Talk:Biblical canon/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

should canons of non-Judeo-Christian religions be included in the article?

A new section on Islam and canonization was deleted with the edit summary:
. "This article is about Biblical canons. The Quran has no relevance to it, and therefore I have removed the section on the Quran."
However the lede of the article starts out:
A biblical canon or canon of scripture is a set of texts (or "books") which a particular religious community regards as authoritative scripture.
In addition the lede does not assume the subject is the bible. For example: "Some books, such as the Jewish–Christian gospels, have been excluded from various canons altogether ... "
Why would it say "such as the Jewish–Christian gospels" if the bible/gospel was the subject of the article?

If people still find this confusing I suggest the title be changed to something like Canon of scripture. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 23:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

References

The line about Jewish-Christian gospels is not referring to Jewish and Christian scriptures in total, but to a specific type of Christian gospels (which is a specific genre, separate from "scriptures" or "the Bible") which maintained a Jewish character rather than being meant for Gentiles. The article is about Biblical canons, specifically, which is why it is so titled, and therefore the Quran and Islamic scriptures are outside the scope of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.192.75 (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Rename article

I think this article should be renamed to Scriptural canon as religions other than Judaism and Christianity don't call their scriptures "Bible" or "biblical". Editor2020 (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Disagree. This article is specifically about Biblical canons (see previous discussions about Mormonism and Swedenborgianism), and the Islamic section ought to be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.61.192.75 (talk) 03:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

I see that someone has removed the Islam section. Well, that solves that issue. Editor2020 (talk) 03:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Someone has. So then the lede ought to be rewritten to refer only to the Bible. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 21:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Biblical Canon Contents

Contents 1) Jewish canons 1.1 Rabbinic Judaism 1.2 Beta Israel 1.3 Samaritan canon

2) Christian canons 2.1 Early Church 2.2 Eastern Church 2.3 Western Church

3) Canons of various traditions 3.1 Old Testament 3.2 New Testament 3.3 Latter Day Saint canons

Made the contents section more organized 3 in each group Doremon764 (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Sequence of books not mentioned

With all the discussion of which books are in which tradition's Old Testament, there is no discussion of the different sequences. The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Old Testament end with Daniel. The Protestant Old Testament ends with Malachi. The Jewish Tanakh ends with Chronicles. There are other differences. --WickerGuy (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

@WickerGuy: Agreed. I have just recently raised this point, and a corresponding suggestion, at Talk:Septuagint, Talk:Masoretic Text, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible. If you have some ideas it would be good to get something started. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Feline Hymnic: I agree on putting the different orders, but I disagree on removing the LDS order. Veverve (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: Thanks. This section is solely about ordering within the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament); Masoretic, Septuagint etc. The LDS canon, a different matter, has a separate section above, started July 2020. Feline Hymnic (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Jewish Scripture/'Old Testament' or Christian Scripture/'New Testament'

The New Testament has been around for almost 2,000 years - it's hardly a "New Testamnet". I tweaked...Jewish Scripture/'Old Testament' or Christian Scripture/'New Testament' - 2601:589:4801:5660:B1C7:7A45:9E90:1C31 (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Georgian Orthodox Canon

As of yesterday, the Wikipedia page said that the Georgian Orthodox Church accepted Slavonic 3 Esdras/Esdra/Ezra (AKA Vulgate 4 Esdras/Esdra/Ezra) and 4 Macc. as canonical in the chart. However, these 2 books are apparently apocryphal and noncanonical in the Georgian Church, based on several factors: Factor 1. In the Orthodox Church, the highest written authority on the lists of the books of the canon is the Ecumenical Councils. The Quintsext Council of Trullo, in its Second Canon, listed patristic and conciliar decisions on the lists of the books of the canon and the Trullo Council affirmed those lists. Some of Trullo's lists were longer than others. For example, the Trullo Council affirmed Canon 85 of the "Canons of the Holy Apostles," which in turn affirmed 1-3 Maccabees. But some other sources approved by Trullo's Second Canon did not affirm those three Maccabean books. In any case, none of the sources approved by Trullo approved 4 Maccabees. Nor do I believe that any of them approved Vulgate 4 Esdras/Ezra. P. Boumis gave a detailed analysis of the sources that Trullo's Council approved in his article here: http://www.ecclesia.gr/greek/press/theologia/material/2007_2_5_Boumis.pdf P. Boumis tried to interpret Trullo and its sources in an inclusive way, as if the sources affirmed by Trullo that failed to affirm 1-3 Macc. were not excluding 1-3 Macc.

Factor 2. Georgian Synods, bishops, and theologians are important sources on whether the Georgian Orthodox Church accepts 4 Maccabees or Vulgate 4 Esdras. However, I was not able to find any of those sources taking a position on that topic.

Factor 3. Historically, Physical hardcopies of Church Bibles over centuries occasionally included works that their printers considered apocryphal or clearly noncanonical, such as Josephus' works. Jerome considered Vulgate 4 Esdras to be apocryphal, but he still translated it into Latin. Then the Russian Church used the Vulgate as a key source for its own printed Bibles when the Russian Church began to print its Bibles. Thus, the Russian Church included 4 Esdras in its printed hardcopy Bibles under the title "3 Esdras" without considering it "canonical", but without marking it as noncanonical either. 4 Maccabees has a similar history in the Greek Church. The Greek Church used the Alexandrian Codex as its source for its printed Bibles. Thus, Greek printed Bibles included 4 Maccabees among its pages without ever officially declaring 4 Macc. a canonical book, but without marking it as "noncanonical" in its pages, either. This history explains why someone could mistakenly consider Slavonic 3 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras) or 4 Macc. to be canonical when they were not.

Factor 4. if you look at Contemporary Georgian Church Bibles, they apparently tend to include 3 Esdras and 4 Macc. but mark them as "noncanonical" like current Greek and Russian Bibles do. In fact, the mid-20th century Russian synodal Bible marked all OT books outside of the "Protocanon" as noncanonical, and the Georgian Orthodox website below also marks both the Deuterocanon and 4 Macc. and Slavic 3 Esdras as "noncanonical" in Georgian: http://www.orthodoxy.ge/tserili/biblia/sarchevi.htm

I fixed the Wikipedia entry for the Georgian Church's position on 3 Esdras and 4 Macc by changing their entry to "No - Apocrypha", but the table looks alittle messy now. Maybe some has the computer language skills to clean it up Rakovsky (talk) 04:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

• Editor2020, I think you're cleverer than me with tables--can you help? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I'll do my best. Editor2020 (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't figure out that mess. Editor2020 (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

"Non-canonical books" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Non-canonical books. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 26#Non-canonical until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. SWinxy (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

"DefinitionofBibleTerms" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect DefinitionofBibleTerms and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 29#DefinitionofBibleTerms until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 13:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Quran

I don't know much about Islam but could we add the Quran to the comparison table Braganza (talk) 08:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Braganza: why? Veverve (talk) 08:51, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

why not? Braganza (talk) 08:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

It is clearly outside of the scope of the article. Veverve (talk) 15:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Latter Day Saint canons

Should this "Latter Day Saint canons" section be in this article in so detailed a manner?

The overall article attempts to address the whole of the worldwide church. Having a separate section, and its own separate subsections for what is, in this context, a minor denomination of only very recent founding seems excessive.

I propose that this material should be in its own LDS-specific article with a "main article" cross-reference from here.

This comment isn't about the LDS material itelf. It is, rather, about the relative imbalance of the material with respect to the whole article. Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the lack of any objection over the last 10-11 months, I have commented out much of that section. If that information is deemed notable enough to be in Wikipedia, then it is large enough to be its own separate article. Feline Hymnic (talk) 13:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, since this article is called "Biblical canon" it should be concerned with the canon of the Bible, i.e. Old and New Testament. If the LDS have a different canon it should be noted. Additional scripture to the Bible should not be noted here.

However, why have you commented this out. It should either stand or be deleted or be tagged (if there is a controversy). Such things should never be commented out. Str1977 ^(talk) 21:44, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It really depends on whether this is about "Biblical canon" or "biblical canon". The first sentence of the lede gives an alternate title of "canon of scripture" and defines the scope of the article as "set of texts (or "books") which a particular Jewish or Christian religious community regards as authoritative scripture", which would be in line with "biblical canon" but not "Biblical canon", the latter being more restrictive to only Old/New Testament variations as you note.

If we restrict to only "Biblical canon", I could see keeping the Latter Day Saint stuff about which versions of the Bible are used and Bible-adjacent scripture/text like the Joseph Smith Translation and parts of the Pearl of Great Price.

If it is "biblical canon", Latter Day Saint section should be a summary (about where it is now plus a paragraph on other Latter Day Saint groups besides the main one), and direct to the other main articles or spin-off articles. --FyzixFighter (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

I have a problem with the canon of only one LDS sect being discussed here. If this article is going to contain a section on the LDS canon, then it should have at least an additional paragraph or two about the other LDS denominations. In fact, this article used to have such a thing, but it was supersized by a multitude of editors and ultimately deleted. I will probably spend some time restoring the original, more-concise paragraphs. 75.117.193.162 (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Joeymanderson3: It's not clear to me what you found lacking in this edit which was an attempt to simplify the text. The edit kept the mention of Revelations of James J. Strang but brought it into the same clause mentioning the other Strangite canonical text. All that was removed was additional detail that I felt was not necessary to the main point. With regards to the argument of weight - there are less than 100 adherents today, making them an extremely tiny minority. There are more than 5 extra-Biblical tethese---xts outside of the various Latter Day Saint standard works, some accepted by much larger denominations than the Strangites. The paragraph, in my opinion, should be representative but not exhaustive with deference given to the larger or more notable denominations per WP:WEIGHT. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Since there are so few scriptures such as these outside of the various renditions of the Standard Works, there is no issue of "weight" when applied to these---even if most of them occur under Mr. Strang's sect. They all should be mentioned because they are all so different from everything else. In the same way, this article is weighted somewhat toward the Etheopic canon, and even in some respects, the Armenian canon---because they are so different. They have a home here and have had one since 2012. If in only 2.5 sentences, the anomalies that exist outside of the standard works can be explained, one can hardly call that "weighted."Joeymanderson3 (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Are Latter Day Saint books part of the New Testament or Old Testament?

And all those books are part of their Bible, or do they have them separately? since the article is about "biblical canon", not about books that are not part of "a LDS bible" but the LDS considers canonical even if they don't have them inside their "bible". Rafaelosornio (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

See the existing section currently at the top of the section. The books are part of their canon of scriptures, equal in religious authority, but are separate from the OT/NT. Up until ~18 hours ago, the first sentence of the lede gave an alternate title of "canon of scripture" and defined the scope of the article as "set of texts (or "books") which a particular Jewish or Christian religious community regards as authoritative scripture". Under this previous definition of "biblical canon", imo they would be considered within the scope; under the very recent new scope of "Biblical canon" they mostly aren't. The boundary does get a bit blurry for most of the Pearl of Great Price and the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, though. Also, it is unclear how, if at all, Christian denominations with open canons should covered.

The LDS books are another testament, and considered as extensions of the Bible. They belong here.Joeymanderson3 (talk) 07:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Joeymanderson3: no, it is clearly separated from the Bible. Mormons use the expression "canon of scripture" or "canon" to talk about their canon and not "biblical canon", cf. here, here, and here; a difference between the Bible and the other sacred texts of LDS is given in prof. House's The Evangelical Dictionary of World Religions (Baker Publishing Group), art. 'Bible, Canon of.'. Veverve (talk) 14:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

2 Nephi 29 puts the Book of Mormon and the other "books which will be written" squarely in the same category, and furthermore implies that they are all "Bible." Joeymanderson3 (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Joeymanderson3: Do you have any reliable source to support this claim (such as official LDS manuals or declarations)? Your own interpretation of a religious text may not be the official teaching of a whole denomination. Veverve (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: So the answer here as you knew it would be is no. But the question of how the additional works are treated with respect to the Biblical canon is yes, they are treated as extensions of the Biblical narrative.The fact that they are often bound together is significant. Find me a complete copy of the Etheopic broader canon, and I will find you an elephant that flies. Yet, you are perfectly fine with one, but not the other. This LDS section is small and belongs in this article, because it has always been the spirit of this article to point-out anomalies. (I think there is an article about the Christian proto-canon, if not, you should create it, because this is not it.) To be truthful, there should be a section on the Swedenborg canons as well. That is forthcoming. I will be awaiting your debate.Joeymanderson3 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

First, I gave you four reliable sources as to how the biblical canon is distinguished from the other books among LDS. On the other hand, you gave me your own interpretation of a religious text which was that if something has the same authority of the Bible, it should be considered as part of the biblical canon. We cannot add information based upon how you interprete a religious text, we need RSs to do any work on WP.

I am completely against adding other contents which are not directly considered as part of the Bible in this article, as the use of "biblical canon" is almost always about what texts are in the Bible. You might as well add the prophecies of William Marrion Branham or the The Urantia Book and rename the article to "Revealed texts in Christian and Jewish denominations" if you want to add all sacred texts of all Jewish and Christian denominations. As I wrote two years ago at Talk:Orthodox Tewahedo biblical canon#Are there more precise sources for the radically changed definition of "the canon"?, I am not fine with the vagueness around the Ethiopic canon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veverve (talk • contribs) 22:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Biblical canon

@FyzixFighter: The article as it was before was about any Christian or Jewish canon of scripture. This would include the Bible, but also the scriptural canon of Qumran, the writings of Joseph Smith and other texts considered as religiously authoritative from all from all LDS denominations, the prophecies of William Marrion Branham, some of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society publications, etc., the list is almost infinite. The source given in the lede did not define "biblical canon", but religious canons in general, i.e. the source's definition could also apply to Zoroastrism.
I thought that this was unrelated to the scope of the article which is titled "Biblical canon", which would imply the article is only about the canon of the bible, i.e. what is and is not in the Bible or Hebrew Bible of such and such Jewish or Christian denomination. Therefore, I changed this while adding numerous improvements. Veverve (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: I get the need to try and limit the scope of the article and differentiate it from Religious text. However, per WP:BRD you should have come to the talk page after your edit was reverted to discuss and reach a consensus rather than re-reverting. The previously lede and scope has stood for at least 10 years so I think such a drastic change to scope and lede should be discussed (I was in the process of starting the discussion when you rev-reverted and started this discussion). In part I think a difference between the two scopes is are we talking about "biblical canon" or "Biblical canon", the former being more broad than the latter. I agree that some kind of limit needs to be in place, otherwise there would be no differentiating between this article and Religious text. This is a discussion that the editing community should have here on the talk page, and per WP:STATUSQUO, the previously lede should stay in place, imo.

Some examples of issues that your edit raises that I do not think are improvements - The lede should also summarize the body of the article, which is why I found your removal of the paragraph about the historical debates problematic. We have not reached the point yet that the lede is too long and we need to pare it back. Also, the first sentence in your proposed lede is problematic, in my opinion, since the "Bible" is not used by most Jewish communities, which is why I think the "authoritative scriptures" is better wording. Since you have decided to forego BRD, I will try to be a bit more selective in what I am restoring some of the text and revert changes that I do not think are improvements. --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: I think the scope should be defined as what is and is not in the Bible or Hebrew Bible of such and such Jewish or Christian denomination. What do you say?

The term Hebrew Bible exists for the Tanakh, so there is no problem on using the word "Bible" I think.

I reduced the summary (which was overly long before) to three paragraphs, because from what I remember it is the number which should be used. Veverve (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Veverve: I still don't like using just "Bible" in the lede and prefer "authoritative scripture" in the lede because it seems too Christian-centric and, imo, contradicts the inclusion of Jewish canons. I think the "Jewish and Christian communities" caveat in the sentence is sufficient to limit the scope to not include Islamic, Buddhist, Jain, etc religious texts so use of "Bible" isn't needed. However, I think you and I are probably going to continue to disagree on this point, so additional discussion from the wider community is probably needed.

I've seen much longer ledes on other articles. Per MOS:LEAD, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Also from that guideline, "As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate." --FyzixFighter (talk) 16:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: "authoritative scripture" is extremely vague and, as I pointed out, can refer to numerous texts. I put "sacred scriptures", but the sacred scriptures of Christianity and Judaism can include liturgical texts so it is only slightly more precise. Veverve (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Is "scripture" jargon for religious text? I have been using the English language for about 30 years, but I have rarely come across this term. Dimadick (talk) 18:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dimadick: Maybe it is, at least that is what religious text says. By the way, do you have any take on the definition of the scope of this article ? Veverve (talk) 18:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

As long as it is made clear that there are multiple contradictory canons, I don't have a personal opinion on which ones to include. Dimadick (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: Eugene Ulrich (in The Canon Debate, 2002, p. 29) states 'authoritative work' is to be avoided:

An authoritative work is a writing which a group, secular or religious, recognizes and accepts as determinative for its conduct, and as of a higher order than can be overridden by the power or will of the group or any member. A constitution or law code would be an example.

A book of scripture is a sacred authoritative work believed to have God as its ultimate author, which the community, as a group and individually, recognizes and accepts as determinative for its belief and practice for all time and in all geographical areas.

Veverve (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Which is why I did not use "authoritative work" in my edit. The writings of Church Fathers, liturgical texts, the Talmud, might be authoritative but I don't think any of the groups would call them scripture, which is why I favored "athoritative scripture" as a more restrictive definition than "authoritative work". I would favor to avoid "sacred" just because it is a loaded POV term, however if it has been adopted by scholarly sources as a generic term (similar to "myth") without the loaded POV, then I'm less inclined to challenge it.

If we look earlier in The Canon Debate in the introduction written by the editors, they acknowledge that there is disagreement about a universal definition of what biblical canon is. The suggest that "canon" and "scripture" are similar, even overlapping, but different definitions, and that "a biblical canon is more precisely a fixed collection of scriptures that comprise that authoritative witness for a religious body", which definition is not strictly Old/New Testament and I think this touches on the challenge of defining the scope of this article - how should it handle Christian groups that have "open canons" and/or books of scripture that are canonical and equal in standing to the Bible for them. Per weight, I don't think such open canons should be given a large amount of space - for example, I would agree with the removal of the unwieldy table of LDS scriptures. But I think the current LDS subsection is about the right weight and size. --FyzixFighter (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: the editors state there is a disagreement only so far as "Some of the ensuing papers, however, show disagreement with [Ulrich's] effort to seek a universally agreed on definition of the term 'canon' as the final product of a canonical process" (p. 4). They do not disagree on the fact that the term "biblical canon" refers to what constitutes for a Christian or Jewish denomination the Old+New Testament or the Old Testament (Tanakh), i.e. what is the Bible, as can be seen for example on p. 3 of the Introduction and throughout the entire book.

Whatever may be the status of writings inside of a Christian or Jewish denomination at a time given (good to read, divinely inspired, dubious, apocrypha), those are at a certain point in time either considered to be outside of the Bible (such as The Urantia Book or the Book of Mormon), or inside of it and worthy of it (e.g. the Book of Jubilees for the Ethiopian Orthodox Church; some Protestant bible editions print Apocrypha not because they consider it in the canon, but because it helps selling their bibles by creating some curiosity among the potential readers).

Moreover, the definitions below (both academic and mainstream) agree that the expression "biblical canon" means "what is or what is not part of the Bible - i.e. Old Testament and New Testament - for a Jewish or Christian denomination". Further details can be discussed, but hopefully you can agree that the scope of the article is to be changed in view of those aforementioned definitions.

I think it is more efficient to discuss details within the article once the question of what the subject of the article is is decided. Veverve (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

But there are definitions for "biblical canon", like the one I mentioned above taken from the editors of "The Canon Debate" that doesn't explicit state a limitation to OT/NT or closed canon. Indeed several of the definitions below (such as 2, 3, 4) start with a high level definition that is broader, and only with additional unspoken assumptions can you get from the high level definition to the more limited OT/NT definition (for example, the first sentence of #3 would include all of the LDS standard works). Does "biblical" strictly refer to the Bible (somewhat problematic since there is no single Bible), or to all collections of scriptures called a "Bible", or does it refer to all books of authoritative (at the level of the Bible) books for Jewish and Christian communities?

I'm not categorically against the narrower definition - even with the more narrow definition I think it is worth the brief mention of the LDS standard works, similar to mention of the Talmud earlier in the article and given the blurry overlap of the PoGP and JST, but I would recommend removing the second paragraph of the "Other LDS" subsection. --FyzixFighter (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Trying to find a new lede

@FyzixFighter: so, can we agree to reduce the scope of the article? I propose to do so by changing the lede to: "A biblical canon is a set of texts (also called "books") either which Christians consider as being officialy part of the Bible, or which Jews consider as being officialy part of the Hebrew Bible." Veverve (talk) 14:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm open to narrowing the scope but I take certain issues with that proposed sentence. First, the definition is tautological, which in part is why I think I'm still unsure about limiting the scope. Also, I don't think the second part works well since Jews don't refer to it as the Hebrew Bible and there really is no "official" about it. The phrasing also doesn't seem to align well with the whole Jewish canons section, imo.

As I've been thinking about this for the last day here are the 2 main issues as I see it. Let's assume that we do make the scope more narrow. How do we define "biblical canon" such that:

• the definition does not use "Bible" (to avoid a somewhat circular definition; and the fact that there is no single agreed upon Bible - there are Bibles but no universal "the Bible"), and
• that excludes the extra-Biblical but equally authoritative books of Christian denominations with open canons?

Almost all definitions that I can imagine or that have been proposed to narrow the scope fail one or the other or both. For example, the current wording technically fails the latter as "sacred scripture" would include items like the Book of Mormon. --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: I think defining "biblical canon" by mentioning the Bible is not a problem; it is not tautological, as sometimes you need to say things clearly (e.g. et 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"), and most definitions below do it this way. I agree that the word "Bible" can have multiple meaning depending on the denomination, but I think this is the denominations' and academics' responsibility to come to an agreement on a clear definition, not ours as we cannot go beyond what RSs say. Using "Bible" in the definition excludes other sets of texts such as those I mentioned in my very first message in this thread.

Ultimately, such a debate is to take part at Bible, not here; the only clear distinction I can think of is the publishers' tradition to call Bible a set of texts written during the Antiquity or the early Middle Ages. Veverve (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• If anything good could come from narrowing the scope of this article, what is it? Remove a few sentences about the LDS or the Talmud? And for what? People come to this article looking for everything considered Biblical and its extensions thereof. This is the one place that pretty much delivers. There are actually a few thngs that should be added. (Oh dear!) Stop trying to destroy what others have spent years to create, because evidently you took a few classes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeymanderson3 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Either the scope get narrowed, or we add every sacred text ever for every Christian and Jewish denomination, so that the content of the article agrees with the scope defined in the lede. I do not think the readers come here to know about what the Unification Church considers as being divinely inspired scriptures, or to have a list of what the Catholic Church considers as beins the holy tradition. Also, the expression "biblical canon" is in most cases (see also WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) used to refer to what texts are considerd in the Bible or the Hebrew Bible (see below). Veverve (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The scope is fine. I think the Swedenborg stuff should be considered because they do in fact see his writings as PART OF THE BIBLE... their non-inclusion here upsets me. But not everything has a place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeymanderson3 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

If it is considered as being part of (and not on par with or with an equal status with) the Bible, then I am in favour of adding them, provided it is properly sourced. However, I would wish a decision be reached on the scope and lede of the article before making such significant additions. Veverve (talk) 23:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

These used to be two separate articles and for good reason: Biblical canon and Books of the Bible. "Books" was very concise and "canon" was and remains... not. I wish both still existed because both have a place. "Canon" won-out because of its popularity and eventually the two were merged, but they shouldn't have been. People do come here for that which is different. I know the history of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joeymanderson3 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I would have nothing against creating a new article to list Christian scriptures which are part of the divinely revealed canon, but are not part of the biblical canon; I could even try to lend a hand if need be. As I said, "Biblical canon" most of the times refers to the texts (books) to be found inside bibles (often because the denomination finds said books legitimate), so it is only logical the scope of the page be narrowed to this meaning. Veverve (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I would recommend an RFC or similar DR to get wider community opinions on re-scoping the article. Thoughts? --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: If you want, you can make one, see WP:WRFC for advice. However, I would request that before you publish the RfC, you make a draft of the RfC in your user space so that I can see how you intend to present the request, comment on the draft, and if needed make some corrections. I expect the RfC to have a summary of all arguments given in this thread. Veverve (talk) 00:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: so, a few days later now, what are you planing to do? Veverve (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: Sorry - had a few unanticipated real life issues and events that took precedence and limited my bandwidth. I've taken an initial stab at a concise, neutral RFC statement at User:FyzixFighter/sandbox/Biblical canon RFC using recent first sentences in the edit history. I certainly welcome any feedback. --FyzixFighter (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: And to be clear - the summary of arguments you've added recently to the sandbox page, while probably helpful for any discussion, is not needed for initiating an RFC. To initiate an RFC, we need a brief, neutral statement or question about the issue. Do you have any concerns or feedback about the RFC question I've drafted that should be addressed prior to formally opening the RFC? --FyzixFighter (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: I do not oppose the question after having removed a word. Veverve (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

@FyzixFighter: so, again a few days latter, where are we? Veverve (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitions

1) Ulrich (in The Canon Debate, 2002, p. 29) endorses the definition (which was made by some Catholics, Protestants, and Jews) of "Biblical canon" given in 1999 by The Access Bible (published by the Oxford University Press):

"By the biblical canon is meant the official list of the books which make up the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. Books which appear on this list are called canonical and all other books non-canonical."

I have added the context of the quote above in the quote I put in the article's ref. The previous quotes from the same ref were unrelated so I removed them.
I agree on The Access Bible's definition and would wish a very similar definition be put as the lede, i.e. giving precisions that the expression only concerns the Old and New Testaments. Veverve (talk) 19:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Other sources supporting this definition:
2) The Gospel Coalition ([1]):

"The biblical canon is the collection of scriptural books that God has given his corporate people. These books were grouped together by God’s people relatively early, with the OT being settled and stable by the birth of Jesus at latest, and the NT gaining large agreement even before the end of the second century."

3) Oxford Bibliographies ([2]):

"A biblical canon is the collection of books that comprise the sacred scriptures or Bibles of Jews and Christians. The study of canon formation [is] the study of the origin, transmission, and recognition of the books that comprise the Bibles of Judaism and Christianity [...]. Many books, articles, and essays have emerged that also raise new questions about the origin and canonization of the books that comprise the Jewish and Christian Bibles."

4) biblestudytools ([3]):

"Canon of Scripture, The,

may be generally described as the 'collection of books which form the original and authoritative written rule of the faith and practice of the Christian Church,' i.e. the Old and New Testaments."

Veverve (talk) 19:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
5) Daniel Patte (ed.),The Cambridge Dictionary of Christianity:

"[Canon:] list of authoritative books from the Bible" (art. 'Canon', p. 168).

"For example, in his 39th festal letter for the year 367, Athanasius defined the biblical canon∗ for his followers; this is the earliest Christian writing that lists precisely the 27 books that now constitute the NT" (art. 'Athanasius', p. 80).

6) HarperCollins Bible Dictionary, 3rd revised ed.:

"Bible, the, a term referring to the Scriptures of the Christian church, but also denoting the canon of Jewish Scriptures. [...] Development of the Biblical Canons: The development of the various biblical canons appears to have been a long and complex process. The Jewish community, probably by the end of the first century A.D., had adopted the twenty-four-book Hebrew Bible as its canon. [...] The NT canon also has an uneven and complex history. No canonical lists appear before the middle of the second century, when the heretic Marcion proclaimed a canon consisting of his version of Luke and ten letters of Paul. Others, such as Irenaeus and Tertullian, embraced a larger number of books. Yet there was a considerable degree of diversity as to which books were included or not included" (art. "Bible, the", p. 121-2).

Veverve (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)