Introduction: Canonization and the Question of Authority

When people ask how the Old Testament books were chosen, the question often assumes that a later committee granted authority to previously ordinary religious writings. The biblical pattern is the reverse. Authority originates with Jehovah, Who reveals His will through His appointed servants, and the covenant community then recognizes, preserves, and transmits those inspired writings as Scripture. Canonization, properly defined, is not the creation of a canon but the recognition of the books Jehovah gave for the instruction, correction, and guidance of His people. This distinction matters because it aligns the discussion with the way the Old Testament itself speaks about revelation: Jehovah speaks, His prophets write, and Israel is accountable to what has been written (Deuteronomy 29:29; Deuteronomy 31:24–26; Isaiah 8:20). The community’s role is custodial rather than legislative, which is why Scripture can rebuke kings, priests, and people alike by appealing to a written standard already viewed as binding (2 Kings 22:8–13; Nehemiah 8:1–9).

The process of canonization therefore unfolds in history as revelation unfolds in history. As Jehovah formed Israel into a covenant people, He simultaneously provided an enduring written witness that would outlast any single generation. The Old Testament presents this as a deliberate divine provision, not an accidental accumulation of literature. Moses was commanded to write (Exodus 17:14; Exodus 24:4), and the written Law was deposited beside the ark as a covenant document to stand as a witness against the nation when necessary (Deuteronomy 31:24–26). From that foundation, additional inspired writings were added as Jehovah continued to speak through prophets, and those writings were treated as a continuing, authoritative “word” that could be read publicly, consulted, obeyed, and used to adjudicate faithfulness (Joshua 1:7–8; 2 Kings 17:13; Zechariah 7:12). By the time of Jesus, the Old Testament books were not a fluid collection awaiting approval; they were “the Scriptures” that He and His apostles treated as a fixed, authoritative body (Matthew 5:17–19; Luke 24:44–45; John 10:35).

The Covenant Pattern of Written Revelation

The first and most important fact about Old Testament canonization is that Scripture itself describes revelation as something intentionally committed to writing for preservation. Jehovah did not leave His people with only oral memory, which is notoriously vulnerable to drift, embellishment, and loss. He commanded writing as an instrument of stability and accountability, so that His words could be consulted long after the original speakers were gone. Moses “wrote all the words of Jehovah” in the context of covenant establishment (Exodus 24:4), and he was instructed to record events and commands as a memorial (Exodus 17:14). The written Law, once completed, was not treated as merely helpful instruction; it functioned as the formal covenant document, placed in close association with the ark of the covenant, the visible symbol of Jehovah’s kingship over Israel (Deuteronomy 31:24–26).

This covenant pattern establishes several canon-defining realities. First, inspired writing is linked to covenant authority: what Jehovah binds upon His people is not left to private interpretation or later revision (Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 12:32). Second, the written form becomes a public standard, not a secret tradition controlled by elites. The Law was to be read to all Israel at appointed times so that the people would hear, learn, and fear Jehovah, including the resident foreigner within Israel’s gates (Deuteronomy 31:10–13). Third, the written word is treated as self-authenticating in the sense that it carries Jehovah’s authority by virtue of origin, not by virtue of a later vote. When Joshua is commissioned, he is told to act in faithful conformity to “the book of the law,” and the promised success is tied to meditation on that written text (Joshua 1:7–8). This is canon-conscious language: it assumes a recognized corpus with binding force.

From the beginning, then, the canon is not a theoretical concept but a practical reality. Israel is repeatedly called back to written revelation as the measure of obedience. When reform occurs, it is frequently sparked by rediscovery, reading, and renewed submission to what is written (2 Kings 22:8–13). When apostasy spreads, prophets condemn the nation precisely because the written standard already exists and has been neglected (Isaiah 30:8–11; Jeremiah 6:16–19). These patterns show that the earliest “choice” of books is not a later selection but the immediate reception of Jehovah’s written covenant documents, followed by their careful preservation.

The Law as the Canonical Foundation: Moses and the Torah

The Pentateuch, commonly called the Torah, forms the bedrock of the Old Testament canon because it contains the covenant constitution of Israel and the foundational revelation of creation, patriarchal history, redemption from Egypt, and the terms of covenant life. Scripture presents Moses as the divinely commissioned mediator through whom Jehovah spoke and wrote for the nation (Exodus 33:11; Numbers 12:6–8; Deuteronomy 34:10–12). The canonical status of the Law is not inferred by later tradition; it is asserted by the way subsequent biblical books treat it as the highest written authority. Kings are required to conform to it, and their legitimacy is evaluated by their alignment with it (Deuteronomy 17:18–20; 2 Kings 23:24–25). Priests and Levites are tasked with teaching it, implying a stable text that can be learned and transmitted (Deuteronomy 33:10; Malachi 2:7). Prophets call the nation back to it, not as a new idea but as a known covenant standard (Hosea 8:1; Isaiah 1:10; Jeremiah 11:1–8).

Canonization here is inseparable from covenant custody. Deuteronomy describes the completion of the written Law and its placement as an enduring witness (Deuteronomy 31:24–26). That placement is significant: it signals that the Law was treated as an authoritative document belonging to the sanctuary, not merely as one teacher’s notes. Its periodic public reading ensured communal recognition, while its role as a witness ensured legal and moral accountability (Deuteronomy 31:10–13, 26). In other words, the Torah’s canonical status is built into its function from the moment it is written.

This foundational status also explains why later inspired books do not compete with the Torah but cohere with it. The prophets do not introduce a different covenant; they enforce the covenant already revealed, exposing violations and announcing covenant consequences (2 Kings 17:13–15; Nehemiah 9:26–30). Wisdom writings do not replace the Law; they apply covenant truth to daily life, often echoing Torah themes about fear of Jehovah, moral order, and the blessings tied to obedience (Deuteronomy 28; Proverbs 1:7). The Torah is therefore the first recognized segment of the canon, and it becomes the controlling framework by which later writings are recognized as faithful, inspired extension rather than contradiction.

Prophetic Authority and the Growth of the Canon

After Moses, the Old Testament depicts a continuing pattern of inspired, authoritative speech delivered through prophets whom Jehovah appoints and whose message is tested by fidelity to Jehovah and fulfillment of His words. The critical point for canonization is that prophetic authority is not a vague religious influence; it is covenant office. Jehovah tells Israel how to distinguish true prophets from false ones, and the test is objective: fidelity to Jehovah and the truthfulness of what Jehovah has spoken (Deuteronomy 13:1–5; Deuteronomy 18:20–22). The nation is not free to treat prophetic words as optional commentary. To reject Jehovah’s words spoken through His prophet is to rebel against Jehovah Himself (1 Samuel 8:7; Jeremiah 25:4–7).

This prophetic office naturally generated authoritative writings, and Scripture indicates that such writings were recorded and preserved. Samuel, functioning in a pivotal transitional period, “told the people the rights and duties of the kingship, and he wrote them in a book and laid it up before Jehovah” (1 Samuel 10:25). That statement matters because it mirrors the Mosaic pattern: authoritative instruction is written and deposited “before Jehovah,” signaling recognized, covenantal status. Jeremiah’s prophecies were committed to a scroll, read publicly, and preserved despite royal hostility (Jeremiah 36:1–6, 20–28). Isaiah is told to “bind up the testimony” and “seal the teaching,” language consistent with preserving an authoritative record (Isaiah 8:16). The prophets repeatedly refer to earlier prophetic words as an established body of authoritative revelation, which shows that prophetic Scripture was recognized as such within Israel’s own history (Zechariah 7:12; Daniel 9:2).

The Former Prophets (Joshua through Kings) function canonically as prophetic history: they do not merely narrate events but interpret Israel’s history under the covenant, showing blessings for obedience and disaster for apostasy in line with Deuteronomy’s covenant sanctions (Deuteronomy 28; Judges 2:11–23; 2 Kings 17:7–23). Their theological consistency with the Torah is one of the clearest marks of their inspired character, because they are doing precisely what Jehovah said prophets would do—calling His people back to covenant faithfulness and warning of consequences. The Latter Prophets (Isaiah through Malachi) likewise speak with explicit divine commissioning (“Thus says Jehovah”) and repeatedly root their indictments and promises in the covenant framework already revealed (Isaiah 1:2–4; Jeremiah 11:1–8; Hosea 4:1–2).

In terms of canonization, this means that the category “Prophets” was not invented after the fact; it arose organically from the recognized office of the prophet and the recognized authority of the prophetic word in both spoken and written form. The community did not decide which prophets were legitimate by preference; Jehovah established tests, and history vindicated true prophets while condemning false ones (Jeremiah 28:15–17). The writings that proved faithful to Jehovah’s revelation and bore the marks of His commissioning were received, preserved, and transmitted as Scripture.

The Writings and the Maturing of the Canonical Collection

Alongside the Law and the Prophets, the Old Testament contains a third category traditionally known as the Writings. This collection includes inspired poetry, wisdom, and additional historical works, and its canonical place is grounded in the same principle as the rest: Jehovah’s revelation was given through authorized servants for the covenant community. The Psalms are presented as sacred songs used in worship, tied to the Davidic arrangements and the sanctuary context (1 Chronicles 16:7; 2 Chronicles 29:30). David is explicitly described as speaking by Jehovah’s Spirit in his final words, which provides a theological basis for the sacred authority of his psalms and prophetic statements (2 Samuel 23:1–2). Wisdom literature, particularly Proverbs and Ecclesiastes, is associated with Solomon, whose divinely granted wisdom is emphasized as a gift from Jehovah for governing His people and instructing them in righteous living (1 Kings 3:9–12; Proverbs 1:1–7).

The Writings also include books that highlight God’s providential governance over His people and the practical outworking of covenant faith in real historical circumstances. Ruth anchors David’s lineage within covenant loyalty and redemption, integrating with the broader canonical storyline leading to the Davidic kingdom (Ruth 4:17–22). Esther shows the preservation of the Jewish people in exile conditions, reinforcing the reality that covenant identity and survival are not dependent on political power but on Jehovah’s oversight. Daniel explicitly engages earlier Scripture, reading Jeremiah’s prophecy and responding with prayer rooted in covenant confession, which demonstrates that by the sixth century B.C.E. inspired writings already functioned as a recognized corpus that shaped faith and interpretation (Daniel 9:2–4, 11–13).

An important window into the preservation and transmission of the Writings appears in the note that “the men of Hezekiah… copied” Solomon’s proverbs (Proverbs 25:1). This is not canon creation; it is canonical stewardship. It shows that faithful scribal activity collected, copied, and organized inspired material for continued use. Such work presupposes a recognized distinction between material worthy of careful transmission and ordinary sayings. The Old Testament’s own depiction of scribes and recorders—whether in royal administration or temple context—supports the reality of organized textual preservation within Israel (2 Kings 22:8–13; Ezra 7:6, 10). Canonization in this stage is therefore closely tied to preservation: recognized sacred writings were copied and disseminated precisely because they were viewed as authoritative and necessary for the nation’s covenant life.

The Exile, the Restoration, and the Consolidation of Scripture

The Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. and the subsequent exile created an urgent historical context for the careful safeguarding of Israel’s sacred writings. When the people returned in 537 B.C.E., the restoration of worship and identity required more than rebuilding walls and houses; it required re-centering the community on Jehovah’s written covenant. The book of Nehemiah describes a public reading of “the book of the law of Moses,” with explanation so the people could understand and respond in obedience (Nehemiah 8:1–9). This was not a mere ceremony. It was a covenant renewal event grounded in the conviction that the written text carried binding authority over the restored community. The result was repentance, confession, and practical reforms designed to align life with Jehovah’s commands (Nehemiah 9:1–3, 38; Nehemiah 10:28–39).

Ezra’s role is especially significant for canonization because Scripture portrays him as a trained scribe whose life was devoted to studying, doing, and teaching Jehovah’s Law (Ezra 7:6, 10). That description indicates that the Law existed in a stable, recognized form capable of sustained study and instruction. It also shows that scribal work was not merely bureaucratic; it was a covenant vocation. In a restored community surrounded by hostile pressures and internal compromise, the authority of Scripture functioned as the unifying standard. The prophetic books likewise continued to call the restored community to covenant faithfulness, addressing real post-exilic issues such as corrupt worship, injustice, and spiritual apathy (Haggai 1:2–8; Zechariah 1:3–6; Malachi 1:6–14).

The post-exilic period also contributes to the canonical picture through the completion of prophetic revelation within the Old Testament era. The prophets of the restoration speak as Jehovah’s messengers, and Malachi closes with an explicit call to remember “the law of Moses” and with forward-looking promises tied to covenant accountability (Malachi 4:4–6). Jesus later affirms a broad prophetic span when He states that “all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John” (Matthew 11:13). That statement does not reduce Scripture to mere prediction; it identifies a recognized era of prophetic revelation that culminates prior to the ministry of John the Baptist. This provides a coherent theological explanation for why the Old Testament canon is complete as a distinct covenantal collection: Jehovah provided the written revelation necessary for the Mosaic covenant era, and that body of Scripture stood as the authoritative “Scriptures” in the first century.

Recognizing Inspired Books: Scriptural Criteria Embedded in the Text

Although the Old Testament does not present a single chapter titled “How to Build a Canon,” it does provide clear criteria for recognizing authentic revelation. The first criterion is divine origin: the message must be Jehovah’s word, not human speculation. The prophets repeatedly distinguish true revelation from false visions and self-generated speech, condemning those who speak when Jehovah has not sent them (Jeremiah 23:16–22). The second criterion is covenant fidelity: any message that leads God’s people away from Jehovah is condemned, even if accompanied by impressive signs (Deuteronomy 13:1–5). This is crucial because it anchors discernment in loyalty to Jehovah rather than fascination with novelty. The third criterion is truthfulness: Jehovah’s words do not fail, and presumptuous prophecy is exposed when it proves false (Deuteronomy 18:20–22).

A fourth criterion is consistency with the established written standard. Isaiah directs the people to measure claims by “the teaching” and “the testimony,” indicating that a recognized body of revelation already existed and functioned as a benchmark (Isaiah 8:20). A fifth criterion is communal reception grounded in covenant responsibility. The Law is publicly read; the prophets are heard and either heeded or rejected; the nation is held accountable for its response. This covenantal reception is not democratic preference but corporate responsibility under Jehovah. When Josiah hears the words of the Law, he does not treat them as one opinion among many; he recognizes the nation’s guilt precisely because the written words carry Jehovah’s authority (2 Kings 22:11–13). When Nehemiah’s generation hears the Law, they respond with grief and repentance because the text confronts them as divine instruction (Nehemiah 8:9; Nehemiah 9:2–3).

These criteria clarify why canonization is fundamentally recognition rather than selection. The community did not bestow inspiration; it recognized the voice of Jehovah in the writings of those He commissioned, tested those claims by the standards Jehovah Himself provided, and preserved what was shown to be His word. This also explains why books associated with prophetic office, covenantal instruction, and faithful consistency with prior revelation naturally cohere as a single canon. They share a theological unity grounded in Jehovah’s identity, His covenant, and His redemptive purpose in history.

The Threefold Division and the Shape of the Hebrew Canon

By the time of Jesus, the Old Testament is repeatedly referenced in a way that reflects a recognized structure. Jesus speaks of “the Law and the Prophets” as a comprehensive designation for Scripture (Matthew 5:17; Matthew 7:12). After His resurrection, He expands the categories by referring to “the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms,” which reflects a threefold division corresponding to Law, Prophets, and Writings, with “Psalms” functioning as a prominent representative of the third section (Luke 24:44). This is not a casual phrase. It signals that Jesus and His disciples recognized an established body of sacred books, organized in a coherent way, and understood as the authoritative written revelation of Jehovah.

This structure also helps explain why the Old Testament canon in Jewish reckoning is often counted as twenty-four books while many Christian enumerations list thirty-nine. The difference is not content but counting and arrangement. Books such as Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah were each treated as single books in Hebrew tradition, and the Twelve Minor Prophets were counted as one collection. Canonization is about which writings belong, not about the later formatting of scrolls into modern printed volumes. Recognizing this removes a common misunderstanding that different counts imply different canons. The substance of the canon remains the same: the same inspired writings are present, whether counted as twenty-four in Hebrew arrangement or thirty-nine in common Christian enumeration.

The internal evidence of the New Testament further strengthens this point. Jesus treats “Scripture” as a unified authority that cannot be broken (John 10:35). He rebukes opponents not for lacking access to the right books but for failing to understand what is written (Matthew 22:29). The apostles likewise appeal to “the Scriptures” as a known, authoritative collection that foretold the Messiah and defined God’s redemptive purpose (Acts 17:2; Romans 15:4; 2 Timothy 3:15–17). This presupposes a canon already functioning as Scripture, not one awaiting completion.

Why the Apocrypha Was Not Included in the Old Testament Canon

A clear explanation of Old Testament canonization must address why certain later Jewish writings—often called the Apocrypha—were not received as part of the Hebrew canon. The central issue is not whether such writings contain historical value or moral observations; the issue is whether they bear the marks of inspired, covenantal Scripture recognized by Jehovah’s people as His authoritative word. The Old Testament’s own criteria for prophetic revelation require divine commissioning, covenant fidelity, truthfulness, and consistency with established revelation (Deuteronomy 13:1–5; Deuteronomy 18:20–22; Isaiah 8:20). The books that form the Hebrew canon align with these criteria and function as the covenant documents for Israel. The later writings in question do not carry the same prophetic claim, do not function as covenant-constituting revelation, and were not received within the same recognized canonical framework that Jesus and the apostles treated as “the Scriptures.”

The New Testament provides an important theological anchor for this discussion when it states that the Jews were “entrusted with the oracles of God” (Romans 3:2). That is a covenantal statement about custodianship: Jehovah committed His words to a particular community for preservation and transmission. The Old Testament canon reflects that trust in the form of recognized, preserved Hebrew Scriptures. Jesus repeatedly appeals to this body of Scripture without ever treating later writings as equal in authority to “the Law… the Prophets… and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44). While New Testament writers sometimes use language or illustrations that overlap with broader Jewish literature, their explicit “it is written” appeals rest on the recognized Scriptures, and their theological arguments are grounded in those canonical texts.

This is not a dismissal of historical context; it is a clarification of category. Canonical Scripture is the covenantal word of Jehovah, and the canon is the collection of those writings that bear His authority and were recognized as such within the covenant community that received them. The Old Testament books were not chosen because they were popular or because they survived by accident. They were received because they were Jehovah’s words, given through His authorized servants, preserved in the life of His people, and confirmed in their function as the binding written standard to which the nation was accountable.

Canonization Was a Process of Recognition, Preservation, and Use

Because revelation unfolded across many centuries, canonization necessarily had a historical dimension. Yet it was not an open-ended uncertainty; it was a coherent process tied to identifiable acts of writing, deposit, copying, public reading, and authoritative use. When Moses wrote and deposited the Law, a canonical nucleus existed. When Samuel wrote and deposited royal regulations “before Jehovah,” the pattern continued (1 Samuel 10:25). When Jeremiah’s words were written on a scroll, read publicly, and preserved even after attempts to destroy them, the prophetic word’s canonical status was being enacted, not theorized (Jeremiah 36:1–6, 20–28). When Ezra and Nehemiah centered the restored community on the public reading and explanation of the Law, the canon was functioning as Scripture in the life of the people (Nehemiah 8:1–9).

Use is especially important because Scripture consistently ties authority to obedience. An inspired book is not recognized as canonical merely by being written; it is recognized as canonical by being received as Jehovah’s binding instruction. That reception appears in how the people are called to hear, learn, and obey; in how leaders are judged by conformity; and in how reforms are driven by what is written (Deuteronomy 31:10–13; Deuteronomy 17:18–20; 2 Kings 23:24–25). In this sense, canonization is observable: a book is treated as Scripture when it is read as Scripture, appealed to as Scripture, and obeyed as Scripture. The Old Testament itself provides numerous scenes where written revelation functions precisely that way.

This perspective also explains why later councils do not “create” the Old Testament canon. Discussions and debates can occur around the margins—particularly regarding a few books whose interpretation or liturgical use raises questions—but such discussions presuppose a recognized canon rather than generating one. The core canonical structure is already evident in the Scriptural categories Jesus uses and in the way the apostles appeal to Scripture as a settled authority. Canonization, then, is best understood as the historical outworking of Jehovah’s purpose to provide an enduring written revelation, safeguarded by responsible custodianship and confirmed by continual authoritative use among His people.

Textual Transmission and Canon: Why Preservation Supports Confidence

Canonization and textual transmission are distinct, but they are closely related. Canon answers which books belong; textual criticism addresses the wording within those books as preserved in manuscripts. The Old Testament portrays scribal and priestly stewardship as a real, organized activity within Israel. There were scribes who handled official documents, preserved records, and transmitted teaching (2 Kings 22:8–13; Ezra 7:6, 10). The existence of copying activity, such as the Hezekian collection of proverbs, shows that preservation was intentional (Proverbs 25:1). The Masoretic tradition later reflects an extraordinarily careful approach to safeguarding the Hebrew text, and the enduring stability of the Hebrew Scriptures across centuries is consistent with the biblical expectation that Jehovah’s word would stand and continue to instruct His people (Isaiah 40:8).

This relationship matters for canonization because a recognized canon is precisely what a community will preserve with the greatest care. Ordinary literature can be lost without anyone noticing; Scripture cannot be neglected without spiritual consequences, and the Old Testament repeatedly warns that forgetting Jehovah’s words produces covenant ruin (Deuteronomy 8:11–20). The very existence of repeated reform movements driven by reading the written Law demonstrates that the text was preserved sufficiently to confront and correct the nation across generations. The canon’s stability, therefore, is not a late invention; it is embedded in the covenantal life of Israel and confirmed by the way Scripture itself depicts the written word functioning as a continuing authority.

Answering Common Pushbacks With Scriptural Clarity

One common objection claims that the Old Testament canon was not settled until very late, implying that the boundaries were uncertain in the first century. The most direct response is to observe how Jesus and the apostles handle Scripture. They appeal to “the Scriptures” as a definitive authority, and Jesus explicitly speaks in categories that reflect a recognized threefold division (Luke 24:44). He treats Scripture as unbreakable and as the final court of appeal in theological disputes (John 10:35; Matthew 22:29). The apostles likewise assume a stable scriptural corpus, describing it as able to make a person wise for salvation and as suitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:15–17). That language presupposes a defined body of writings known to the community.

Another objection suggests that certain Old Testament books were added or removed depending on preference. This confusion often arises from differences in ordering and counting rather than differences in content. As noted earlier, the same books can be counted differently depending on whether certain works are combined (such as Samuel or Kings) and whether the Twelve are treated as one. Such formatting questions do not alter the canon. The canonical question is whether the content belongs to the recognized Scriptures, and Jesus’ categories and the apostles’ usage indicate that the recognized Scriptures correspond to the Hebrew canon, not to later expansions.

A further objection claims that the canon was chosen primarily by political power or priestly control. The Old Testament itself undermines that claim by showing Scripture standing over against corrupt leadership. Kings and priests are rebuked by the written word, and reforms occur when leaders submit to what is written, not when they manipulate it (2 Kings 22:11–13; Nehemiah 9:26–30). If canonization were merely an instrument of power, Scripture would not repeatedly expose the failures of Israel’s leaders with such frankness, nor would it provide the very covenant standards that indict those leaders. The canon’s authority is not the product of political convenience; it is the enduring witness of Jehovah’s covenant word.

Conclusion: How the Old Testament Books Were Chosen

The Old Testament books were chosen in the most fundamental sense by Jehovah Himself, Who revealed His will through authorized servants and commanded that His words be written, preserved, and obeyed. The covenant community recognized these writings as Scripture because they bore the marks Jehovah established for true revelation: divine origin, covenant fidelity, truthfulness, and consistency with the existing standard. The Law formed the canonical foundation as the written covenant document deposited and publicly read. The Prophets extended and enforced that covenant revelation through inspired proclamation and preserved writings treated as authoritative. The Writings provided Spirit-guided worship, wisdom, and additional covenant history, preserved and used in the life of God’s people. By the time of Jesus, this body of Scripture was recognized as “the Law… the Prophets… and the Psalms,” treated as a unified authority, and appealed to as the definitive written revelation of Jehovah.

Canonization, therefore, is best understood as a historical process of recognition and custodianship, not a late invention. The Old Testament did not drift into existence and later receive approval. It was given, received, preserved, and continually used as Scripture, functioning as the binding standard for Jehovah’s people across centuries. That is why Jesus and the apostles could appeal to “the Scriptures” with confidence, and that is why the Old Testament canon remains a coherent, stable collection: it is the covenantal word Jehovah provided and His people responsibly safeguarded.

You May Also Enjoy

The Masoretic Text and the Critical Edition of the Hebrew Bible: Documentary Dominance and Limited Departures

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS