy voice; therefore the curse is poured upon us, and the oath that [is] written in the law of Moses the servant of God, because we have sinned against him. ... As [it is] written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the LORD our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth.

Malachi 4:4 Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, [with] the statutes and judgments.

Similarly the expression the “book of Moses” is also found in the Old Testament canonical books:

2 Chronicles 25:4 But he slew not their children, but [did] as [it is] written in the law in the book of Moses, where the LORD commanded, saying, The fathers shall not die for the children, neither shall the children die for the fathers, but every man shall die for his own sin.

2 Chronicles 35:12 And they removed the burnt offerings, that they might give according to the divisions of the families of the people, to offer unto the LORD, as [it is] written in the book of Moses. And so [did they] with the oxen.

Ezra 6:18 And they set the priests in their divisions, and the Levites in their courses, for the service of God, which [is] at Jerusalem; as it is written in the book of Moses.

Nehemiah 13:1 On that day they read in the book of Moses in the audience of the people; and therein was found written, that the Ammonite and the Moabite should not come into the congregation of God for ever;

I have not included similar references, which do - of course - exist in the intertestamental literature to “law of Moses” and “book of Moses,” which can also be found in the New Testament.  

Indeed, the term “law” by itself can refer more broadly to the entire Old Testament, including the Psalms:

Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.

John 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Moreover, the Psalms themselves were canonically assembled in a book, with a recognized order, and their inspiration was acknowledged already in the New Testament time:

Luke 20:42 And David himself saith in the book of Psalms, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand,

Acts 13:33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

Mark 12:36 For David himself said by the Holy Ghost, The LORD said to my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool.

Acts 1:16 Men [and] brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus.

These generalities will not likely satisfy Mr. Preston this evening.  He will want to know with more specificity which books Jesus was referring to when (to quote Athanasius) “he put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’” (Athanasius, Letter 39, Section 6)

Let’s address this negatively.

4. Exclusionary Criteria

1. Time of Composition

As mentioned above, we know that Timothy knew the Holy Scriptures from his childhood, and additionally, we see both Jesus and Luke speaking about an entirety of the Scriptures:

Matthew 11:13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.

Matthew 22:40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

Luke 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Acts 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:

2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

From this we can definitively exclude any books written after John the Baptist began to preach.  This excludes 4 Esdras and 4 Maccabees. 

2. Language of Composition

As noted above, we know that the Old Testament Scriptures were entrusted to the Jews.  Since we know what the Jews’ language was, we can exclude books like the works of Plato and Homer, however edifying they may be, because they were not written in the Jews’ language.  This also distinguishes the New Testament from the Old Testament, because the New Testament is written for the World, not specifically the Jews, and thus was written in a more globally known language: Greek.

This criteria also excludes books that were originally composed in Greek, which likely includes Wisdom of Solomon, the deuterocanonical portions of Esther and Daniel, the prayer of Manasseh, and the book of Baruch.

3. Reception by Intended Audience - Jewish and Christian

As noted above, the Old Testament Scriptures were entrusted to the Jews, and we know that God’s Word does what it is intended to do;

Isaiah 55:11 So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper [in the thing] whereto I sent it.

It was also, however, written for the time when the gospel extended to the nations:

Psalm 102:18 This shall be written for the generation to come: and the people which shall be created shall praise the LORD.

Romans 15:4 For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the scriptures might have hope.

1 Corinthians 10:11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

So, we can see that while it was written for the Jews initially, it was also written for us.

This criteria would exclude books that were received by the Jews, but not by the Christians (if such books existed), as well as books that were received by the Christians, but not by the Jews (such as the books of the Maccabees), as well as books that were not received by either group (such as the War Scroll from the Dead Sea caves).  

4. Existence

With the preceding criteria, we are already at exactly the 39 books.  For good measure, I will add that the books have to exist.  Scripture teaches:

Isaiah 40:8 The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.

We can already exclude books like Sirach, Judith, and Tobit because they were not received by the Jews, and were only inconsistently received among the Christians.  However, even if we were to ignore the standard of reception, we would still exclude these books because the original has been lost.  The same would apply to Baruch, the Epistle of Jeremy, the Prayer of Mannaseh, Wisdom of Solomon, and the deuterocanonical parts of Esther and Daniel, if one were to argue that those were originally written in Hebrew.

5. Other Criteria

These are not even all the exclusionary criteria we can use.  For example, we can also look at the truth (John 17:17) and beauty of the works.  However, because beauty is often in the eye of the beholder, and because truth will focus too much on the details for a general presentation like this, I will reserve those criteria for the rebuttal, in case my sparring partner offers up any concrete examples that allegedly meet the exclusionary criteria I’ve mentioned above.  

5. Jewish Reception and the Jewish Canon

Jesus and the Apostles were Jewish and had a Jewish canon, prior to the writing of the New Testament.  

Although Jesus was willing to push back against the traditions of men held by the Pharisees, there is no good reason to think that they held to some different canon of Scripture than the Pharisees with whom they interacted.  

As my sparring partner has quoted in other of his debates, the Pharisees were the most religiously correct group, such that Jesus and Paul both spoke positively of their teachings (though not their actions):

Matthew 23:1-3 Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, [that] observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.

Acts 26:4-5 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews; which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

While Jesus did not get his understanding from the Rabbis, Paul did.  Specifically, Paul was taught by Gamaliel, one of the most noted Rabbis amongst the Pharisees:

Acts 5:34 Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space;

Acts 22:3 I am verily a man [which am] a Jew, born in Tarsus, [a city] in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, [and] taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Acts 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men [and] brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.

Philippians 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, [of] the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

I’ve already mentioned above that today the Jewish canon is exactly the same 39 books as we are affirming tonight, and no more than that. But that’s today!  What about the past? There is evidence of this being the Jewish canon going back to the first century.  Moreover, of all the potential first-century Jewish canons, the modern Jewish canon has the best evidence for being the canon that Paul is referring to, namely the first century canon of the Pharisees.  

6. Canon Evidence

1. Jewish Evidence

We have evidence from first and second century Jewish sources that they held to the same canon that the Rabbis have today.  For example, while Josephus does not give a list of the books, Josephus says (Thackery’s translation) in Against Apion Book I (around 37-42):

we do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time. Of these, five are the books of Moses, comprising the laws and the traditional history from the birth of man down to the death of the lawgiver. This period falls only a little short of three thousand years. From the death of Moses until Artaxerxes, who succeeded Xerxes as king of Persia, the prophets subsequent to Moses wrote the history of the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.

A first or second century portion of 2 Esdras (II Esdras xiv. 44-46) gives the number of books as 24 (rather than 22).  Although Bava Batra 14b, in the Babylonian Talmud, does not give a number, it lists the books beyond the Pentateuch with specificity, in the context of explaining the order of the books.  An order of the books is logically subsequent to the question of the number of books.

I’ve already provided some primary sources, but what do “the scholars” say:

John J. Collins, Introduction To The Hebrew Bible, 3rd Edition, (Fortress Press, 2018) p. 6: “... it is at this time (70—100 C.E.) that we first find references to a fixed number of authoritative books. It may be that the list adopted consisted of the books that were accepted by the Pharisees already before the fall of Jerusalem.”

That is, of course, my view. Timothy Lim agrees.

Timothy H. Lim, The Formation of the Jewish Canon, (Yale University, 2013) p. 179, expresses it more strongly: “Scholarly opinion remains divided over the origins and history of the canon. There are, however, two basic positions with variations on the theme, Sid Leiman and Roger Beckwith argue that the canon was closed by the second century BCE, whereas Albert Sundberg and John Barton maintain that it remained open well into the first centuries of the Common Era.”  Later on the same page, Lim explains: “The hypothesis advocated in this book is that by the end of the first century of the Common Era the Pharisaic canon became the canon of Rabbinic Judaism because the majority of those who gathered in the grand coalition at Yavneh were Pharisees. … Before there was one common canon, there were several collections of authoritative scriptures held by different groups.”

So, I agree with Lim’s main point that it is the canon of the Pharisees that won out.   

The views at the other extreme suggest that there was no fixed canon, as mentioned above.  Lee Martin McDonald is an example here.  He claims:

Lee Martin McDonald, Formation of the Bible: the Story of the Church’s Canon, 2nd Edition, (Hendrickson Publishers, 2023), p. 87, (with whom I disagree) forcefully insists “The evidence above assures that a fixed biblical canon in the early churches began to develop during the fourth century.” He also insists (p. 84): “Jewish interest in a fixed collection of Scriptures apparently had no impact on the writers of the New Testament or the early church fathers.”

The central flaw of McDonald’s view is that shorthand like “Scripture” and “all the law and prophets” implies some kind of known list, even if it was not universally agreed.

F.F. Bruce highlights some fascinating circumstantial evidence that the canonization process probably accepted Ezra-Nehemiah before it accepted the Chronicles, and that this was before Jesus’ earthly ministry, because of his reference to an account from the end of 2 Chronicles.

 

F.F. Bruce, The Canon of Scripture, (Intervarsity Press, 1988), p. 30, explains: “... it cannot be by accident that, in the traditional arrangement of the books, Chronicles follows Ezra-Nehemiah.  This is quite an unnatural sequence, which could not have been adopted without some substantial reason. Ezra-Nehemiah takes up the history of Israel where Chronicles leaves off, whether or not Ezra-Nehemiah was originally part of the same work as Chronicles–’the work of the Chronicler’, as it is often called. Practically every edition of the Old Testament, therefore, apart from the Hebrew Bible (and versions which follow its order), makes Ezra-Nehemiah come immediately after Chronicles (which is the logical and chronological sequence).”  Bruce goes on to observe on the next page, (p. 31), that Jesus himself selects the first martyr in the Hebrew canon and the last martyr in the Hebrew canon when describing those whose blood God was going to require from that generation:

Matthew 23:35 That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.

Luke 11:51 From the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias, which perished between the altar and the temple: verily I say unto you, It shall be required of this generation.

2 Chronicles 24:20-22 And the Spirit of God came upon Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest, which stood above the people, and said unto them, Thus saith God, Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, he hath also forsaken you. And they conspired against him, and stoned him with stones at the commandment of the king in the court of the house of the LORD. Thus Joash the king remembered not the kindness which Jehoiada his father had done to him, but slew his son. And when he died, he said, The LORD look upon [it], and require [it].

2. Christian Evidence

We have evidence from Cyril of Jerusalem, in his Catechetical Lectures (written around AD 350), who says that the number of Old Testament Scriptures is 22 and he says that this is the Septuagint canon.  Of course, our Roman Catholic friends will be excited to point out that he includes the books of Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy as being associated with Jeremiah.

Likewise, Eusebius preserves a writing from Melito of Sardis that enumerates a short list of the Old Testament books.  Once again, our Roman Catholic friends like to latch on to some minor inconsistencies: Esther seems to be left out, for example. The same thing applies to Athanasius, who affirms the 22-book enumeration and then gives a listing of books, purposely excluding Esther, but including Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy.  Jerome finally provides exactly the same canon we have today, and his opinion was maintained in high regard (even if it was not followed by all) in the Western churches throughout the middle ages right up until Trent. 

7. Rational Arguments (Specifically for Tony L of “The Good Fight”)

Argument 1:

1. If Jesus (and others) could use shorthand for the Old Testament, like “the Scriptures,” then people in 1st century Judea must have had a good idea of what the shorthand referred to. => If Jesus used shorthand, there must have been a known canon.

2. They did use such shorthand.

3. So, there must have been a known canon.  The people of 1st century Judea must have had a good idea of what terms like “the Scriptures” and “the law and the prophets” referred to.

How can we know what the known canon was?  If we accept the theological premises explained above, namely that the books that are canon will be received by the Jews and then by the Christians, we can look at the reception data.  We will note some inconsistencies in that reception data.

Argument 2: 

1. If Paul and Timothy knew the canon, they would have shared this information with early Christians;

2. They did know the canon;

3. So we can conclude that early Christians were informed about the canon.

However, by the fourth century, the lists of books that make up the canon differ from one another.  Jerome’s list is not the same as the North African councils, and neither of them is exactly identical to Cyril of Jerusalem or Athanasius. 

Argument 3:

1. From the rival canon lists, we should go with the list having the strongest evidence;

2. The list having the strongest evidence is the 39 book list;

3. Therefore, we should follow the 39 book list.

But how is it the strongest evidence?

In a nutshell, the very long canon lists include books that were never received as Scripture by the Jewish people, such as the books of the Maccabees and Judith.  They also contain books that were received - if at all - very poorly among the Jewish people, like Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, and Tobit.  

The shorter canon lists, on the other hand, only differ in very minor ways from the 39 book canon: such as by excluding Esther and/or including Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy.   When we recognize that the inclusion of Baruch and the Epistle was under a mistaken view that they were to be received with Jeremiah, we can set them aside.  As for Esther, we can appreciate why a book that does not use the word “God” might be received with hesitation, but this debate is not about why Esther should be included, but why the other books should be excluded.

In conclusion, the weight of the evidence both internal to Scripture and external to Scripture supports the 39 book Old Testament canon.