Talk:Biblical canon/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Even though

Gilgamesh, I think the phrase "even though" in my first version (which you reverted) was important for the following reason: for the casual reader, these Mormon claims are strange. He might pause to reread to make sure he didn't miss anything. The words "even though" are a kind of marker "it's OK, it's supposed to sound strange for you" allowing much smoother reading of the text.

Anyway, if you revert my changes again, at least don't use the word believe twice in the same sentence, this is just not nice style. Gadykozma 08:16, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why is non-Biblical LDS scripture being discussed in an article titled "Biblical canon" anyway? LDS doesn't believe the Book of Mormon, etc, is part of the Biblical canon. - Nunh-huh 08:22, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the LDS believe in the Standard Works, which is the LDS version of the biblical canon. And besides, Judaism doesn't believe the New Testament to be in their biblical canon either. As I have read and understood this article, biblical canon is something that differs (often greatly) from religion to religion, but has the same central things in common. It includes the Hebrew Bible or Old Testament, and variably adds to it. Judaism has the Talmud. Mainstream Christianity has the New Testament. LDS has the Book of Mormon, and the LDS Church in Salt Lake in particular has the Pearl of Great Price and the Doctrine and Covenants. Each religion considers these all to be canon that complement each other. The Torah and the Book of Joshua are accepted by both Jews and Samaritans, making it pan-Mosaic canon. Jews accept the rest of the Hebrew Bible, while Samaritans do not, making it pan-Jewish canon. Rabbinical Jews accept the Talmud, while Karaite Jews do not, making it Rabbinical canon. Acceptance of the Qabbalah varies across the whole Jewish and Christian world, as I have been told. In addition, Christians have the New Testament, which they believe to be the fulfilment of the Old Testament and its equal, making it Christian canon. LDS have the Book of Mormon, which they believe to be co-equal to the Old and New Testaments, making it LDS canon. The Church in Salt Lake has the Pearl of Great Price and Doctrine and Covenants, which they believe to be co-equal to the OT, NT and BoM, making it Temple Square canon. I see these all as biblical canons of different faiths — if we meant only the OT and NT, then this article would be Bible, which is a separate article. As for LDS, the "Holy Bible" is a conveniant traditional name for the combined OT and NT, and not considered a work alien from the BoM nor vice versa. While some LDS may carry separate bound Holy Bible and BoM+PoGP+D&C triple combinations out of tradition of comparing them with each other to another person, there are others who carry all five books bound into one shelvable item. And finally, "Bible" really only means "religious canon" (from older "religious book" and simply "book"), and in this context it means a religion's scriptural canon, does it not? What sets this article apart from any scripture of any religion is that it centrally describes traditions that rally around the Hebrew Bible and additional books that different religions believe to be extensions of it. What all these religions have in common is that they believe the Hebrew Bible to be a true word of God, either as perfect in form or with a small enough distortion that it is still a primary cornerstone of their theology. Does any of that make sense? - Gilgamesh 09:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are confusing "Bible" and "scripture". They're not the same thing. There are lots of canons other than that of the Bible: one wouldn't expect to find them discussed in an article entitled "Biblical canon". - Nunh-huh 09:29, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not necessarily. LDS believe OT, NT, BoM and PoGP actually reference each other. Part of that is that OT and NT are believed to be full of references that mention BoM issues that other religions (in belief) don't recognize. While it is true that LDS generally say "scripture" to refer to the Standard Works and "Bible" to refer to the OT and NT, this is acknowledged as Christendom tradition. LDS view all five books as interlinking, just as the individual subbooks of each larger book interlink to one another. It is the same with the Apocrypha — some people see it as part of the biblical canon, and others do not. And don't forget that Judaism doesn't include NT as part of their biblical canon, so should then the NT not be mentioned in this article? And Samaritans — they don't believe any book past the Book of Joshua is part of the biblical canon; should then all the other books not be mentioned in this article? To me, there are only two real differences that separate this article from scripture:

1. The Torah and Book of Joshua (first six books of the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament) are central works among these religions.
2. Other books are (depending on the religion) added to the canon and believed to be mutual inseparable.

As I see it, all traditions where this is true should have their inseparable canons represented in full. If not, this article should redirect to scripture in full and all details here be mentioned there instead. To place an artificial cap on definition of Bible at OT, NT and (maybe) Apocrypha represents the POV of religious views who believe in only them, and represents a double standard that betrays religions (Judaism and Samaritans) that don't believe in the Apocrypha, or the NT, or the latter books of the Hebrew Bible. While religions are perfectly within their rights to believe whatever they please, Wikipedia articles should not favor any one Torah-based religion canon over another. (The only reason Islam is not included here is because it regards the Hebrew Bible as inherently too flawed to include it as canon, with many of its tellings retold in the Qur'an and Hadith instead with widely differing details.) - Gilgamesh 00:02, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The Biblical canon was formed long before there was an LDS Church. The LDS don't consider any part of their additional scripture to be part of the Bible. That's fact, not POV. That needs to be clear in the article: there are other articles in which LDS non-Bible Scripture is discussed. - Nunh-huh 01:34, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you're refering specifically to the canon as compiled by Christian scholars in Alexandria, then you are correct. And if this is truly what the article's about, then I'm prepared to conceed if everyone agrees. - Gilgamesh 03:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, while I agree with you that discussing LDS scripts here is off-topic in the formal sense, I think that the page is nicely arranged in a descending order of acceptance and the section about the LDS scripts adds to this chain. As long as it is short and to the point, I think it adds to the article. Gadykozma 11:48, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A discussion of what books are part of the Koran would also "add to the chain" but would be equally irrelevant to the topic. - Nunh-huh 03:18, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This example is irrelevant since this article is related to Judaism and Christianty. We are not talking about the formal relation to the title (which can be changed!) but about what would be interesting and useful for the typical reader. Gadykozma 03:38, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This example is an exact parallel. Islam and LDS accept the Bible as Scripture, and additional books also as Scripture, but not part of the Bible. - Nunh-huh

No, it is not an exact parallel. You see, while LDS regard the Bible as slightly flawed, they do not regard it as flawed enough not to include as scripture. However, Islam regards the Bible as a distortion, and many Biblical accounts are retold in the Qur’an, sometimes with widely differing details. LDS do not replace the Bible with LDS-specific scripture, but Islam does replace the Bible with Qur’an and the Hadith. So LDS believe their canon expands on what already exists, while the Islamic Qur’an is more like a fundamental theological re-form. - Gilgamesh 13:57, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Here, you're just wrong. Islam holds the Bible to be inspired scripture. - Nunh-huh

Both of you, please be reader oriented. Who will read this page? What do they want? What would be interesting for them? This far more important than a perfect match between the title and the contents! The title can be changed! Not that I advocate renaming it to "Judeo-Christian canon", I think it's good as it stands, but if that would make Nunh-huh pleased, maybe that's what we'll do. Gadykozma 14:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My apologizes. I am autistic, and I tend to think analytically and algorithmically. As such, I cannot typically get inside the mind of the "average" reader, so I compensate with egocentric-assuming detail and disambiguation. ("If I am confused, then surely there must be someone else who is also confused, and I am being of kind service.") Anyway, I do not oppose a renaming to "Judeo-Christian canon", as I see "Bible" as ambiguous anyway — something that on whose definition Judaism and Christianity can't agree. - Gilgamesh 21:56, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Discussion of the canon of the Bible is clearly an encyclopedic topic, and the article is correctly named as is. - Nunh-huh 23:33, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The issue is that not everyone can agree over whether the New Testament or the Apocrypha are part of the Bible. But what all these books have in common is that their intent is to extend the Bible without replacing it. How do we define the Bible? When it was compiled by Ezra? When it was compiled in Alexandria? When King James I commissioned a translation? Either we agree on one point that defines the Bible, or we don't. And trying to force one point opens a POV pandora's box. We must remain neutral, and neutrality inherently comes with a degree of flexibility — we must be able to bend, or a strike against us will cause us to break and shatter. - Gilgamesh 07:14, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Once again: the LDS do not posit that the Book of Mormon is part of the Bible, or part of the Biblical canon. You're just wrong here, and there's no issue of neutrality here - Nunh-huh 23:49, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You are just hairsplitting. They posit that it is ancient, they posit that it comes from the same society and time where the rest of the apocrypha comes from. They posit that it is divinly inspirated. I honestly can't any meaningful differences between this book and other marginal apocrypha this page covers, from the Mormon POV (not that I share it). Gadykozma 13:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Since this apparently cannot be resolved in a discussion of semantics, I propose a name change: Judeo-Christian and Biblical canon, or simply Judeo-Christian canon which implicitly includes all Biblical canons. - Gilgamesh 00:17, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And I propose that we write about the Biblical canon at "Biblical canon" and "LDS Scripture" at "LDS Scripture", which is currently fragmented but covered by the Category:Latter Day Saint texts. - Nunh-huh 02:15, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I kind of suggested it (or at least raised it...) but I don't really like it. How about keeping the title and making a comment at the top that it refers to "Bible and other Judeo-Christian canons", and make Judeo-Christian canon a redirect? Gadykozma 00:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds alright to me. Or Bible and Judeo-Christian canons. - Gilgamesh 03:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is no "Judea-Christian" canon. There is a Jewish canon, and various Christian canons. I am opposed to "Bible and other Judeo-Christian canons" as I think this article must focus on various canons of the Bible. We have a separate article, for example, on the Talmud. Slrubenstein

The Judeo-Christian canon is the amalgamation of these canons. There. I defined it, therefore it exists. There are lots of pages on Wikipedia whose names begin with "Judeo-Christian". Do you suggest we should delete them all? Gadykozma 13:24, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the Wikipedia were a repository of "everything that Gadykozma can define", you might have a point. It would be better if Wikipedia were to rather include "terms which scholars use". - Nunh-huh 05:31, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Gadykozma. "Judeo-Christian canon" is a valid umbrella term, and I would use it easily. I avoid the generic term "Bible", preferring specifics like "Hebrew Bible", "New Testament", "Book of Genesis", etc., as different religions have different ideas of what "Bible" means. I, as a linguistic, use a more analytical approach, considering "Bible" to be any religious canon, a linguistic upgrade from "book" or "canon" of any kind. While I understand that in most forms of colloquial English it has more locale-specific definitions (particularly in the Bible Belt), I think the ambiguity and disagreement of universal meaning (and this is a universal English-speaking encyclopedia) merits the mention of not only different associations of the Bible, but also topics of the same theological foundation on the Bible, at least to mention concisely and redirect to other articles for a more detailed explanation. "Nunh-huh", with all due respect, I believe you are being just a bit unfair. It is unkind to belittle Gadykozma's academic credibility. I'm not saying you can't disagree, but perhaps you owe her (or him?) an apology. Please, let us be humble and courteous here. - Gilgamesh 05:56, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I do not feel I have been discourteous. More important is that we be correct. [1] There is no "Judeo-Christian" canon. [2] The "Bible" is not synonymous with scripture, it's a particular collection of Scripture. [3] the term used for the selection of which books are in that collection is "canonization" [4] the article is about the history, in various religions, of that process of canonization. [5] The application of the word "Bible" is universally understood, and certainly not isolated to a "Bible Belt". [6] A serious encyclopedia will have an article on the Biblical canon. [7] That article will actually discuss the subject, not any other Scripture that is randomly added in. For your points, Gilgamesh: the use of the word "bible" to mean "any religious book" is a figurative use, not a scholarly one, and not one which is particularly relevant to the process of canonization. It would be unkind to belittle someone's academic credibility if I had done so. It is not unkind to point out that they're wrong. - Nunh-huh 07:39, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, of your 7 points, I disagree with the following:

• Point 1, for the reasons I explained to SIrubinstein above; but more importantly
• Point 7. The fact that a topic is worthy of discussion does not in any way imply that it cannot be discussed in a section, a part of a page, or most of a page that also discusses related topics. This kind of decisions are editorial.

Now let me raise my own "point plan" to why this page should basically stay the same. If you disagree (and I'm sure you won't), please refer to the numbers, e.g. "I think number 2 is total crap".

1. We have to make note of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible since a certain group of people consider it to be the cannonical version of the Bible, and we'd be doing them an injustice if we fail to remind it at all. BTW: who exactly considers this version canonical? I wasn't able to get a precise answer from the text.
2. This is best done in a section about LDS beliefs.
3. If we have a section about LDS beliefs with no mention of the Book of Mormon we'll be doing our reader an injustice, since if he reads this section he is probably interested in LDS canon, and the Book of Mormon seems to be of similar standing to the Bible in it.
4. For likewise reasons we should not just mention it, but also discuss how it differs/is similar to the rest of the books discussed.
5. The page name should not be changed. The slight improvement in accuracy from renaming to "Judeo-Christian canon" is greatly offset by the convinience the title "Biblical canon" offers to the typical reader.

Lets hope we can get this indentation business in check! Gadykozma 14:03, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

1. I don't think we have to make note of idiosyncratic, revisionist translations like the Joseph Smith Translation. There are many other controversial translations, including the Jehovah's Witness's ("New World Translation" perhaps?), but this isn't the place to address differences in translation. Incidentally, the article says that the Community of Christ uses Smith's translation, but the main Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not.

2. As far as I know, the Mormons call the Bible the Bible, meaning the Old and New Testaments, just as they call the Book of Mormon the Book of Mormon, etc. Since this article is about the Biblical canon and not about collections of scripture, I don't think the others need to be covered here. I'm pretty sure they're already described in the LDS articles.

5. I agree with SLRubenstein that there is no "Judaeo-Christian canon". There's not even a "Christian canon", this article lists at least three. The best you could come up with is "Judaeo-Christian canons", but I'm not sure that would be much more meaningful than something like "Christian-Islamic canons", which would be the set of 3+ Christian canons plus the Koran. All in all, it sounds like we agree to stick with "Biblical canon", though perhaps for somewhat different reasons. Wesley 16:06, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As to Gadykozma's points, the issue of canon is concerned only with what works are part of the Bible, not how to translate them. If the LDS had decided, for example, that the Book of Genesis didn't belong in the Bible, or that the Book of Abraham did belong in the Bible, it would be worth mentioning. But they didn't. They have no issues with the KJV canon. (and yes, we really should clear/archive the page and start the indentations anew)- Nunh-huh 21:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sure, why not? This page was already full of "ideosyncratic" works like the apocryphal books. How is the New Testament any less "apocryphal"? Under that reasoning, why should the New Testament be here at all? Afterall, Judaism and Samaritans do not accept it. All these books are published with the intent of tying them squarely to the Bible for which they are supposed to compliment. With that in mind, naming conventions seem far less relevant. Also, the LDS Church does publish portions of J.S. Translations of the Bible available before he died. It is the Community of Christ alone that spliced them into their OT and NT texts and published them holistically. So both religions recognize it to a degree, but have different ways of publishing and referencing it. Whereas the Community of Christ has a complete book, the LDS OT and NT have footnotes and redirects. Also, it is very suspicious to call someone else's canon "ideosyncratic", as it implies that one canon is necessarily "truer" or "more correct" than another — I would prefer "different" in NPOV articles. - Gilgamesh 18:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The apocryphal books are part of the Catholic canon. You would understand the issue of canon better if you took a historical raher than religious view. - Nunh-huh 21:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So, basically, this covers the Samaritan canon, the Jewish canon, and the Catholic canon... ...but no others? That seems rather exclusionist. - Gilgamesh 22:04, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Above, Gadykozma writes "You are just hairsplitting. They posit that it is ancient, they posit that it comes from the same society and time where the rest of the apocrypha comes from. They posit that it is divinly inspirated." But I think Gadykozma is hairsplitting. I agree with these points about Mormon claims, but these points do not add up to "Biblical Canon." There may be many canons, e.g. the so-called "Western Canon." And perhaps there is a Canon of Mormon Scripture or Sacred Literature. But "Biblical Canon" refers to something more specific than ancient divinely inspired texts. It refers to a set of overlapping sacred literatures that overlap because of historical connections between communities. I suspect this is why Gilgamesh likes "Judeo-Christian" -- perhaps s/he thinks it refers to the nexus of the overlap. If so, then s/he should agree with this point (which is really just supporting Nunh-huh's point). The reason I object to "Judeo-Christian" is that it traditionally emphasizes continuity where there is conflict, or a lowest common denominator. But if it refers to anything valid, then it refers to something that excludes the Book of Mormon. Slrubenstein

The problem is, LDS do believe the OT, the NT, the BoM and the PoGP to overlap. In particular, I can think of beliefs where the BoM references the OT, and a belief that the NT references the BoM itself. And as these are books about belief where the central books (OT and NT) are themselves targets of skeptical criticism, I think we can easily make room for books tied to traditional beliefs of interlinking work. In studies of comparing multiple canons, I have seen nothing but conflict, even between "traditional" or "mainstream" Christian sects and among sects of Samaritanism and Judaism. This subject is my its very nature a cluttered one — associated with multiple religions that split hairs between each other all the time — and we need to calmly and rationally reflect on all these subjects and describe them in a way that reflects not only the books but also the traditions that surround them. - Gilgamesh 23:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, here is my question (not rhetorical or sarcastic, I genuinely do not know). Does the LDS use the word "Bible" to refer to a set of books that includes the Book of Mormon? Slrubenstein

Don't these quotes (from the lDS website) suggest that Mormons do not include the Book of Mormon in their Biblical Canon?:

2 Ne. 29: 10 10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my awords; neither need• ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

D&C 42: 12 12 And again, the elders, priests and teachers of this church shall teach• the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness• of the gospel. Slrubenstein

SlRubinstein, there is no denial that the mormons do not consider the Book of Mormon part of the Bible. This is not the point. Just before the mormon section there is a section called "Non-Orthodox Apocrypha", which lists a number of books not considered Biblical by any currently existing religion. And yet it arises no controversy that I am aware of. Since from the Mormon POV the Book of Mormon is closer to the Bible than, say, the Maccabees 4, I don't see how a demand to keep the second and remove the first can be considered NPOV. Gadykozma 00:11, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah -- now I see your point. Well, if the non-Orthodox Apocrypha do not belong to any Biblical Canon, then we should move that section do a different article (I guess on Apocrypha) and just leave a link here. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that section doesn't belong in the article "Biblical Canon" which is a fine point. But I have no idea what it means to be "closer" to the Bible. If the Mormon's accept some more generally accepted canon of the Bible, and do not themselves consider the Book of Mormon to be Biblical, it all seems like a moot point. Let's just have links to the articles on Apocrypha and Scripture and other related articles where this material more properly belongs. Slrubenstein

You know, I am surprisingly comfortable with that. - Gilgamesh 00:24, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You know, when I first found this page, I really enjoyed reading it, seeing it go from the accepted to the more and more esoteric. It would sadden me if this effect would be lost. But if that's what everybody feels...

Though it still leaves the nagging issue of the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible. Gadykozma 00:37, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I am glad Gilgamesh is comfortable with this. I hope others are too. For Gadykozma -- the idea is not to leave out the "esoteric" but rather to limit the contents to issues involving the various Biblical canons and the canonization of the Bible. One of Wikipedia's strengths is links so let's just assume people will follow a page to where they want to go. Slrubenstein

Well, I don't really see why books that finally were not canonized shouldn't be discussed in a page dealing with canonization... I Like the comment saying that IV Maccabee is thought to have Greek pagan elements, for example. Gadykozma 19:56, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is a very good point -- as long as it is reasonably framed. What I mean is, most books ever written were not canonized (in the Biblical canon) -- for example, War and Peace, Ulysses, the Iliad, Things Fall Apart, Moby Dick ... "Books that were not canonized" is too brad a category. It isn't crystal clear, but I'd like to think that by the word "finally" you mean books that had been considered for the canon but ultimately were rejected, at least by some community. I think this is a fine point and such books are worth discussing in terms of the process of canonization. But to get back to the topic we have been discussing, my understanding is that the Book of Mormon was never considered as a candidate for part of the Bible, so it doesn't meet the same criteria as perhaps Maccabee IV. Or have I missed something in the discussion -- has someone argued that we should not mention IV Maccabee in this article? I didn't realize this is what we were talking about. Slrubenstein

That seems quite to the point: if a work was seriously considered as a candidate for canonization, it makes sense to discuss it here, even if it was rejected (not just by some, but by all). It makes no sense to discuss a work, such as the Book of Abraham or the Book of Mormon, that was never considered as a candidate to be included as one of the books of the Bible. - Nunh-huh 23:49, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

Anyway, Gadykozma, in your edits, what do you mean that the languages "were never discovered". It seems vague to me. LDS have beliefs in what some of the languages were, but I said Semitic languages because listing them all would have made the paragraph too verbose in my opinion. They are believed to be Hebrew, with supplemental Arabic, and two other languages which in the 19th century were called "Syriac" and "Chaldean", which, considering the purported time period of the texts, would probably mean Aramaic and Akkadian. The Egyptian references are believed to be a source of loanwords and given names (such as "Nephi") and of the ideographic script adapted to Hebrew that Mormon and Moroni are believed to have used to compress a large chronicle into small tarnish-resistant gold plates, as well as in their belief that an ideographic writing system could be better deciphered over an indefinately long period of time than a written language based on phonemes specific to one language. With these beliefs in consideration, I simply think the edits should be less vague and confusing without being overly verbose. - Gilgamesh 09:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

First of all, what I meant in my edits is that the originals were never discovered. Is that correct? Actually I understand that I am missing a few pieces in the LDS claims (which would explain why I write in a vague way...) Do the LDS claim that the oridinals are lost? that they have them but won't let them show? What's the business with the plates? Gadykozma 00:56, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are more details. The chief concern is that someone would try to destroy the plates and their records, so LDS believe the plates were for a time released to God's possession until such time that they're needed again. See Golden Plates. - Gilgamesh 03:40, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That link was exactly what I needed. Thanks. Tell me what you think of this version. Gadykozma 04:25, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It looks okay to me, I suppose. ^_^ Now there's the other discussion with Nunh-huh... - Gilgamesh 06:38, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)