Talk:Biblical canon/Archive 6

Old LDS Section Omitted
This used to be a part of this article. It was too much. I have nowhere else to place it but within these talks. (Someone spent a lot of time on this.)

Other Latter Day Saint sects
Canons of various Latter Day Saint denominations diverge from the LDS Church's standard works. Some denominations accept earlier versions of the standard works or work to develop corrected translations. Others have purportedly received additional revelation. Some accept only portions of the standard works. For instance, Bickertonite church does not consider the Pearl of Great Price or the Doctrine and Covenants to be scriptural. Rather, they believe that the New Testament scriptures contain a true description of the church as established by Jesus Christ, and that both the King James Bible and Book of Mormon are the inspired word of God.

The Community of Christ affirms the Bible, along with the Book of Mormon, as well as its own regularly appended version of Doctrine and Covenants as scripture for the church. While it publishes a version of the Joseph Smith Translation, which includes material from the Book of Moses, the Community of Christ also accepts the use of other translations of the Bible, such as the standard King James Version and the New Revised Standard Version.

The Church of Christ (Temple Lot) rejects the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, as well as the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, preferring to use only the King James Bible and the Book of Mormon as doctrinal standards. The Book of Commandments is accepted as being superior to the Doctrine and Covenants as a compendium of Joseph Smith's early revelations, but is not accorded the same status as the Bible or Book of Mormon.

The Word of the Lord and The Word of the Lord Brought to Mankind by an Angel are two related books considered to be scriptural by certain (Fettingite) factions that separated from the Temple Lot church. Both books contain revelations allegedly given to former Church of Christ (Temple Lot) Apostle Otto Fetting by an angelic being who claimed to be John the Baptist. The latter title (120 messages) contains the entirety of the former's material (30 msgs.) with additional revelations (90 msgs.) purportedly given to William A. Draves by this same being, after Fetting's death. Neither are accepted by the larger Temple Lot body of believers.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite) considers the Bible (when correctly translated), the Book of Mormon, and editions of the Doctrine and Covenants published prior to Joseph Smith's death (which contained the Lectures on Faith) to be inspired scripture. They also hold the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible to be inspired, but do not believe modern publications of the text are accurate. Other portions of The Pearl of Great Price, however, are not considered to be scriptural, although they are not necessarily fully rejected either. The Book of Jasher was consistently used by both Joseph Smith and James Strang, but there is no official stance on its authenticity, and it is not considered canonical.

An additional work called the Book of the Law of the Lord is also accepted as inspired scripture by the Strangites. They likewise hold as scriptural several prophecies, visions, revelations, and translations printed by James Strang, and published in the Revelations of James J. Strang. Among other things, this text contains his purported "Letter of Appointment" from Joseph Smith and his translation of the Voree plates.

The Church of Jesus Christ (Cutlerite) accepts the following as scripture: the Inspired Version of the Bible (including the Book of Moses and Joseph Smith–Matthew), the Book of Mormon, and the 1844 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (including the Lectures on Faith). However, the revelation on tithing (section 107 in the 1844 edition; section 119 in modern LDS editions) is emphatically rejected by members of this church, as it is not believed to be given by Joseph Smith. The Book of Abraham is rejected as scripture, as are the other portions of the Pearl of Great Price that do not appear in the Inspired Version of the Bible.

Many Latter Day Saint denominations have also either adopted the Articles of Faith or at least view them as a statement of basic theology. They are considered scriptural by the larger LDS Church and are included in the Pearl of Great Price. At times, the Articles have been adapted to fit the respective belief systems of various faith communities.

Table
The order of some books varies among canons. -->

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeymanderson3 (talk • contribs)

for the attribution, could you say from which version you copy-pasted all this? Veverve (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

2 Baruch and Psalms 152-155
The giant chart currently says "Yes (?)" for whether the Syrian Orthodox Church includes 2 Baruch and Psalms 152–155. A question mark is not exactly reassuring... where exactly is this coming from? Google doesn't turn up much on its relationship to the Syriac Orthodox Church at all. Normally I wouldn't be a stickler about references in the chart, but the linked articles don't seem to indicate that these are canonical works. Rather, they are merely found in some ancient manuscripts... which is interesting, but by that standard, there'd be far more books in the chart, pretty much everything in New Testament apocrypha. Would there be any objection to either removing them, or else reducing this to "found in ancient manuscripts"? SnowFire (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree the lack of source for this chart is concerning. I feel some sources should be added; and after a while if sources are still not added the information should simply be removed. There is very likely some easily obtainable RSs about the various biblical canons (in encyclopedias for example), at least for the mainstream denominations; but I feel no one is concerned or interested enough in this to add them, and I plead guilty here. Veverve (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not too concerned about the Catholic and Protestant canons. The Eastern Orthodox and especially the Oriental Orthodox ones - yeah, it's tricky.  It'd be systemic bias to exclude them, but English language scholarship is not great on the matter.  It seems clear that 2 Baruch was in some ancient versions of the Peshita (Syriac Bible), but modern versions don't seem to include it, as best I can tell.  It seems that the pre-2012 version of the article did indeed only say "found in some ancient manuscripts"  but it was changed by an IP address in 2012-2013.  The note cited  and  - but the second one doesn't cite any sources at all or really explain what it means, i.e. it's still entirely possible it's solely saying it was a part of the ancient traditional works.  The first source suggests it's only the Letter of Baruch as well, not all of 2 Baruch.  Anyway, the first source at least cites a book - "The Apocrypha in Ecumenical Perspective".  Unfortunately it seems like a very obscure book - no eBook, not at my local library...  but wait, archive.org has it!    Okay, that's cool, it's on page 160 there.  It clearly identifies just the Letter of Baruch - BUT - it's under "Peshitta" on a chart with items like "Septuagint" and "Vulgate" in columns.  In other words, it's not talking about the modern Biblical canon of later Syrian Orthodox - it's saying that the document can be found in old copies of the Peshitta.  Which we already knew, and was what the pre-2012 article said - "found in some ancient manuscripts."  But still, pretty neat that the source was able to be tracked down.  SnowFire (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It is another case of "it is possible those texys were in some official bibles of this denomination in the past, but for the last 200 years said denomination has not clarified what was and was not in the Bible according to them, so who knows what their current status is". I hate those cases.
 * Glad you could shed some light on those information, nice job! Veverve (talk) 16:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Nonconformist protestants and the apocryphal books
The original English Standard Version (ESV), which continues to be published, conforms to the standard Protestant canon, i.e. 66 books. Later an English Standard Version - Catholic Edition (ESV-CE) was published which comprises the so-called protocanon and deuterocanon for a total of 73 books. Recently an ESV Anglican Edition with the Apocrypha has been published. I hope it's obvious that nonconformist protestants use the 66 book version of the ESV (as it's in line with the protestant confessions as they touch upon the canon) and not the Roman Catholic or Anglican editions. Therefore it's misleading to state in the table under the "Canons of various Christian traditions" heading that in the case of several apocryphal books that they are "inc. in some translations (e.g. RSV, NRSV, ESV)" as they are not included in the version that the nonconformists use. I think a similar situation exists with regards to the ESV and NRSV but would need to check to be sure. There's also an issue with the term "nonconformist" which is dated and has never been used in places where the Church of England was not the established church. A better term might be "Protestants excluding Anglicans". Greenshed (talk) 20:34, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * While it's all true what you've just said, Cambridge University Press has recently published an edition of the ESV Bible, the Cambridge ESV Diadem Reference Bible, which is published with or without the Apocrypha (depending on the buyer's preference). Also, Cambridge University Press published a text edition of the ESV Apocrypha as a stand-alone edition. Neither of these editions was billed as a specific edition of the ESV for a Christian denomination or tradition (like with the ESV Catholic and Anglican Editions). So, if a nonconformist (or non-Anglican) Protestant wanted to purchase an edition of the ESV with the Apocrypha and not settle for a Catholic or Anglican edition, they now can, at least from Cambridge University Press (Crossway is not publishing editions with the ESV Apocrypha, even though they hold the copyright to it).
 * By the way, the original version of the ESV Bible with Apocrypha was published by Oxford University Press in 2009. That edition wasn't printed for a specific denomination or tradition either. Even though the Oxford edition is now out of print, later on Catholics and Anglicans managed to secure the license to print editions with the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books included. Now, Cambridge University Press seems to be joining in on the action (except that they are not printing specific Catholic or Anglican editions).
 * This was similar to the history of the RSV (its predecessor translation which originally didn't include the Apocrypha either). The NRSV originally came out in 1989, in editions with or without the Apocrypha (and also a Catholic edition). Now, the ESV is following suit. Wikiman86 (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure it makes sense to separate out Nonconformist Protestant, Anglican, and Lutheran anyway. I'd be in favor of just combining those three columns and using footnotes to explain when there's major denominational splits, similar to the New Testament section. SnowFire (talk) 04:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

What is the order of the columns in the table?
The First Row "Traditions" groupings

The columns seemed ordered, left to right, in a pretty random manner. The first row in the table creates groupings of sects. This is useful, but is it accurate and neutral? It is a mix of religious and geographical groupings. Why both? Here is the current order of the column groupings:

Judaism * Western Tradition * Eastern Orthodox Tradition * Oriental Orthodox Tradition * Church of the East Tradition

The *Western Tradition* seems a little forced. In all the other traditions the members of the individual churches or sects would agree. If you ask a Greek Orthodox priest "Are you part of the Eastern Orthodox Tradition" and having much in common with the RUssian Orthodox, they would say "Yes".

Where as if you asked a Roman Catholic "Are you part of a Western Tradition of Christianity that includes Lutherans, most would say "No".  Other than the Anglican Church most Catholics feel they are more like the Orthodox than various Protestant sects.

I would recomend giving the Catholic church their own subcategory, and not lumping them in the synthetic category of "Western Tradition". (There have always been Orthodox in the West (Southern Italy, for instance) and Catholics in the East.

There is a logical argument for putting Judaism in the first column position, but then it implies that subsequent rows should be more or less in sequential order of when the sects which they contain were founded. The *Western Tradition* is dominated by the newest sects: Lutherans dating to the 1500s, where as the Orthodox / Catholic split was 500 years previous. It would be hard to choose between the various sects as to who is older in the case of Orthodox and Catholic sects, so that is probably not a great solutio.

A much more neutral ordering of the second row would be purely alphabetically:

* Church of the East Tradition * Eastern Orthodox Tradition * Judaism * Oriental Orthodox Tradition * Western Tradition

Seeing as Judaism has the unchallenged position as the originators of the Old Testament, one might keep it in the first column.

 The Second Row: The Sects / Denominations / Churches row

Moving to the second row, the odd sorting becomes even more bizarre and inexplicable.

The Western Tradition columns, for example are ordered thusly (left to right):

Nonconformist Protestant * Lutheran * Anglican * Roman Catholic

Why? What possible reason is there for this order (other than the original creators bias?) Even if we keep these four sects, why order them this way?

The Western Tradition Organizing Category should be Split into Protestant and Catholic.

Again, three of these belong in a category that is commonly used and to which members would agree: "Protestants" - If you ask an Anglican "Are you a Protestant Christian" then would say yes.

Alphabetical would yield: Anglican * Lutheran * Nonconformist Protestant * Roman Catholic A time-based ordering would yeild: Catholic * Anglican * Nonconformist Protestant * Lutheran

Non Conformist Protestant Seems Like a Category Failure

Finally the term *Non-Conformist Protestant* is a bit odd. I know it was used early in the Reformation in England, but I don't think anyone self-identifies with that as the primary everyday name of their sect.

So, where as you do here people say "I am a Catholic", "I am an Anglican", "I am a Greek Orthodox" I don't think anyone says "I am a Non Conformist Protestant". I could easily find a Catholic, Anglican or Greek Orthodox church to attend in the Portland, Oregon area with a 30 second Google search. "Non Conformist Protestant" ? It's a different category.

Fruit, Fruit, Fruit, Fruit, Tree.

Here is some information on Nonconformist Protestants from Wikipedia:

Thereafter, a Nonconformist was any English subject belonging to a non-Anglican church or a non-Christian religion. More broadly, any person who advocated religious liberty was typically called out as Nonconformist. The strict religious tests embodied in the laws of the Clarendon Code and other penal laws excluded a substantial section of English society from public affairs and benefits, including certification of university degrees, for well more than a century and a half. Culturally, in England and Wales, discrimination against Nonconformists endured even longer.

Presbyterians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Calvinists, other "reformed" groups and less organized sects were identified as Nonconformists at the time of the 1662 Act of Uniformity. Following the act, other groups, including Methodists, Unitarians, Quakers, Plymouth Brethren, and the English Moravians were officially labelled as Nonconformists as they became organized.

Do Presbyterians think of themselves (in the current era) as Non-Conforming Protestants? (Maybe theological seminary students learn this, but it's quite esoteric otherwise, in my opinion)

In Summary: this is an excellent table, someone or group of people have clearly done a lot of work, but the sorting of the column headings makes little sense. My guess is the original author comes from a "non conforming Protestat" sect, as they are awarded the coveted (by Protestants especially) "Closest to the Jewish Tradition" column. ZeroXero (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Slavonic Orthodox
Should Slavonic Orthodox have it’s own page? Doremon764 (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Colours in charts
What do all the colours in the charts mean? I can't find any key to them. — Iadmc  ♫ talk  12:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * It's a good question. I don't know what they mean too. --Rafaelosornio (talk) 00:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

"Bible and Tanach" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bible and Tanach and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

"Bible and Tanakh" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bible and Tanakh and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

"Biblical literature" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Biblical literature and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

"Biblical Literature" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Biblical Literature and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 09:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

RfC on article scope
Should the scope of the "Biblical canon" article be: And how best to define this in the first part of the lede? --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) biblical canon/canon of scripture - a set of texts (or "books") which a particular Jewish or Christian religious community regards as authoritative scripture
 * 2) Biblical canon - a set of texts (or "books") which a particular Jewish or Christian religious community regards as part of the Bible


 * I strongly endorse proposition 2. My arguments (which I gave during the previous discussion on this talk page are:
 * Proposition 2 uses "biblical canon" in its most widely accepted meaning in both academic and mainstream sources (see the compilation at Talk:Biblical canon).
 * Proposition 1 - which is the definition currently used - expands the scope of the article too much; the scope of proposition 1 should include all other scriptures held as authoritative by any notable Christian or Jewish denomination which are not considered by them as part of the bible. Those books include, but are not limited to: the Standard works and other LDS scriptures (see table here), the Divine Principle, William Marrion Branham's prophecies, Vissarion's  (yes it is considered as sacred scripture), the Book of the Secret Supper, The Book of the Two Principles, the Zohar, the Talmud, the Midrash, and possibly the The Urantia Book. Therefore, the article needs to be limited to the Bible, both for the reader who expects to see information related to the Bible and nothing else with an article whose title is "Biblical canon", and for the sake of readability as the article would be too long otherwise.
 * "Bible" is used to refer both to the Christian Bible and the Jewish Bible; the Wikipedia article on the Tanakh (Jewish sacred scriptures) is even titled "Hebrew Bible".
 * The alleged vagueness of the word "Bible" is irrelevant to the question, and the definition of "Bible" is to be debated at Bible and not at Biblical canon.
 * It is not tautological to define "biblical canon" as "what is or is not in the Bible", because sometimes to be clear one needs to use words which are similar (e.g. Federal government of the United States: "The federal government of the United States [U.S. federal government or U.S. government] is the national government of the United States").
 * As for the lede, to me it should look like: "A biblical canon is a set of texts (or "books") which a particular Jewish or Christian religious community regards as part of the Bible." Veverve (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I endorse #2: and Veverve's use in the lead. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * #2 per Veverve. Johnbod (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I lean towards endorsing proposition 1
 * I think there is a subtle difference between "biblical canon" and "Biblical canon", each corresponding to the two proposed scopes. For the majority of Christians, the two are in fact synonymous. The latter, however, is too narrow to properly address the minority of Christians that have a broader collection of authoritative scriptures. It is also too anachronistic to apply to any Jewish canon that was already established centuries before the concept of a "Bible". A scope of "biblical canon" leverages "the books" meaning of "biblical", and opens up the opportunity for a discussion of Jewish and heterodox Christian collections of scriptures held at the same authoritative level as the Bible. There are definitions that appear in RS sources, like the taken from the editors of "The Canon Debate" mentioned above, that don't explicit state a limitation to OT/NT or closed canon. Indeed several of the definitions that were provided in the previous discussion (such as 2, 3, 4) start with a high level definition that is broader, and only with additional unspoken assumptions of orthodoxy can you get from the high level definition to the more limited OT/NT definition.
 * I do also find using "the Bible" to define "biblical canon" somewhat tautological. It tells the reader nothing really about why a "biblical canon" is important, whereas the previously long-standing first sentence gave a better since of why the concept is important. The tautological definition also leads to issues when we try and adjust the definition to be inclusive of Jewish canons. With respect to the Jewish canon of scripture, I don't see how the "as part of the Bible" really allows it. It's anachronistic and forces a Christian POV on a Jewish concept. I would also point out that the article already does include discussion of the Talmud and Midrash as part of the Jewish biblical canon.
 * There is a difference between religious texts and a canon of scriptures. Limiting to canons of scriptures does not open the door to any religious text or authoritative work held to be scripture and would preclude the inclusion of things like the Urantia Book or liturgical texts. Using the LDS example, things like The Family: A Proclamation to the World or general conference addresses might be considered religious texts or even "scripture", but they are not part of the LDS canon/collection of authoritative scripture. I think this with its very large but table was undue weight - a spin-off article on LDS canon is probably warranted, but a few paragraphs on how the concept of a canon of scriptures manifests in these communities. Mention of other groups with broader canons than the Bible should be given weight based on their notability. --FyzixFighter (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Version 2, to restrict the scope to what are considered by various Judeo-Christian denominations to be known as the Bible, in order to omit other additional texts that may also be considered authoritative Scripture, such as the LDS scriptures. This article should be about the Hebrew and Greek scriptures that have varying degrees of acceptance by different Jewish and Christian denominations.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Version 2, as per arguments made by Veverve. Pyrite Pro  (talk) 11:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Version 2, per FyzixFighter I do … find using "the Bible" to define "biblical canon" somewhat tautological. It tells the reader nothing really about why a "biblical canon" is important, whereas the previously long-standing first sentence gave a better since of why the concept is important. In practice the two may be synonymous in most instances, but Version 2 is clearer. Pincrete (talk) 11:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Version 2 as necessarily tautological, the word "biblical" refers to "Bible" in particular, not to authoritative scripture in general. If there are any other notable canons of authoritative scripture they should be discussed in separate articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Note: see Talk:Biblical canon/Archive 5 for the full discussion and the compilation I referred to in my vote. Veverve (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

New Testament Chart
The Chart adding Greek Orthodox is wrong since the New Testament for all Eastern Orthodox is the same. Same with Syriac Christianity New Testament changing it to Syriac Orthodox leaves out Church of the East branch. Someone made it similar to the Old Testament chart without considering Slavonic Orthodox, Georgian Orthodox, Assyrian Church, and Ancient Church. Doremon764 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Orthodox Tewahedo Bible!
In the Orthodox Tewahedo Bible, there is another book that I do not see added to the Old Testament Book List. The book name is “Josippon” and is the 46th book in the Ethiopian Old Testament! Even I wouldn’t mind editing the article, just to add that book in the OT list, if possible.

Side Note: If you don’t believe this, then just tell me to send you the source. Thanks! :o) Craig Lungren (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * you can write the reference (chapter, page number, etc.) of your source here. Veverve (talk) 15:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest you try going to this link to see the list of Old Testament books in the Ethiopian Bible …
 * Orthodox Tewahedo biblical canon
 * Also I don’t have anything like the chapter, page number, etc. … but only the website or the link to take you to the source. Craig Lungren (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)