Talk:Biblical canon
With all due respect, what about the parts of the Bible that were destroyed because they were written by WOMEN? The Bible everyone is reading is broken, even as a history...
Out of curiosity, do we know there were any? Culture in the ancient world didn't normally encourage such exploits, but there are notably exceptions, like Hypatia and Sappho. Have we found any woman-written apocrypha?
I agree. I do not know of any evidence that certain writings were rejected because of being written by women. another relevant fact is that the ability to write was a very specialized skill in the first century, and women were generally considered to be property, hence there was not a tendency to train them. I have heard some arguments that some of Jesus's disciples were women, (Mary and Martha immediately spring to mind, probably Mary Magdelene as well), however that doesn't mean they wrote anything down.
- Sappho survives almost entirely because people quoted her poetry approvingly. MOST lyric poets from antiquity survive only in the most pitifully fragmentary form (see the Loeb classical library, which I think has 5 volumes of Greek Lyric, very little of which is in good shape). Catullus, for instance, survived in ONE mansucript copy up to the 16th century. Not impressive. So if a book did or didn't survive, it was because no one read it very much -- frequency of use is the best indicator for survival from Antiquity. The accidental survival of a bunch of papyrus (e.g., the Nag hammadi material) is a 20th century revolution in linguistic study, but we make all too much of them I sometimes think just because they survive. --MichaelTinkler (oh, and by the way, no one has ever disagreed that there were women disciples - only that the fact that there were no women among the apostles means something about priesthood or not. Though a not uncommon title for Mary Magdalen in the middle ages was Apostola Apostolorum, "Apostle to the Apostles", because she knew about the resurrection first and went to tell them. --MCT.
Would this be an appropriate place to discuss New Testament Apocrypha (such as the Gospel of Thomas)? I can see what I can dig up on this, unless someone with more knowledge of the subject pipes up. --Claudine
I expect that it is a reasonable place. I would also like some mention of the principles used by the early church in establishing what was canon in the New Testament, and by the early Jewish scholars as what was canon in the Tanakh
I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to say the Jews/early church "were not interested in laying down a Canon, or set list of inspired books. " The Jewish sect of Sadducees for instance did not accept anything other than the Pentateuch (The first 5 books of the Hebrew Bible attributed to Moses) and various church fathers discussed inclusion/exclusion of various books. It's certainly true that their approach to the idea of canon was different than much modern thinking.
Also, what about mention of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox? They have their own canons, and a slightly different approach.
Probably should have an article about the LXX (ie. the Septuagint) as well
On a minor strand, I MUCH prefer Septuagint to the abbreviation LXX. Not that either is common knowledge, but especially in an encyclopedia aimed at the normal reader we owe it to them not to have a lot of abbreviations. Remember, Wiki isn't paper, and we don't have to worry about digital conservation issues yet. One has to know that septuaginta in Greek means 70 and that LXX is the Roman numeral for 70. It's not, for instance, the Greek numeral. If one wanted to link to the miracle of the Seventy, that would be one thing. Oh, well, just a little peevishness. I need lunch. --MichaelTinkler
I made LXX redirect to Septuagint, and additionall replaced
most of the references the search engine found. That
should take care of it --Alan Millar
What does "Books considered heretical or fraudulent" mean? Passive voice is avoided in good writing, and for a reason... ;-)
Also, the "other books" are neither quoted in New Testament but not included themselves, nor considered heretical or fraudulent, nor considered Gnostic (which are themselves not considered heretical or fraudulent?). I'm confused, as you can see. --LMS
That would mean books considered heretical or fraudulent according to those setting up the canon. Gnostic would be I suppose a specific heresy, don't remember why it was separate. Other books was just where I put books I knew nothing specific about besides their titles. Not a great system I know. -rmhermen
Perfection isn't required (yet), but I think it needs to be relabled. According to all of them? According to Protestants, Catholics, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, etc.? --LMS
Another point: this article should begin with a general description of what a Biblical canon in general is and why it is important. --LMS
This is a pretty good article, but it needs a lots of work. It seems inacurate in sveral places to me, but i will have to doa little more research before i dive in and change a bunch of stuff! until then i will say this: the use of the term "doubtfull books" is confusing to say the least. The link refers to the Apocrypha, but the NT books refered to have never been part of that group. It is confusing because the "doubtfull" OT ones listed are now considered non canocial by non-Catholics (also, that means they were excluded, not included!). A clear distinction needs to be made between the doubtfull books that were never considered scripture by most (untill the counter-reformation of the 17th c.) - Apocrypha, and books that were doubted by some early Christians for reasons such as uncertain authorship - eg Hebrews. To lump the Apocyrpha together with books that were left off some canon tables before Eusebius' (circa 260-340 AD) is highly inacurate.
A seperate but related point: Revelation's canocial status was not doubted by early christians. or am i wrong? someone have a reference to show this? That its author was the apostle John is supported as far back as c. 140 AD by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and many others. --Asa
- Revelation did not have a quick acceptance despite the tradition of Johannine authorship, and there were serious doubts about its inclusion in the Canon. It's not in the Peshitto (Syriac) version, and as late as the 4th century it's still being left off some lists in the East (Gregory of Nazianzen, patriarch of Constantinople, leaves it off). The West was never so doubtful. Most scholars think the reluctance was the problematic use it was always put to by apocalyptic groups, but that isn't ever explicit in the evidence. --MichaelTinkler
ok. i did not know that. cheers. Asa
<rant>
Having just re-read this page, whilst currently reading up on this topic for a series of bible classes i am teaching, i've come to the conclusion that this page has major problems. It seems to avoid talking about the subject at hand and rather concentrate on periphery issues such as "Books not included.." (which is a rediculous title, as it could just as well list Lord of the Rings and 1984!) and controversies between what is and what isn't canonical. As important as these issues are, we need to get to work on the main "meat" of this topic, such as dates Christian canon tables started to apear, how they evolved, how they differed, how they largely agreed by the 4th C., the factors leading the the previous recognision as these listed books as authoritative. Also vital is work on the old testament canon and the Jewish Bible, how it came to be formed, why Christians recognise it (largly because Jesus did), the differences in the grouping of books in Jewish and Christian traditions.... loads to do! Much of the material here has the wrong focus for an article on "canon" and rather belongs to "non-canon" or something! I dunno completely how to resolve this, but there is a major lack of focus ATM. I should be able to work some on this soon.. but not now.
</rant>
AW
I agree, Asa. Not to say having all these other details is wrong or that they shouldn't have been added (we'd want 'em sooner or later), but yes, we do need the meat in this article. That's actually true of a number of different articles--they're incomplete in various important ways. Rome wasn't built in a day, though. We should be grateful that there is anything in those incomplete articles at all. --LMS
Asa, you say "A clear distinction needs to be made between the doubtfull books that were never considered scripture by most (untill the counter-reformation of the 17th c.) - Apocrypha, and books that were doubted by some early Christians for reasons such as uncertain authorship - eg Hebrews. To lump the Apocyrpha together with books that were left off some canon tables before Eusebius' (circa 260-340 AD) is highly inacurate." As far as I know, thats not true. The Deuterocanon was considered scripture by most until the Reformation, although there was always a significant minority who did not like it. I don't see how its highly inaccurate -- both sets of books have had their cannonicity doubted. In the end, all Christians ended up accepting the later set, while only some accepted the former -- but they both are books that were doubted. Stop with your Protestant bias or I'll report you to the Pope :P :)
AW, of course we wouldn't include 1984. But I think its useful to include Apocrypha/Psuedipigrapha -- books that are from a similar period and similar in style, but were not included. Of course, exactly where to draw the line between Apocrypha/Pseudipigrapha and early Patristic works can sometimes be difficult (consider 1 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, etc.), and whether or not to consider some works Apocrypha/Psuedipigrapha or just part of wider Jewish or Christian literature (e.g. Psuedo-Phocylides, or however you spell him), can be difficult. We should also exclude mediaeval or modern "apocrypha" (e.g. Gospel of Barnabas, Life of Issa, Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Book of Jasher, the Book of Mormon, etc.) to a separate page (say modern and mediaeval apocrypha), although we should link to it. -- SJK
It's a nitpick, but I adding a bit at the top to make clear just exactly who believes what about whose god.JFQ
Is the word "sect" in the first sentence really NPOV? I'm not a native English speaker but I have the impression it sounds a bit condescending. Is it correct to call the Roman catholic church (just) a sect? -- Jan Hidders 03:13 Aug 16, 2002 (PDT)
- I can see how it could be taken as such, given that it is often used in a derogatory manner by members of one sect or another, but it's really the only word in English that conveys the proper meaning, ie a specifically defined group with some divergent beliefs who are none the less a part of a larger religious tradition. My intent in using it was not to be derogatory, however, if anyone else can come up with a better way to say the same thing, more power to them.JFQ
"Inspiration by God" is not a condition for being canonical. The OT historical books are simply that: history. They can be accepted as history even by atheists. Eclecticology 11:20 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)
- to say that bht biblical canon consists of a list of books people include in the bible verges on tautology; I think it is a useless statement. The question is, why are some books included in the canon, and others not? That atheists might accept a particular book as "history" is irrelevant; the canon in question was formed some time ago and it is that process, not how the books are read today, that matters. I put the reference to God back in, with an addition (account of the relationship between people and God, which applies to this "historical" books), because this was indeed the principal criteria for canonization. It is simply false that "The OT historical books are simply that: history." Well, it may be true for Christians (for whom there is a canon of "Old Testament" books), I don't know. But for Jews, the Tanakh doesn't even have a specific section of "historical books" -- most of what the Christian canon places as historical are in a generic section called "writings;" they are not in chronological order (thus, Ruth is placed long after Judges), and to suggest that they were thought of as "simply that: history" for those who authorized the canon is an anachronism (the worst kind of historical reasoning!). In fact, these books were certainly something other than "history" to those who established the canon. One reason I know this is that some of those books refer to other history books of the time (sort of like citations or footnotes); clearly at the time there was a pool of "historical" books and the editors of the canon selected some and excluded others. Why? On what basis? The books chosen for the canon have other functions besides historicity. Some of them have political functions -- for example, the stories in Judges (among other things) is an allegory for the struggle between the tribe of Benjamin and the tribe of Judah for leadership. Surely the kings who claimed legitimacy because of their descent from David would like such a book. But this is not sufficient for inclusion in the Bible -- David is a tragic hero precisely because of his tortured relationship with God. To leave this stuff out is to provide a simplistic, ahistorical, anachronistic reading of the canon. Slrubenstein
- Your comments only muddy the waters. Generally in Wikipedia a first paragraph can be used to define the subject. Definitions are necessarily tautological since they amount to reducing concepts into a single simple word or phrase. Why some particular books are included in the Bible can and should be considered in the general development of the article. There is no doubt that some people view canon as based on inspiration by God, or as a people's relationship to God, and that these beliefs are sometimes used as criteria for cononicity -- but they are not the only criteria, nor are they essential. There's nothing wrong with viewing some book of the Bible as simply history. At least that's a step ahead of the person who rejects the same book because it's in the Bible. If we consider the accounts in Judges as allegory, that puts into doubt the historicity of those contents, -- or is that just a convenient way of papering over Joshua's genocides at Jericho and other Canaanite cities? These were OK because God said to do it. The entire concept of a canon is anachronistic to the Old Testament. The term's use in relationship the the Bible only dates from the church councils of the fourth century which were more concerned with the New Testament. At the time they were significantly more concerned with what they considered to be heretical notions arising from unofficial interpretations of the life of Jesus. Establishing a rule or law (i.e. a canon) about what should go in the Bible was their objective. Having, established the New Testament, it was easy for them to accept the already eight century old work of Jewish scholars about what should go into the Old Testament.
- So, if I may summarize a canon is a law; the more specific Biblical canon is a law governing the contents of the Bible. How or why the material got there is interesting but not essential. A particular sect is the master of its own rules, and is free to include what it wants in its conon. Eclecticology 16:27 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)
I replaced the linked word "Judaeo-Christian" with links to "Jewish" and "Christian", because it seems inappropriate to authoritatively use a term in a definition sentence which then links to an article that calls into question the very validity of that term (and rightly, I believe). (No username chosen)
Sorry, Eclecticology, but I cannot agree with your statement that some books are there simply because they are history. In fact, it might be worth looking at alternative canons rather than the ones used today. For example, the Samaritan canon, still in use by about 800 Samaritans in Israel and Palestine, consists of just the Pentateuch and Joshua, while it excludes all the other historical books. Their reason for including Joshua, which is verified by many scholars, is that the book is/seems to be an extension of Deuteronomy, which is itself recognized by early Jewish scholars as a later edition to the Bible, dating from the time of King Josiah (an example of this appears in the Babylonian Talmud in the first chapter of Tractate Megillah, where the later origin of Deuteronomy is alluded to--this would place the discussion at c. 300-500 AD). There was also considerable debate about the inclusion of such major works as Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes (which was apparently amended so that it could be included), and certainly Song of Songs. There is also considerable circumstantial evidence that the same debate kept out the Books of Maccabees and Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sirah). Hanukkah, the holiday described in Maccabees does not appear at all in the Mishnah, while Ecclesiasticus is quoted, albeit rarely, in the Talmud, indicating that it had some canonical status.
Furthermore, I don't quite understand your argument that considering Joshua as allegory is "just a convenient way of papering over Joshua's genocides at Jericho and other Canaanite cities." First of all, I think the statement itself is anachronistic in that it imposes contemporary Western values on an ancient Near Eastern culture. Secondly, claiming it is allegorical actually makes the text more difficult to understand today. I can accept that the ancient Israelites acted barbarously from a modern perspective. I have a bigger problem claiming that it is an allegory for some type of behavior expected of us today. Danny