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

It's Latin, not Greek. The Greek for 70 is ebdomékonta. -phma

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

As someone who too easily gets distracted from improving articles, let me suggest that we maintain focus. I agree by and large with SR's objections to calling certain books "only history". Any such classification is obviously a matter of someone's interpretation, whether the classification is as history, prophecy, poetry, or whatever. But Eclecticology is also right to point out that a canon itself is just a list. Any such such list has as much authority as people ascribe to it. So this article should be concerned with that the various biblical canons are (Jewish, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant), who affirms which canon, when and how the canons became authoritative and perhaps why. Questions of what the Bible actually is, (i.e. historical, prophetic, divinely inspired revelation, stuff and nonesenese, etc.) should be left for the Bible article. I don't think the article as it stands is very far from this at all.

Also, I think there's a suggestion on the Books of the Bible Talk page that that list be moved here. Would that make sense? And if so, can someone think of a more neutral way to present the Deuterocanon portion than it presently is there? Thanks,

Wesley 20:28 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)

I would contend that such an article should include the Samaritan canon as well. Though not numerically important today, it is an ancient tradition that might well reflect an earlier version of the contemporary canon: while theologians were debating the merits of this or that book, there were six books that were historically unchallenged (since at least 600 BC) and which are still more or less preserved by a particular community. 152.163.188.194

I agree it sounds worth mentioning. Want to put it in? Though it probably doesn't belong in this article, I think I read that the Samaritans have a different textual tradition as well, distinct from both the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. Wesley 07:52 Aug 23, 2002 (PDT)

I agree completely with Wesley that

this article should be concerned with that the various biblical canons are (Jewish, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant), who affirms which canon, when and how the canons became authoritative and perhaps why.

To state that certain books are in a particular canon because people saw them as divinely inspired does NOT mean that the Bible "is" divinely inspired, it means that "divine inspiration" was one of the criteria for inclusion -- people forming the canon believed this, and that is important.

Perhaps, as Eclectiology says, all definitions are tautological. But to define "Biblical canon" as a list of beooks of the bible that are included because they are in the Bible is ridiculous.

Eclectiology: this article is not about "different interpretations of the Bible," which may include purely historical interpretations. Nor is it about any canon -- all canons have different criteria for inclusion, and each canon has perhaps its own criteria. This is about the Biblical canon. And that means that the criteria for including a book in the canon, by the people who developed the canon and the people who accepted it, is absolutely fundamental. Slrubenstein

I've added subheadings to the text as is, just to take a step in this direction. I'm sure more fine tuning will be required as a result; no offense is meant, and I plan to come back later to look for inaccuracies, if no one fixes them first. Wesley 10:26 Aug 23, 2002 (PDT)

I am wondering if it might be useful to include some reference to the extra-biblical canon that some sects have, where they include additional texts that they consider equal to the Bible as part of their complete canon of divine works--I am think of the Mormons with their Book of Mormon, and perhaps also Christian Scientists where their "Science and Health with key to the scriptures." (No username selected)

I thought of that, but I think it would be easy to stray pretty far afield once we began. Mormons and Christian Scientists, to use your examples, don't add those works to the Bible itself, instead they are additional sacred texts. They should probably be discussed in the Bible article instead, if they aren't already, or in a separate sacred texts sort of article that encompasses more religions. Again, I don't know as I write this whether that or a similar article already exists; don't want to duplicate existing work. Wesley

I agree that those examples do stretch the scope of this article. I do think there should be some place where a discussion can take place that discusses canons that include the Bible but which also have other works as well. (No username selected). Another interesting expansion of that topic might also include New Age writings that claim to come directly from God or Jesus, such as "A Course in Miracles" or "Conversations with God".

Turns out there is a sacred text article. Right now it's just a short definition and a list of texts, but it could certainly be expanded to cover the material you're suggesting. The list could be reformatted to show different groupings of texts, such as Mormons affirming both the Bible and Book of Mormon, but not the Upanishads for instance. Does that sound like a good place to you? Wesley

That would be a good place, but a reorganization of the details in that article would probably be called for to accomplish what we are discussing. Right now it is organized by text--I am think that it ought to be organized by religion. So under the Mormon religion, there would be the Bible and the Book of Mormon listed, and so forth. (no user selected)

I removed this:

form its correct version of the Bible.

because it is uninformative, and this

In effect, a canon has the status of a law for the sect's adherents.

because it is wrong -- canon's (at least, the Jewish canon) does not have the status of law; on the contrary, it wuthorizes laws (in other words, a verse in a canonical book may be considered as having unquestionable legal authority). Moreover, not all books in a canon are legal. Jewish tradition distinguished between hagadah (homilies and such) and halacha (laws); one finds examples of both within the Jewish canon. Slrubenstein

SR, your changes make sense from a Christian perspective as well. "Canon law" in Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism generally means a law or rule that was adopted at an council, especially at an ecumenical council. Good changes to the introduction. Wesley

Thanks! I also think your sub-headings are a good idea. I think the article is starting to develop in a good direction. When I took my first college level course on the Bible, we started by discussing "the canon" which at first I found strange -- until I realized the point: there was a time when there was no canon, and there was a time therefore when many books circulated and were ascribed different meanings and values. the very idea of a "canon" is an act of imagination -- a claim that there is some idea that is expressed by putting certain books together, but not others. Moeover, once certain books are placed in a canon (or not), our understandings of them change. I hope at some point the article can reflect more on these processes, but your recent work on the article is providing a good solid foundation for what I hope will come later, Slrubenstein

Eclecticology: I looked up canon in the merriam-webster online dictionary, as you suggested, and found this:

3 [Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard] a : an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture b : the authentic works of a writer c : a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works <the canon of great literature>

Definition 3a seems to be the most relevant definition; the text you deleted seems much closer to it than what you replaced it with. Suggest you revert. Wesley

Eclecticology: I continut to insist that a definition of "biblical canon" as "books included in the bible" is silly -- what is the definition of Bible, except canonized books? An entirely circular definition is silly. Besides, as many have pointed out, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The claim that the biblical canon is "in effect law" is at best meaningless, at worst false; it may be your personal interpretation of canon, and I think you are wrong, but an encyclopedia article is not the place to debate it. The definition I put in is I think accurate and certainly NPOV, please explain how on earth it is NPOV? Remember, the text does not say that the Bible "is" sacred, only that some notion of sacred was crucial for those people who made the canon. Slrubenstein

First, we are using different dictionaries. What I have is from The New Oxford Dictionary of English in which the word as Old English from Latin from Greek kanôn = rule.
- 1. a general law, rule, principle, or criterion by which something is judged.
  - a. a Church decree or law
- 2. a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine: the formation of the biblical canon [italics are in dictionary]
  - a. the works of a particular author or artist that are recognized as genuine
  - b. a list of literary works considered to be permanently established as being of the highest quality.
From this we can see that the key to the definition lies in the words "rule" and "list" or their synonyms. It could even be viewed as a "law in the form of a list".
The word that does give me problems is "authoritative". That does not appear in the Oxford definition, which prefers the term "genuine". A reasonable synonym would be "authentic". "Authoritative" can mean "proceeding from an official source and requiring compliance or obedience" but it also carries the additional baggage "able to be trusted as being accurate or true; reliable". I find the ambiguities of "authoritative" unacceptable in these circumstances.
We also have an ambiguity about how we use the word "law". When I say that the adoption of a canon is a law I do not mean to imply that everything within that canon is a law. I certainly do not consider those parts which I treat as "simply history" to be laws. I am certainly prepared to avoid the ambiguous use of the word law. I had hoped to avoid the problem by using "is in effect law" instead of "is law", but there are alternatives.
I still maintain that all definitions are necessarily tautologies.
The issue that "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" is a red herring in this debate. We are still encouraged to define our terms. What you cite would be applicable if the article stated "Biblical canon is [whatever we agree]" followed by nothing else. We have no worries about that.
I also fail to find why it should be such a problem to view some parts of the Bible as simply history. For me this is the most acceptable part of the Bible; the mystical stuff about it recounting relationships with God only detracts from its credibility. I can accept as fact that Moses came down from the mountain with the Ten Commandments and that they say what they say, but this does not translate into agreeing that he spoke with God when he was on the mountain. Eclecticology 15:25 Aug 23, 2002 (PDT)

On other matters: 1. I do agree that the headings are a clear improvement. 2. I agree that The Book of Mormon and the Upanishads should be considered in other articles. They are canon to their believers but the are not "Biblical" canon . A cross reference to some of these may still be necessary at the bottom of the article, if only to direct people to the right place. Eclecticology 15:25 Aug 23, 2002 (PDT)

I would add that as far as "law" is concerned, there probably is at least one "canon" adopted at a church council that says, "this is the list of books that go in the Bible". Actually more than one church council. This usage seems to be what you're relying on, but it's not the same thing as the biblical canon itself. Not all groups adopted a "biblical canon" by means of a "canon" at a council. Talking about law in the opening sentence probably slants it in the direction of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox POV. Besides the dictionary definition, you may want to look at canon. Wesley

Vote Here

(A) A Biblical canon is a list of all books considered by:

a specific Jewish or Christian sect
a specific Judeo-Christian sect

(B) to:

be inspired by God and therefore a part of the Bible.
be inspired by God.
be inspired by God, or to be authoritative accounts of the relationship between people and God.
form its correct version of the Bible. In effect, a canon has the status of a law for the sect's adherents.
to be of elevated and authoritative sacred status.

Merriam-Webster

"an authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture"

-- Ed Poor

Oxford

"a collection or list of sacred books accepted as genuine"

For the (A) vote either is acceptable for me. On (B) I still prefer my number 4 of those on the list above, but based on my previous posting, I haven't given up trying to find common ground. Eclecticology 15:55 Aug 23, 2002 (PDT)

Eclecticology, thank you for your more detailed explanation -- I still disagree with you but I think I can explain why more clearly. I disagree with you fundamentally on your reliance on hdictionaries, and I also think your use of "historical" or "history" muddies the waters. Let me explain:

You are right that Wikipedia articles should include definitions. My point was simply that an encyclopedia must be more than that, and, accordingly, may define terms in different ways than dictionaries.

I still consider your definition to be uselessly tautological:

Biblical canon is a list of all books considered by a specific Jewish or Christian sect to be the exclusive authentic list of books of the Bible

There is nothing wrong about a definition being tautological. -Ec.

There is no "Bible" outside of the canon -- the "Bible" exists because of the process of canonization. A definition of the canon has to go beyond this -- because what you have provided is equally a definition of the word "Bible." What is significant about adding the word "canon?" That it is authoritative and exclusive is most definitely part of it, but as I said a definition of "Bible" could just as well alsy be "a collection of books considered to be exlusively and authoritatively part of the Bible. This just gets us nowhere.

The definition should be a commonly accepted minimum. A whole article follows "to go beyond this." "Canon" is the noun in the title of the article, and we sre adding the word "biblical" to it, not the other way around. -Ec.

As Wesley has pointed out, the particular dictionary definition you appeal to is slanted towards RC usage. But I think there is a more profound issue than the possibility of bias or partiality in any given dictionary. My issue is this: we do not arrive at understandings of something by looking at a dictionary.

My use of the word "law" may very well have betrayed an RC usage, which I'm happy to have brought to my attention. Even though I have long since discarded belief in God, the biases of my childhood still bleed through. If the Oxford Dictionary has any slant, it's probably toward Anglicanism. A dictionary may not arrive us at an understanding; it is only a medium for a common understanding at the beginning of a journey. -Ec.

First, a dictionary itself is descriptive; it attempts to present formulaicly some description of how people use a term. It is not prescriptive, it is not itself law. If people's use of a word changes, it does not mean that they are wrong, it means that the dictionary is out of date.

I agree that a dictionary is primarily descriptive. It helps to bring about a common understanding of a term. If you devise a new definition of a word expect it to mis-understood. Ec.

Second, dictionary definitions, especially the ones you provide, only beg the question. Why were these books considered "genuine?" Why were these books considered "Holy?" What, in this context, do words like "genuine" or "holy" mean? I really feel these definitions are unhelpful.

I did not and would not introduce the word holy; it is approximately equivalent to "sacred" which is one of the words that I don't like in your definition. As for why the books are genuine, a whole article follows to explain that. The same could be said about "authoritative". - Ec.

Third, a dictionary seldom does justice to the latest scholarship. In another article a fellow contributor pointed out that I was citing secondary sources -- and he was quite right that an encyclopedia article should not rely on secondary sources. To rely on a dictionary is even worse! A dictionary is a tertiary or even further-removed source of information!

I don't expect a dictionary to do justice to the latest scholarship. It's only a starting point. - Ec.

I am not saying it is wrong to look at or use a dictionary in preparing an encyclopedia article. But I do not believe a dictionary should have either the first word or the last word.

I agree about the last word but not about the first word. - Ec

How should one go about writing an article on "Biblical Canons?" Don't start by looking up "canon" in the dictionary! (people can do that on their own, they do not need to go on line and track down wikipedia for that) Start by looking at actual canons, and recent scholarship on canons. And I contend that if you do this, you will end up with something rather different from the dictionary definition you present.

It certainly would be "different"!! The internal evidence from the cononical books is highly unreliable. As for recent scholarship, the theologians that participated in the Jesus Seminar came to the conclusion that virtually nothing of the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of John was said by him. - Ec.

As for history, I have serious problems with your statement:

I also fail to find why it should be such a problem to view some parts of the Bible as simply history. For me this is the most acceptable part of the Bible; the mystical stuff about it recounting relationships with God only detracts from its credibility.

First, this statement reflects your own lack of NPOV -- the issue is not what you OR I think about the Bible. The issue is, what is the Biblical canon? You have a right to your opinion about the credibility of the Bible, but it is not appropriate to this article.

My view is closer to NPOV because it accepts that some people believe in God and others don't. The definition is not the place to debate the credibility of the Bible, or any of it's individual books; I suppose that in some way we agree on that. I accept that that the Biblical canon is a list of the books in the Bible, nothing more, nothing less. I accept that this list is different for different sects, and that each sect may have had a broad variety of reasons in its decision to include particular books. I absolutely do not accept any reference to God in the definition of the biblical canon, because it is based on the very debatable presumption that God exists. - Ec.

Second, this statement reflects your lack of understanding of the issue. No one, least of all I, ever said that one cannot view some parts of the Bible as history. But this is simply irrelevant to an article on "the canon." "The Canon" is a total entity -- to create or acept a canon is to assert that the parts of the canon have something in common, and that their being grouped together creates a whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. This is NOT an article about "the Bible" or "Books of the Bible," it is an article about THE CANON." And the fact that you or soemone else may find some historical data in one or more books of the Bible does not shed any light on what the Biblical canon is. Why are some books that are lists of laws, other books that are poetry, others that are prose narrative, some of which are about historical figures, others of which are allegories or fables, all included in one collection? That is the basic issue when writing about a canon.

I accept that the Bible may be greater than the sum of its parts, but that the canon, by virtue of being a simple list is NOT greater than the sum of its parts. That is precisely the difference. There has to be room for some to view the writings as straightforward narrative, and for others to take your more qabalistic view. - Ec

Let me give another example. The book Song of Songs is composed of various love-poems, and it is possible that many of these poems were written independently of one another. Those poems were "about" human sex or love. But someone edited those poems together into a book, and insodoing create a new meaning. I have heard competing interpretations of the book, but one that I I find most compelling is that it was a romantic critique of King Solomon, who had many non-Israelite wives and concubines. This is a primarily political interpretation. But what happens when you take this book and tell people that it is really part of a much larger work, the "book," (or "bible")? Then it becomes an allegory of the love affair between God and the children of Israel. Does this mean you cannot read it simply as a compendium of love-poems (between a man and women)? No, of course not -- you can still read it that way. But to read it that way is to read it out of context, to read it independent of the larger work of which it is today a part. To read it as part of the Biblical canon would require you to read it differently.

I don't agree that being a part of the canon "requires" a different reading. Was it Freud who said that "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar"? The nursery rhyme "Humpty Dumpty" started as a political broadside describing Richard III at the Battle of Bosworth Field, but children continue to enjoy it without ever having heard of Richar III. I do agree that the development of the canon was a "primarily political" process, but that too can come later in the article. - Ec.

The same holds with the "historical books." In one context, they have one meaning; in another context, they have another meaning. You are more than welcome to find credibility in these books by ignoring the "mystical" stuff. But in that case, you are not reading "the canon" (a work crafted out of many sources that was edited together and presented, and accepted and read, in a particular way), you are reading a text that happens to be part of someone else's canon, and reading it your own way. It is WRONG to then represent that reading as a reading of "the canon." Slrubenstein

I didn't use the term "reading the canon". For me that term would mean nothing more than reciting the list of the books that form a canon. This implies that there is a great difference between the meaning of the term as originally used by church councils of the fourth century, and the way that Jews have adapted the term to their own sacred writings. These subtleties cannot be resolved in a one sentence definition. Eclecticology

Regarding the change that removed "inspired by God" from the definition--I don't understand why it is not considered NPOV to describe what people believe to be the case, and if certain Jewish or Christian sects consider the Bible to be inspired by God, then this article should say so. I say that the opening paragraphs be returned back to the way they were.

As I've stated I consider it not NPOV because it presumes the existence of God. That some or even many people "believe it to be inspired by God" can certainly go in the following paragraph. Eclecticology

It makes no such presupposition. To mention God in a definition of a concept does not inherently presuppose God's existence. The very use of the phrase "believe it to be", and the reference to religions (Judaism and Christianity) that believe in God, automatically points the reference to those who believe in God, and doesn't imply it is some sort of objective fact. Otherwise, you are going to have create bizarre and awkward constructions every time you ever mention a posited God anywhere--what are we supposed to, say something like "believe it to be inspired by the God that they believe exists", or some such nonsense?. This is an example of taking the concept of NPOV to ridiculous conclusions that makes no sense.

Sorry, you just do not get it. The point about including "God" in the definition of "Biblical Canon" has nothing to do with the debatable existence of God. It does not in any way suggest or imply or presume that God exists. It merely explains, accurately and precisely, that the Biblical Canon was created by people who believe in God, and that their beliefs about God were central to the process of canonization and the content of the canon. Similarly, nothing I have written has anything to do with You keep muddying the waters by bringing in issues that are irrelevant -- another example is the question of reading a book as history, or reading it historically. Nothing in this definition of "canon" tells anyone that they cannot read a book of the bible as history, or as a "straightforward narrative." Many have done so and personally I think that is a good thing. But when you do it that way and suggest that your interpretation or use of the text has anything to do with its canonical status, you are simply misrepresenting the canon.

I do not know what you mean about my "kabalistic" approach. My approach to the study of the canon is based on modern critical studies of the Bible. This is precisely the reason why this article must recognize that the canon is not merely a list of books, but rather a whole that has a meaning beyond the meaning of the individual books. To view it any other way but be a-historical and anti-critical scholarship. I am guided in particular by one scholar, John Hayes, who wrote,

Thus a canon of scripture has both positive and negative connotations. Positively, a canon denotes certain works that are included in the category of sacred and authoritative. Negatively, a canon excludes certain works which are not accepted as authoritative. A canon exists only when the exclusive and inclusive factors are consciously functioning in the concerns of the religious community.

(here he is explictly speaking only of the Biblical canon). I defer to others concerning the Christian Bible. But for the Hebrew Bible, "historical narrative" is clearly NOT a criteria for inclusion in the canon, as the canon excludes a number of historical narratives (The Bool of the Wars of Yahweh, the Book of Jachar, the Book of the Acts of Solomon.) Moreover, when the Rabbis debated whether or not books like Song of Songs should be included in the canon, their criteria was that it was holy. As I said, I am not an expert on the Christian Boble, but it seems to me equally evident that "being divinely inspired" (and obviously this does not presume that there is a Gods who really does inspire writers, only that people involved in forming the canon believe so) is a crucial element.

As for leading with a definition -- we both agree that it should begin with a definition; I maintain however that the definition should not be useless. And I also maintain that our dictionaris should not be starting points for writing this article. Do you think that when the people at Encyclopedia Britanica start work on an article they say to themselves "Let's draw on the World Book as an authoritative source?" No, what they should do is research the topic and synthesize what is known about it. What research have you done on critical studies of the Bible? If you have done anything, surely you can come up with something a little more substantive (maybe evcen profound) than "The books of the bible are books included in the bible!" Slrubenstein