![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
A new section on Islam and canonization was
deleted with the edit summary:
. "This article is about Biblical canons. The Quran has no relevance to it, and therefore I have removed the section on the Quran."
However the lede of the article starts out:
A biblical canon or canon of scripture
[1] is a set of
texts (or "books") which a particular religious community regards as authoritative
scripture.
In addition the lede does not assume the subject is the bible. For example: "Some books, such as the Jewish–Christian gospels, have been excluded from various canons altogether ... "
Why would it say "such as the Jewish–Christian gospels" if the bible/gospel was the subject of the article?
If people still find this confusing I suggest the title be changed to something like Canon of scripture. -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 23:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) Ulrich's article defines "canon" as follows: "...the definitive list of inspired, authoritative books which constitute the recognized and accepted body of sacred scripture of a major religious group, that definitive list being the result of inclusive and exclusive decisions after a serious deliberation". It is further defined
by whom? as follows: "...the definitive, closed list of the books that constitute the authentic contents of scripture."
The line about Jewish-Christian gospels is not referring to Jewish and Christian scriptures in total, but to a specific type of Christian gospels (which is a specific genre, separate from "scriptures" or "the Bible") which maintained a Jewish character rather than being meant for Gentiles. The article is about Biblical canons, specifically, which is why it is so titled, and therefore the Quran and Islamic scriptures are outside the scope of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.192.75 ( talk) 19:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I think this article should be renamed to Scriptural canon as religions other than Judaism and Christianity don't call their scriptures "Bible" or "biblical". Editor2020 ( talk) 02:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Contents 1) Jewish canons 1.1 Rabbinic Judaism 1.2 Beta Israel 1.3 Samaritan canon
2) Christian canons 2.1 Early Church 2.2 Eastern Church 2.3 Western Church
3) Canons of various traditions 3.1 Old Testament 3.2 New Testament 3.3 Latter Day Saint canons
Made the contents section more organized 3 in each group Doremon764 ( talk) 02:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
With all the discussion of which books are in which tradition's Old Testament, there is no discussion of the different sequences. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Old Testament end with Daniel. The Protestant Old Testament ends with Malachi. The Jewish Tanakh ends with Chronicles. There are other differences. -- WickerGuy ( talk) 04:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The New Testament has been around for almost 2,000 years - it's hardly a "New Testamnet". I tweaked... Jewish Scripture/' Old Testament' or Christian Scripture/' New Testament' - 2601:589:4801:5660:B1C7:7A45:9E90:1C31 ( talk) 21:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
As of yesterday, the Wikipedia page said that the Georgian Orthodox Church accepted Slavonic 3 Esdras/Esdra/Ezra (AKA Vulgate 4 Esdras/Esdra/Ezra) and 4 Macc. as canonical in the chart. However, these 2 books are apparently apocryphal and noncanonical in the Georgian Church, based on several factors: Factor 1. In the Orthodox Church, the highest written authority on the lists of the books of the canon is the Ecumenical Councils. The Quintsext Council of Trullo, in its Second Canon, listed patristic and conciliar decisions on the lists of the books of the canon and the Trullo Council affirmed those lists. Some of Trullo's lists were longer than others. For example, the Trullo Council affirmed Canon 85 of the "Canons of the Holy Apostles," which in turn affirmed 1-3 Maccabees. But some other sources approved by Trullo's Second Canon did not affirm those three Maccabean books. In any case, none of the sources approved by Trullo approved 4 Maccabees. Nor do I believe that any of them approved Vulgate 4 Esdras/Ezra. P. Boumis gave a detailed analysis of the sources that Trullo's Council approved in his article here: http://www.ecclesia.gr/greek/press/theologia/material/2007_2_5_Boumis.pdf P. Boumis tried to interpret Trullo and its sources in an inclusive way, as if the sources affirmed by Trullo that failed to affirm 1-3 Macc. were not excluding 1-3 Macc.
Factor 2. Georgian Synods, bishops, and theologians are important sources on whether the Georgian Orthodox Church accepts 4 Maccabees or Vulgate 4 Esdras. However, I was not able to find any of those sources taking a position on that topic.
Factor 3. Historically, Physical hardcopies of Church Bibles over centuries occasionally included works that their printers considered apocryphal or clearly noncanonical, such as Josephus' works. Jerome considered Vulgate 4 Esdras to be apocryphal, but he still translated it into Latin. Then the Russian Church used the Vulgate as a key source for its own printed Bibles when the Russian Church began to print its Bibles. Thus, the Russian Church included 4 Esdras in its printed hardcopy Bibles under the title "3 Esdras" without considering it "canonical", but without marking it as noncanonical either. 4 Maccabees has a similar history in the Greek Church. The Greek Church used the Alexandrian Codex as its source for its printed Bibles. Thus, Greek printed Bibles included 4 Maccabees among its pages without ever officially declaring 4 Macc. a canonical book, but without marking it as "noncanonical" in its pages, either. This history explains why someone could mistakenly consider Slavonic 3 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras) or 4 Macc. to be canonical when they were not.
Factor 4. if you look at Contemporary Georgian Church Bibles, they apparently tend to include 3 Esdras and 4 Macc. but mark them as "noncanonical" like current Greek and Russian Bibles do. In fact, the mid-20th century Russian synodal Bible marked all OT books outside of the "Protocanon" as noncanonical, and the Georgian Orthodox website below also marks both the Deuterocanon and 4 Macc. and Slavic 3 Esdras as "noncanonical" in Georgian: http://www.orthodoxy.ge/tserili/biblia/sarchevi.htm
I fixed the Wikipedia entry for the Georgian Church's position on 3 Esdras and 4 Macc by changing their entry to "No - Apocrypha", but the table looks alittle messy now. Maybe some has the computer language skills to clean it up Rakovsky ( talk) 04:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Non-canonical books. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Non-canonical until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
SWinxy (
talk)
01:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
DefinitionofBibleTerms and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 29#DefinitionofBibleTerms until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Veverve (
talk)
13:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't know much about Islam but could we add the Quran to the comparison table Braganza ( talk) 08:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Should this "Latter Day Saint canons" section be in this article in so detailed a manner?
The overall article attempts to address the whole of the worldwide church. Having a separate section, and its own separate subsections for what is, in this context, a minor denomination of only very recent founding seems excessive.
I propose that this material should be in its own LDS-specific article with a "main article" cross-reference from here.
This comment isn't about the LDS material itelf. It is, rather, about the relative imbalance of the material with respect to the whole article. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 11:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Joeymanderson3: It's not clear to me what you found lacking in this edit which was an attempt to simplify the text. The edit kept the mention of Revelations of James J. Strang but brought it into the same clause mentioning the other Strangite canonical text. All that was removed was additional detail that I felt was not necessary to the main point. With regards to the argument of weight - there are less than 100 adherents today, making them an extremely tiny minority. There are more than 5 extra-Biblical tethese---xts outside of the various Latter Day Saint standard works, some accepted by much larger denominations than the Strangites. The paragraph, in my opinion, should be representative but not exhaustive with deference given to the larger or more notable denominations per WP:WEIGHT. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 04:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Since there are so few scriptures such as these outside of the various renditions of the Standard Works, there is no issue of "weight" when applied to these---even if most of them occur under Mr. Strang's sect. They all should be mentioned because they are all so different from everything else. In the same way, this article is weighted somewhat toward the Etheopic canon, and even in some respects, the Armenian canon---because they are so different. They have a home here and have had one since 2012. If in only 2.5 sentences, the anomalies that exist outside of the standard works can be explained, one can hardly call that "weighted." Joeymanderson3 ( talk) 06:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
And all those books are part of their Bible, or do they have them separately? since the article is about "biblical canon", not about books that are not part of "a LDS bible" but the LDS considers canonical even if they don't have them inside their "bible". Rafaelosornio ( talk) 02:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The LDS books are another testament, and considered as extensions of the Bible. They belong here. Joeymanderson3 ( talk) 07:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
2 Nephi 29 puts the Book of Mormon and the other "books which will be written" squarely in the same category, and furthermore implies that they are all "Bible." Joeymanderson3 ( talk) 20:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@
FyzixFighter: The article
as it was before was about any Christian or Jewish canon of scripture. This would include the Bible, but also the scriptural canon of
Qumran, the writings of
Joseph Smith and other texts considered as religiously authoritative from all from all LDS denominations, the prophecies of
William Marrion Branham, some of the
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society publications, etc., the list is almost infinite. The source given in the lede did not define "biblical canon", but religious canons in general, i.e. the source's definition could also apply to Zoroastrism.
I thought that this was unrelated to the scope of the article which is titled "Biblical canon", which would imply the article is only about the canon of the bible, i.e. what is and is not in the
Bible or
Hebrew Bible of such and such Jewish or Christian denomination. Therefore,
I changed this while adding numerous improvements.
Veverve (
talk)
15:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
what is and is not in the Bible or Hebrew Bible of such and such Jewish or Christian denomination. What do you say?
@ FyzixFighter: Eugene Ulrich (in The Canon Debate, 2002, p. 29) states 'authoritative work' is to be avoided:
Veverve ( talk) 19:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@ FyzixFighter: so, can we agree to reduce the scope of the article? I propose to do so by changing the lede to: "A biblical canon is a set of texts (also called "books") either which Christians consider as being officialy part of the Bible, or which Jews consider as being officialy part of the Hebrew Bible." Veverve ( talk) 14:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The scope is fine. I think the Swedenborg stuff should be considered because they do in fact see his writings as PART OF THE BIBLE... their non-inclusion here upsets me. But not everything has a place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeymanderson3 ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I would recommend an RFC or similar DR to get wider community opinions on re-scoping the article. Thoughts? -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 00:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
1) Ulrich (in The Canon Debate, 2002, p. 29) endorses the definition (which was made by some Catholics, Protestants, and Jews) of "Biblical canon" given in 1999 by The Access Bible ( published by the Oxford University Press):
I have added the context of the quote above in the quote I put in the article's ref. The previous quotes from the same ref were unrelated so I removed them.
I agree on The Access Bible's definition and would wish a very similar definition be put as the lede, i.e. giving precisions that the expression only concerns the Old and New Testaments.
Veverve (
talk)
19:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Other sources supporting this definition:
2)
The Gospel Coalition (
[1]):
3) Oxford Bibliographies ( [2]):
4) biblestudytools ( [3]):
Veverve (
talk)
19:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
5) Daniel Patte (ed.),The Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity:
6) HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, 3rd revised ed.:
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
A new section on Islam and canonization was
deleted with the edit summary:
. "This article is about Biblical canons. The Quran has no relevance to it, and therefore I have removed the section on the Quran."
However the lede of the article starts out:
A biblical canon or canon of scripture
[1] is a set of
texts (or "books") which a particular religious community regards as authoritative
scripture.
In addition the lede does not assume the subject is the bible. For example: "Some books, such as the Jewish–Christian gospels, have been excluded from various canons altogether ... "
Why would it say "such as the Jewish–Christian gospels" if the bible/gospel was the subject of the article?
If people still find this confusing I suggest the title be changed to something like Canon of scripture. -- Louis P. Boog ( talk) 23:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) Ulrich's article defines "canon" as follows: "...the definitive list of inspired, authoritative books which constitute the recognized and accepted body of sacred scripture of a major religious group, that definitive list being the result of inclusive and exclusive decisions after a serious deliberation". It is further defined
by whom? as follows: "...the definitive, closed list of the books that constitute the authentic contents of scripture."
The line about Jewish-Christian gospels is not referring to Jewish and Christian scriptures in total, but to a specific type of Christian gospels (which is a specific genre, separate from "scriptures" or "the Bible") which maintained a Jewish character rather than being meant for Gentiles. The article is about Biblical canons, specifically, which is why it is so titled, and therefore the Quran and Islamic scriptures are outside the scope of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.192.75 ( talk) 19:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
I think this article should be renamed to Scriptural canon as religions other than Judaism and Christianity don't call their scriptures "Bible" or "biblical". Editor2020 ( talk) 02:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Contents 1) Jewish canons 1.1 Rabbinic Judaism 1.2 Beta Israel 1.3 Samaritan canon
2) Christian canons 2.1 Early Church 2.2 Eastern Church 2.3 Western Church
3) Canons of various traditions 3.1 Old Testament 3.2 New Testament 3.3 Latter Day Saint canons
Made the contents section more organized 3 in each group Doremon764 ( talk) 02:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
With all the discussion of which books are in which tradition's Old Testament, there is no discussion of the different sequences. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Old Testament end with Daniel. The Protestant Old Testament ends with Malachi. The Jewish Tanakh ends with Chronicles. There are other differences. -- WickerGuy ( talk) 04:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
The New Testament has been around for almost 2,000 years - it's hardly a "New Testamnet". I tweaked... Jewish Scripture/' Old Testament' or Christian Scripture/' New Testament' - 2601:589:4801:5660:B1C7:7A45:9E90:1C31 ( talk) 21:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
As of yesterday, the Wikipedia page said that the Georgian Orthodox Church accepted Slavonic 3 Esdras/Esdra/Ezra (AKA Vulgate 4 Esdras/Esdra/Ezra) and 4 Macc. as canonical in the chart. However, these 2 books are apparently apocryphal and noncanonical in the Georgian Church, based on several factors: Factor 1. In the Orthodox Church, the highest written authority on the lists of the books of the canon is the Ecumenical Councils. The Quintsext Council of Trullo, in its Second Canon, listed patristic and conciliar decisions on the lists of the books of the canon and the Trullo Council affirmed those lists. Some of Trullo's lists were longer than others. For example, the Trullo Council affirmed Canon 85 of the "Canons of the Holy Apostles," which in turn affirmed 1-3 Maccabees. But some other sources approved by Trullo's Second Canon did not affirm those three Maccabean books. In any case, none of the sources approved by Trullo approved 4 Maccabees. Nor do I believe that any of them approved Vulgate 4 Esdras/Ezra. P. Boumis gave a detailed analysis of the sources that Trullo's Council approved in his article here: http://www.ecclesia.gr/greek/press/theologia/material/2007_2_5_Boumis.pdf P. Boumis tried to interpret Trullo and its sources in an inclusive way, as if the sources affirmed by Trullo that failed to affirm 1-3 Macc. were not excluding 1-3 Macc.
Factor 2. Georgian Synods, bishops, and theologians are important sources on whether the Georgian Orthodox Church accepts 4 Maccabees or Vulgate 4 Esdras. However, I was not able to find any of those sources taking a position on that topic.
Factor 3. Historically, Physical hardcopies of Church Bibles over centuries occasionally included works that their printers considered apocryphal or clearly noncanonical, such as Josephus' works. Jerome considered Vulgate 4 Esdras to be apocryphal, but he still translated it into Latin. Then the Russian Church used the Vulgate as a key source for its own printed Bibles when the Russian Church began to print its Bibles. Thus, the Russian Church included 4 Esdras in its printed hardcopy Bibles under the title "3 Esdras" without considering it "canonical", but without marking it as noncanonical either. 4 Maccabees has a similar history in the Greek Church. The Greek Church used the Alexandrian Codex as its source for its printed Bibles. Thus, Greek printed Bibles included 4 Maccabees among its pages without ever officially declaring 4 Macc. a canonical book, but without marking it as "noncanonical" in its pages, either. This history explains why someone could mistakenly consider Slavonic 3 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras) or 4 Macc. to be canonical when they were not.
Factor 4. if you look at Contemporary Georgian Church Bibles, they apparently tend to include 3 Esdras and 4 Macc. but mark them as "noncanonical" like current Greek and Russian Bibles do. In fact, the mid-20th century Russian synodal Bible marked all OT books outside of the "Protocanon" as noncanonical, and the Georgian Orthodox website below also marks both the Deuterocanon and 4 Macc. and Slavic 3 Esdras as "noncanonical" in Georgian: http://www.orthodoxy.ge/tserili/biblia/sarchevi.htm
I fixed the Wikipedia entry for the Georgian Church's position on 3 Esdras and 4 Macc by changing their entry to "No - Apocrypha", but the table looks alittle messy now. Maybe some has the computer language skills to clean it up Rakovsky ( talk) 04:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Non-canonical books. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Non-canonical until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
SWinxy (
talk)
01:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
DefinitionofBibleTerms and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 29#DefinitionofBibleTerms until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Veverve (
talk)
13:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't know much about Islam but could we add the Quran to the comparison table Braganza ( talk) 08:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
Should this "Latter Day Saint canons" section be in this article in so detailed a manner?
The overall article attempts to address the whole of the worldwide church. Having a separate section, and its own separate subsections for what is, in this context, a minor denomination of only very recent founding seems excessive.
I propose that this material should be in its own LDS-specific article with a "main article" cross-reference from here.
This comment isn't about the LDS material itelf. It is, rather, about the relative imbalance of the material with respect to the whole article. Feline Hymnic ( talk) 11:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@ Joeymanderson3: It's not clear to me what you found lacking in this edit which was an attempt to simplify the text. The edit kept the mention of Revelations of James J. Strang but brought it into the same clause mentioning the other Strangite canonical text. All that was removed was additional detail that I felt was not necessary to the main point. With regards to the argument of weight - there are less than 100 adherents today, making them an extremely tiny minority. There are more than 5 extra-Biblical tethese---xts outside of the various Latter Day Saint standard works, some accepted by much larger denominations than the Strangites. The paragraph, in my opinion, should be representative but not exhaustive with deference given to the larger or more notable denominations per WP:WEIGHT. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 04:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Since there are so few scriptures such as these outside of the various renditions of the Standard Works, there is no issue of "weight" when applied to these---even if most of them occur under Mr. Strang's sect. They all should be mentioned because they are all so different from everything else. In the same way, this article is weighted somewhat toward the Etheopic canon, and even in some respects, the Armenian canon---because they are so different. They have a home here and have had one since 2012. If in only 2.5 sentences, the anomalies that exist outside of the standard works can be explained, one can hardly call that "weighted." Joeymanderson3 ( talk) 06:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
And all those books are part of their Bible, or do they have them separately? since the article is about "biblical canon", not about books that are not part of "a LDS bible" but the LDS considers canonical even if they don't have them inside their "bible". Rafaelosornio ( talk) 02:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The LDS books are another testament, and considered as extensions of the Bible. They belong here. Joeymanderson3 ( talk) 07:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
2 Nephi 29 puts the Book of Mormon and the other "books which will be written" squarely in the same category, and furthermore implies that they are all "Bible." Joeymanderson3 ( talk) 20:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@
FyzixFighter: The article
as it was before was about any Christian or Jewish canon of scripture. This would include the Bible, but also the scriptural canon of
Qumran, the writings of
Joseph Smith and other texts considered as religiously authoritative from all from all LDS denominations, the prophecies of
William Marrion Branham, some of the
Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society publications, etc., the list is almost infinite. The source given in the lede did not define "biblical canon", but religious canons in general, i.e. the source's definition could also apply to Zoroastrism.
I thought that this was unrelated to the scope of the article which is titled "Biblical canon", which would imply the article is only about the canon of the bible, i.e. what is and is not in the
Bible or
Hebrew Bible of such and such Jewish or Christian denomination. Therefore,
I changed this while adding numerous improvements.
Veverve (
talk)
15:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
what is and is not in the Bible or Hebrew Bible of such and such Jewish or Christian denomination. What do you say?
@ FyzixFighter: Eugene Ulrich (in The Canon Debate, 2002, p. 29) states 'authoritative work' is to be avoided:
Veverve ( talk) 19:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@ FyzixFighter: so, can we agree to reduce the scope of the article? I propose to do so by changing the lede to: "A biblical canon is a set of texts (also called "books") either which Christians consider as being officialy part of the Bible, or which Jews consider as being officialy part of the Hebrew Bible." Veverve ( talk) 14:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The scope is fine. I think the Swedenborg stuff should be considered because they do in fact see his writings as PART OF THE BIBLE... their non-inclusion here upsets me. But not everything has a place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeymanderson3 ( talk • contribs) 23:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I would recommend an RFC or similar DR to get wider community opinions on re-scoping the article. Thoughts? -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 00:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
1) Ulrich (in The Canon Debate, 2002, p. 29) endorses the definition (which was made by some Catholics, Protestants, and Jews) of "Biblical canon" given in 1999 by The Access Bible ( published by the Oxford University Press):
I have added the context of the quote above in the quote I put in the article's ref. The previous quotes from the same ref were unrelated so I removed them.
I agree on The Access Bible's definition and would wish a very similar definition be put as the lede, i.e. giving precisions that the expression only concerns the Old and New Testaments.
Veverve (
talk)
19:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Other sources supporting this definition:
2)
The Gospel Coalition (
[1]):
3) Oxford Bibliographies ( [2]):
4) biblestudytools ( [3]):
Veverve (
talk)
19:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
5) Daniel Patte (ed.),The Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity:
6) HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, 3rd revised ed.: