Talk:Biblical canon/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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:

1. a specific Jewish or Christian sect
2. a specific Judeo-Christian sect

(B) to:

1. be inspired by God and therefore a part of the Bible.
2. be inspired by God.
3. be inspired by God, or to be authoritative accounts of the relationship between people and God.
4. form its correct version of the Bible. In effect, a canon has the status of a law for the sect's adherents.
5. 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.

FWIW, I believe you are correct here re: the Christian Bible. At least two New Testament writers (Paul writing to Timothy, and Peter) refer to scripture being divinely inspired. And several books are quoted or alluded to in the New Testament that are not part of the Christian Old Testament such as the book of Jannes and Jambres. Different Chrisian groups argue about using words like "inerrant" and

"infallible", but I think there's near-universal agreement on "divinely inspired". Wesley

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

As a step towards agreement, what about adding the word "exclusive" to the opening sentence, to indicate that it is an exclusive list? Wesley

I do not object, in fact I think it is an important addition -- as long as the article makes clear that the formation of the canon was the culmination of a long process in which there was some debate over what should/should not be included, Slrubenstein

---

Eclecticology, we can go around and around on this as long as you want. But you still have not explained how the correct definition is NOT NPOV. I see no value to adding the word "simple;" indeed a canon is the end result of a very complex process. Moreover, please tell me who, involved in the formation/establishment of the Biblical canon, did NOT have "divine inspiration" as a defining criteria?

Frankly, I am tired of your childish reversions. I would gladly defer to those participants who know more about the Bible than I (e.g. Wesley, RK, Uriyan, or Danny). But it really is pretty silly of you to insist on a tediously misleading definition, when the only research you have done on the topic involved looking a word up in a dictionary. Slrubenstein

"Inspired by God" still represents a Religious POV and not a Neutral one, I accept your continuation in subsequent sentences with this allegation. The people who established the canon were probably more politicaly inspired than divinely inspired, but I would never insist that that be a part of the definition. None of us were either at the Council of Jaffa or the Council of Carthage, so how can we be certain of what inspired them. If "divine inspiration" is to be a criterion the burden of proof rests with the person claiming that it is so, not with the person denying it. That's certainly also a key premise in the scientific method.

I have consistently looked for common ground in this debate to find something that would be acceptable to both religious people and atheists, but you don't get that point at all. It seems that I would have accomplished more by outrageous statements. Perhaps my word "simply" was weak; I will change it to "nothing more than" on my next reversion Eclecticology

If this article claimed that the canon was "inspired by God", then it certainly would not be a neutral point of view, but it makes no such claim. It states (completely accurately) that those who accept and define the canon consider it to be "inspired by God". That is a completely different. Nobody here is claiming that this article should state that the canon is defined by God; the issue here is that this article, if it is to be accurate at all, must state that the believers consider its divine inspiration to be inherent to what defines the canon. Soulpatch

Eclecticology, saying that a certain set of books is the "correct" set of books to collectively refer to as the Bible is itself a religious POV. It's certainly not a "scientific" POV, and is historic only in that historically, members of these religions (Judaism and Christianity) eventually came to agree on their particular canon. In such a case, the best we can do is to both state the POV and attribute it to the people or groups who hold that view.

Regarding political influence: when the Jews met at the Council of Jaffa, I don't think any of them had any reason to hope for political gain by accepting particular books. At most, they may have received approval from other Jews for choosing and discerning well. Same goes for Christians, who began the process of deciding and formulating the New Testament canon well before the fourth century, and whose arguments on the record are based largely on things like whether the author of a particular New Testament book was an apostle or associated with an apostle, and was therefore familiar with and sympathetic to the teaching of Jesus Christ himself. They also chose or rejected books based on the book's theology: as time went on, it was important to reject Gnostic and Montanist writings. The arguments they made for and against various books are on record; a few ancient Christian churches still maintain slightly different canons of both Old and New Testaments, such as the Nestorians and Ethiopian churches. In the face of this evidence, I would challenge you to find historical evidence that they were motivated more by politics than by theology. Note that I'm not trying to make Wikipedia espouse a particular theology; only trying to reflect what the historic record shows that certain people believed. It's important to a wider audience mainly because what they believed and did has had a wide range of consequences down through history, right up to our present day. Wesley 20:31 Aug 28, 2002 (PDT) (btw, a good summary of the NT canon's development can be found at http://www.orthodox.net/faq/canon.htm. It's admittedly and Eastern Orthodox Christian POV, but it does cover a lot of the historical background, and many of the 'almost made it' books)

I'm honestly confused. The definition is not saying that a Biblical canon is inspired by God, but only that they believe it is inspired by God. I've read your arguments, Eclecticology, but I truly don't understand your objection. Consider the following definition of Darwinian evolution: Darwinian evolution is the theory that different species are produced by means of natural selection. Someone could use your argument against this definition of Darwinism easily, even though the definition is not presuming the truth of Darwinism. On a related not, using "nothing more than" is definitely taking a stand on the issue. If the canon is "nothing more than" a list of books accepted by a sect, then the definition presumes that they are not inspired by God. --Stephen Gilbert

I agree, and it especially seems strange since the word "believe" is in the first sentence. You can't get any more explicit than that--it is very clear that the article is stating that this is what Christians and Jews "believe" to be the case.

I am glad that most other participants in this discussion understand that the claim that divine inspiration was a primary criteria for those who developed and instituted the Biblical canon is NPOV and a claim that even an athiest can accept. I still do not understand Eclecticology's criticism. But I am happy to respond to his invitation to provide some evidence. In Contra Apionem, Josephus wrote,

It therefore naturally, or rather necessarily, follows (seeing that with us it is not open to everyone to write the records, and that there is no discrepancy in what is written; seeing that, on the contrary, the prohets alone had this privilege, obtaining their knowlesdge of the most remote and ancient history through the inspiration which they owed to God, and committing to writing a clear account of the events of their time just as they occurred) -- it follows, I say, that we do not posess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with each other. Our books, those which are justly accredited, are but two and twenty, and contain the record of all time (emphasis added).

Clearly, Josephus recognizes that the Bible presents a history. But this is obviously not the main criteria for inclusion in the canon -- first, because the Bible excludes other historical accounts written by Jews at the time (I provided a brief list above), and second, because Josephus holds "divine inspiration" to be the basis of the historical accuracy of the account.

Another source is the Mishnah, Yadaim 3:5. This passage relates to the debate over whether Song of Songs should be included in the canon. Since it is literally a collection of poems about love and sex between a man and a woman, some people doubted whether it had anything to do with God. But the Rabbis argued, "All the holy writings define the hands. Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes defile the hands...Rabbi Akiba said...'All the writings are holy, but Song of Songs is holiest of all."

Of course, there is one other way to infer the criteria for inclusion in the canon, and that is to study the books included in the canon. I agree that one thing most (but not all, e.g. Ecclesiastes) books have in common is history (or rather, claims about history) but we must dismiss this as a primary criteria for reasons explained above. But one thing that all the books have in common is the story/celebration of the relationship between God and humanity, especially (for the Hebrew Bible) the Children of Israel.

For your information, Eclecticology, an "atheist" is someone who does not believe in God. NOT someone who does not believe that other people believe in God.Slrubenstein

I'm jumping in late here, but it seems to me that Slr is correct. In order for books to be accepted as canonical, they had to meet several standards. One of these was Divine inspiration. Another was that they have relevance for future generations. In other words, the people that did the choosing had to believe that the books were Divinely inspired and they had to believe that they were relevant to future generations, regardless of what we think. By the way, the debates over canonical acceptance did not include the historical books. They included the Later Prophets and Writings. Eclecticology points out that none of us were there. We do, however, have some record of the sessions, which survived in Talmudic literature. An example of this is the debate quoted by Slr above about Song of Songs (and the addended rhetoric--"holy of holies" is probably more indicative of the heated debate than of the book's actual sanctity. We know about the debates over Ezekiel, and we know about the debates over Maccabees among others. BTW, Maccabees was rejected precisely because it was political. So was Judith. Ben Sirah (Ecclesiasticus) was rejected because it was deemed irrelevant to future generations, since most of its content can be found in other books. Finally, the Council of Jaffa did not determine the Jewish canon. Certain books, like the Pentateuch and the Early Prophets (histories) were long considered canonical. At the Council of Jaffa it was decided taht from that point onward, no other book would be considered canonical. It's a small point, sure, but an important one. Danny

I can accept what Stephen points out when he states that the definition states that some people believe these books are inspired by God as distinct from their being in fact inspired by God. That being said there is room for an alternate point of view on the part of non-believers, at least similar to what I have put forth. Eclecticology

Given that you agree, I am not sure that I see the point of your addition. You are giving the simplest definition. The sentence above is also giving that definition but adding a very brief explanation as to why the books were included in the Bible in the first place. In that sense, it is a definition of canon with the requirements for canonization. In other words, I guess I have no problem with your statement, but rather with its placement, which seems to backtrack on definition. Danny

Danny the first paragraph as you have revised it is now acceptable. A bit of redundancy has crept in as a by-product of the debate, but it's a minor issue that I would leave alone pending acceptance of your wording by the others involved in this debate.

I revised the second sentence to make it clearer -- the point is not that some people do or did believe that the Bible is divinely inspired, the point is that there are criteria for inclusion in the canon. This is what needs to be clear. Eclecticology, I am glad that you are closer to understanding my point, but I am still not entirely sure. My point is not that non-believers and believers may have different beliefs about "the Bible" (I do not dispute this fact, only its relevance for this article). What is relevant for this article is, do believers and non-believers have different views about the criteria for canonization? I still do not understand why a non-bliever would reject the view that belief in divine inspiration was the criteria for canonization. Also, I still do not understand what alternative view you are presenting to explain why certain books were included in the canon and others excluded.

I am still disatisfied with the first sentence, which seems void of meaning -- of course the Bible includes books in the bible. So what? I mean, does anyone think that the article might be refering to "The Bowler's Bible" or "The Fisherman's Bible?" Slrubenstein

I'm also stumped as to what this sentence means: This definition of the Biblical canon is contested by non-believers for whom it is sufficiently defined as only a list of the books that belong in the Bible. What grounds do non-believers have for thinking that certain books belong in the Bible, that aren't connected to divine inspiration or some religious authority? Simple history of what believers have thought, or something else? Wesley (scratching my head)

I share your confusion. It is as if someone defined the sacraments as a set of rites Christians (or is it only Catholics? sorry, I am just trying to give an analogy) believe confer grace, and then saomeone responded that "well, I do not believe in God or grace so I define sacraments as a set of practices that have nothing to do with grace." It's a bizarre sort of behaviorist view of the world that thinks it can describe human beliefs and practices while ignoring the meanings humans ascribe to their beliefs and practices, maybe. I really cannot figure it out myself, Slrubenstein

While I agree in principle with what you are saying, I think the key term in the opening sentence is "exclusive". In other words, while we do have and appreciate books contemporary with the canonical works, they fail to meet the criteria of the canonizers for inclusion. Maccabees is a wonderful book for its history. We can learn from it. The canonizers of Jaffa, however, did not feel it met the criteria. Also, once canonization took place, nothing could be added or subtracted, no matter how much I prefer Ben Sirah to Joshua. Once more thing: it should be noted that the canonizers not only determined what books should be included but what should be included in the books themselves. Ecclesiastes was almost rejected as heretical until the final verses were added by the canonizers. That said, we need a better definition of canonization. Danny

I don't think that the Council of Jaffa specifically rejected Maccabees. Much of it deals with events that took place after the council. Eclecticology

Nope, sorry, I disagree. C of J was c. 90-100 AD. The events in Macabees were c. 165 BC. Danny. Sorry, my error to assume that C of J was c. 400 BC. Dates of the council should probably go in main body of article. Ec.

I'm not about to upset the definition as it stood two minutes ago. Much of my argument has been focused on what I feel to be your confounding the questions "What is it?" and "How did it come to be?

Perhaps, it's just because I see Wesley's most recent at this moment, but I can also see a more subtle problem between "definition of the Biblical canon" and "definition of 'Biblical canon'". The former, which appears to reflect your approach, refers to a process whereby canonization takes place; the latter, which reflects my approach, seeks only to provide a gloss fot the term "Biblical canon". Since the issue now becomes "the definition of definition, had there been two separate articles [Biblical canon] and [Definition of Biblical canon] the argument might never have happened. What bothers a non-believer about a reference to "divine inspiration" is that the word "divine" depends on the concept of God. It would strike me as impossible to have a definition of "divine" which did not have reference to God. If God does not exist the term "divine" is at best meaningless, and at worst carries a lot of uncertain implications that are best left out. Slr is probably right in suggesting that a similar debate could have happened over "sacraments".

I agree that the word "divine" can mean different things to different people. However, in the context it was used, I don't think it's a problem. The sentence says that it's Jews and Christians who think the Bible is "divinely" inspired, so it would be reasonable to assume that we're talking specifically about Jewish and Christian understandings of "divine". And while there are some differences between the Jewish and Christian conception of God, I don't think they don't come into play here. Wesley

One comment about Wesley's paragraph on open and closed canons. The word "exclusive" was brought into the definition to mean exactly what you are saying in your new paragraph. Eclecticology 10:21 Aug 30, 2002 (PDT)

If the new paragraph is truly redundant, it can be removed. I was just trying to add something useful. Wesley

Ec -- 1) thanks for correcting my mistake

2) I still do not understand your objection to "divine." Yes, I understand that you do not believe in God. But surely you cannot object to the assertion that others believe in God. Or that God is a character in every Biblical book. Would you object to the claim that "Moby Dick is about a large white whale" because you personally do not believe that such a whale ever existed? Would you object to the claim that "2001 is a movie about the discovery of a mysterious object on the moon, and the aftermath of that discovery" because no such discovery was made last year? The terms "White Whale" and "2001" are very meaningful in these claims, and would be crucial to any encyclopedia article about the book or film, whether you believe that such encounters with a whale or a lunar object ever happened. In short, an article about "the Biblical canon" is not an article about what you -- or I -- believe about the Bible. But it MUST acknowledge the beliefs that were absolutely central to "the canon" itself.

You do your own cause an injustice here. "Moby Dick" and "2001" are both works of fiction (though in different media). It is understood from the beginning that the whale and the monolith are fictitious, even as they have allegorical facets. The fact that several articles in Wikipedia purport to illustrate the genealogy of Donald Duck does not make him a real duck. Your analogy comes close to suggesting that the Bible is fiction. That might please me, but I'm sure you don't want to go there. -Ec.

Alas, you have missed my point...

3) I still do not understand what you think the point of an article on "Biblical Canon" is. What would be the difference between an article on the canon and an article on the Bible? I would think that an article on "the Bible" would discuss all the different issues (including historical) in the Biblical text, as it exists. I would think that an article on "the canon" would discuss the different issues involved in canonization. And the criterion (or criteria, as the case may be) seems absolutely fundamental. Slrubenstein

I am pleased that we (with the help of other participants) are arriving at a mutually satisfactory definition, even if it is somewhat convoluted. ...and there remains a whole article to develop after the definition. Belief and non-belief both carry implications into life. Non-belief renders the word "divine" problematical. I don't think that our remaining fundamental differences (which can be subtle) can be resolved at this time. It took centuries for the rabbis and elders and bishops and other canonizers to come to their conclusions. Can we do any better in the few days that our debate has developed? We have many fundamental differences in our vocabularies. Let's agree to disagree, and get on to less stressful writing. Perhaps some aspects will be revisited later when "to everything there is a season". Eclecticology

Perhaps the article should be on how the process of canonization occured. Right now the definition is so convoluted it is barely comprehensible. It is also wrong. Canonization is about texts, not books. Why were texts included/excluded. That should be the theme of the article. Danny

Exactly, there's a whole good article that can be expanded once we get past the definition. I don't know if moving from books to texts helps us at all. It seems to just shift the debate to the level of parts of books.

---

I have an organizational question. I think the portion of the article dealing with the Christian canons needs to deal with the Christian canonization of the Old and New Testaments separately. One reason is that nearly all Christians agree on the New Testament canon, and arrived at it through exactly the same process; that is, canonization of the NT happened before any divisions, and there haven't been any real challenges to it since. The history of the Old Testament canon for Christianity is somewhat different. Also, the New Testament article already has a brief section on canonization of the New Testament. Is that the place to cover the history in greater detail, or should material be moved here?

Basically, the organiztion I would propose (with subheadings instead of outline points) is:

• Jewish Canon
• Samariton Canon
• Christian Canon
  • New Testament (same material covers all or nearly all Christian groups)
  • Old Testament (to discuss the Deuterocanon/Apocrypha, much as it is now)
    • Eastern Orthodox
    • Roman Catholic
    • Protestant

Any comments?

well, I am approaching the limits of my knowledge. But I wonder if some of the differences between various Christian canons of the OT may in part reflect debates/different stages in the Jewish canonization of the Hebrew Bible. I mean, Jesus and his disciples knew of sacred Hebrew scriptures, but when they lived the Jewish canon had not yet been closed. Might this be one source of differences? I imagine that the other source of differences is theological.

Ideally, this article should educate us about both an historical process, and theological differences. I am not sure how best to sort out these two strands. In general your suggestion seems sound -- you are working from what people all agree on to what people disagree on. This will certainly illuminate theological differences. But If the goal is to describe an historical process, differences between various canons should go earlier, as these differences may also be evidence of changing notions of the canon. I tried to organize the section on the Jewish canon chronologically. Were you to do the same with the various Christian canons, OT and NT might get mixed up, but you would be telling an interesting story. I do not know. You are raising an important issue. I guess the best thing to do is to try it one way and see how it turns out, and then discuss alternative organization. Slrubenstein

Chronological is probably a good approach. It's more objective, and in this instance I don't think there will be very much overlap. By the time Jerome expressed his doubts about some books in the Old Testament, the New Testament canon was either settled or very nearly settled. Early on there was some debate regarding which portions of the Old Testament to accept; that's probably best covered chronologically. I think the end result will still be close to the above outline, but with some OT discussion added to the NT section. I probably won't get to it for at least several days though. Wesley

---

As of this writing, the article begins:

A Biblical canon is an exclusive list of books written during the formative period of the Jewish or Christian faiths; the leaders of these communities believed them to be inspired by God or to express the authoritative history of the relationship between God and his people (although there may have been secondary considerations as well).

May I suggest a simpler and more straightforward first sentence which states what a Biblical canon is? To wit:

A Biblical canon is a collection of books which a Jewish or Christian religious authority recognizes as genuine Holy Scriptures.

The second and third sentences can then state what criteria religious authorities use (or have used) to determine the constitution of their Biblical canons. To wit:

Virtually all canonical scriptures have been evaluated by religious authorities to determine whether (in their opinion) the authors of those scriptures were divinely inspired or, in the alternative, whether the scriptures express the authoritative history of the relationship between God and his people. However, other criteria may also be used by religious authorities to determine whether a particular text should be accepted as canonical scripture.

--NetEsq 5:57pm Sep 6, 2002 (PDT)

With respect, Please don't. The existing paragraph from my perspective may be somewhat convoluted, and your suggestion is more consistent with my minimalist view for defining this title. However, it is a fragile compromise which my adversaries and I are content to live with for the forseeable future. Issues involving religion can erupt into edit wars more easily than ones involving law. Eclecticology 04:55 Sep 7, 2002 (UTC)

True. If anyone reads this Talk page, it should be clear that the debate has focused in large part around trying to define what the canon is. That definition is critical, and is therefore bound to be a point of contention. At the very least, please carefully read and consider what has been said before on the subject. And yes, I strongly disagree with the proposed revision, because I think the definition is very inaccurate. Wesley 11:38 Sep 8, 2002 (UTC)

---

Even if it's only a theory that the Essenes were connected with the Dead Sea scrolls, shouldn't they be mentioned in some way? Are there other theories about their origin that are worth covering? Wesley 06:03 Sep 9, 2002 (UTC)

Wesley, I agree with you that the Essenes should be mentioned, although frankly I do not think it is acrucial point -- in context, the point of the paragraph is meely to provide some evidence that the canon was not yet complete -- not to make some point about the differences among various Jewish sects, Slrubenstein

I agree that it's not crucial, just wondered why someone deleted the brief reference to them. Not a huge deal either way. Wesley

---

I reverted the most recent change to the intro. I did not find the change to be accurate, or elegant.

It was my sense that those people who had actually done research on the history of the canon were satisfied with the reverted introduction. If I am wrong, then there should be a little more discussion about what is wrong with it. Having done research on the history of canonization, I believe the current intro is accurate and accurately reflects current critical historical scholarship, Slrubenstein

SR: agreed. My specific concern is that the new intro implies that a current religious authority is defining the canon, while for all the faiths mentioned in the remainder of the article, current leaders and authorities are simply deferring to the decisions of earlier leaders and councils. The use of the present tense is very misleading. Also, for the most part, it is not just the religious leaders or authorities but the entire faith communities who have agreed to the canons, as defined by the various communities. Wesley

Wesley, you make two fine points which, although implicit in the current opening definition, I think are worth spelling out in greater detail perhaps later in the article -- first, that "canon" implies two things (that may appear oxymoronic or paradoxical only if viewed ahistorically ), a process during which readers of texts somehow decided not only which books were authoritative, but even what the criteria for "authoritative" (or "genuine") would be, indeed, decided that "genuine" or "authoritative" were issues at all; and a set of books that people today accept as authoritative. Second, that the process of canonization was by definition a process during which the very grounds for "authority" were negotiated (and thus a process in which there was much debate, difference, uncertainty, and a process in which many people participated. I am not sure if I am articulating this well, but I do think your recent comments reveals that any good discussion of "canon" requres a more sophisticated notion of "authority" and a more sophisticated understanding of how "authority" develops...

On another note, I am a little disconcerted that Ed Poor reversed by reversion without even responding to my explanation in the talk page. I hope that anyone who considers changing the opening paragraph respond first to what I and Wesley have written, Slrubenstein

This may have been an innocent mistake, made in good faith. It seems self-evident that people who wish to edit an article should take the time to review the talk page of that article, figure out who is actively involved in editing the article, and respond to whatever concerns have been raised on the talk page. On this note, it seems self-evident that a reversion done without explanation accomplishes nothing.--NetEsq

---

Regarding calling James a bishop and the acceptability of the title to Protestants, I think it's perfectly justified to use the title. First, it's just a translation of episkopos or overseer, a word that is used favorably in the same New Testament the Protestants use. I'm reasonably confident that's the title and office that James had, but can find sources if someone wants. Second, several major protestant denominations themselves have bishops, including Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Anglicans, Episcopalians, and even Mennonites. Now, these different groups might have different ideas about the proper role of a bishop, but this article doesn't go into that at all. Can we call him what he was? Wesley 18:13 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)

I think the question is, can you find any sources within the Bible itself that justify the use of the term "Bishop" for James? If so, then I would agree that the term is appropriate. But my suspicion is that the term is loaded with implications that some Protestants (like Southern Baptists) would object to, since they don't use the word "Bishop" to describe anyone in their denomination and they probably have theological objections to the very concept of a "bishop" as it is understood among many other denominations. I realize that Catholics and some other denominations refer to James as the Bishop of Jerusalem, but my point is that other denominations may strenuously disagree with that designation. I say "may", because I admit I am not sure, and if we can get a (for example) Baptist perspective on this that agrees with you, then I would certainly accept the use of the word "bishop". soulpatch

I don't know that James is explicitly identified as a bishop in the New Testament, although Acts 15 describes him acting in a way that Catholics and Orthodox would see as fulfilling a bishop's role. Also Peter wanted word sent to James when he was released from prison. Galatians 1:19 calls him an apostle. Eusebius calls him a bishop ( http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/euseb_ch.html ). Just googling, I can't find any Southern Baptist bishops, but I did find some Free Will Baptist bishops without any trouble. I guess I see this is mostly an historical designation; what it meant may be debatable (though I think that's documented as well), but James certainly had the title at the time. And of course there are numerous writings in all the early church fathers describing the role and office of bishop, including those established by the apostles themselves, which would support the designation historically. Do we have to rewrite history to fit with Southern Baptist prejudices? Wesley 19:43 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)

I think that some Protestants would argue that it is the Catholics who rewrote history to support their own church hierarchy. The reason you can't find any Southern Baptist bishops is that they don't have any. My point is that we should not take sides on this question. Calling James a "bishop" seems to be me to be a lot like calling Peter a "pope". It is not NPOV if it is not the perspective of many Protestant denominations. soulpatch

P.S. Speaking of popes--many people who reject the Catholic notion of the papacy have argued that James, not Peter, was actually not just the "bishop of Jerusalem" but in fact the leader of the early Christian movement. soulpatch

I have a question, and a suggestion. Soulpatch writes "some Protestants would argue that it is the Catholics who rewrote history to support their own church hierarchy." I have no doubt that the Biblical accounts were written by people with political agendas. But is Soulpatch claiming that Southern Baptists reject the current version of the New Testament? (Not being Christian I am asking in all seriousness.)

My suggestion: instead of just calling James "Bishop," state that he is identified by the NT as episkopos, which many Christians translate as "Bishop" (and provide alternate translations if there are any). Slrubenstein

Slrubenstein, regarding your question, I am not a Southern Baptist, I don't play one on TV, and I don't have much use for their theology as a general rule. When I say that they believe that Catholics have rewritten history, I am referring not to the New Testament, which they accept as the word of God, but to the writings and theology of the Catholic Church that developed around the doctrine of apostolic succession and the claim that Peter was the first pope and that the very first Christians were, in effect, Catholics. I think that most Protestants who are Baptists or something similar would argue that the elements of the Catholic church hierarchy and doctrine came later, after New Testament times. And if the NT does use the word episkopos to describe James, then I think that your proposed suggestion is a good one. soulpatch

How about referring to him simply as "leader or bishop", to avoid getting too wordy while still acknowledging both points of view? I don't think the NT refers to James explicitly as bishop or episkopos. However, the Southern Baptist position is apparently that bishops in general are a bad idea, and interpret and translate the New Testament accordingly, ignoring or demonizing other records of early church history. I think if you accept that the early church had bishops at all, it then becomes very reasonable to interpret accounts of James in Acts as acting like a bishop, and to trust the records of people like Eusebius... another bishop. Wesley

Hmmm, I thought I already wrote a response, but it isn't here, so maybe there was an edit conflict that I missed. Anyway, I think the key point here is "if you accept that the early church had bishops at all". This is a point of contention between various Christian denominations. I think your proposal to say "leader or bishop" is fair to both sides. I am a little surprised to see that calling him a "leader" is as offensive to the pro-bishop crowd as calling his a bishop is to the anti-bishop crowd--I would have thought that leader would be acceptable to both sides. But apparently this matter is of great importance to both sides of the controversy. So I would go along with your suggestion. soulpatch

Not being a Christian I don't feel I have anything personally at stake in this issue. But as a reader of Wikipedia, I think it would be a good thing to identify or classify James primarily as he is identified/classified in the Biblical text, and then to provide a brief account about how Christians and historians have interpreted this text. Slrubenstein

I'll try to follow your suggestion in the article. Perhaps we should revise every article that mentions any pope to indicate that it is translated 'father', and some Protestants don't think any mortal should be addressed as 'father, but nevertheless so and so is commonly referred to by historians, the media, etc., as Pope John Paul II. And so on back through history for the rest of the popes and bishops that get mentioned anywhere. Wesley

I can't tell if you are being facetious or not. Is there anyone who doesn't call the pope the 'pope'? The pope is the leader of the Catholic Church. I don't think anyone disagrees that the Catholic Church has, for a long time, had a leader who everyone, whether within or outside that church, calls the 'pope'. So it would be bizarre to change the name 'pope' to something else.

On the other hand, there is considerable dispute among various Christian denominations as to whether it is appropriate to describe the first generation of Jesus-followers by using terminology describing the hierarchy of the Christian church of several generations later (I might add that many of those people described as the "Church fathers" lived several generations after the death of Jesus). It would not be NPOV to use assume apostolic succession as the default interpretation of the early church when many Christians categorically reject the doctrine of apostolic succession or that it had any pertinence to the first generation of people after the crucifixion of Jesus. soulpatch

Polycarp was Bishop of Smyrna and a disciple of John the Evangelist. Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch, and wrote extensively about the proper role of bishops. Irenaeus was another second century bishop, possibly a disciple of Polycarp... can't remember that connection exactly. We have the dated manuscripts of these guys. The New Testament itself speaks of bishops. That the title existed and was in use is not really debatable, any more than early use of the title 'pope' is debatable. What is debatable, and what protestants are free to disagree with, is what the proper role of a bishop is. This article doesn't touch that issue. Those who try to deny that bishops existed at all in the early church are only doing so because they think sixteenth century bishops were scoundrels, therefore all bishops are scoundrels, therefore any evidence of 'good' bishops is highly suspect. It's bad scholarship. If there's a better argument, I'd love to hear it. Wesley

I am backing off somewhat on my objection to the use of the word "bishop" for James because I honestly can't speak for what Christians of various stripes might say on the subject and I just don't want to fight their battles for them. My broader concern is over retroactively refitting the early Christ-followers, who I might add were devout Jews, into some kind of later form of Christianity (this is to me a little like Christians retrofitting the Old Testament so that it suits their own theology, which I also object to). It isn't clear to me what Polycarp's relationship with John have to do with anything. John was the last of the Gospel writers, who wrote a long time after the death of Jesus and after (in my opinion and the opinion of many scholars) the oral traditions surrounding Jesus had evolved significantly. If Jesus was born in 4BC and died on 33AD, then Polycarp was born two generations after Jesus's death, and he died 120 years after Jesus's death. No one is doubting that the word "bishop" was used in early times. The question is whether it had the same meaning at all times. So if we are going to use the word "bishop" when refering to the early Christians, I want to be careful about not inserting theologies about apostolic succession into these articles through the back door. Maybe I overreacted to the use of this single word, but I want to be careful about how the events of early Christianity are depicted in this encyclopedia. soulpatch

Yes, John the Evangelist was the last of the Gospel writers, and he was himself one of the twelve disciples of Jesus Christ. Yes, he was quite old when he did most of his writing. What he said was a major part of oral tradition, together with what the other apostles and followers said, as he was an eye-witness. (See the opening of I John.) If you want to go into different things that "bishop" may mean today, in earlier times, according to different people, fine, add that to the bishop article if it's not already there. Just as I presume (without checking) that the Pope article includes something about what protestants think of the papacy. I think that refusing to call early bishops by the title they historically had, as documented, really amounts to historical revisionism, and imposes a Protestant view of the church onto what was happening there, like a theory of a Great Apostasy. That's why this matters to me, to be honest. Sure, there's a danger on both sides of retroactively fitting our modern interpretations onto it, and I want to be sensitive to that. But we can still use the same words they used in ancient times, or translations of them. That's why I think it's ok to refer to the Gospel writers as "evangelists", even though I don't think their modus operandi remotely resembled Billy Graham's or other twentieth century evangelists. Wesley

Well, I don't believe, and I don't think many serious scholars believe, that the author of fourth Gospel was one of the twelve disciples of Jesus Christ, but that point aside, I agree that if the actual word "bishop" was used to describe someone, then fine, we should use it too, with this caveat: if its meaning has altered over time, or if there is disagreement over whether its meaning has altered over time, then some kind of explanation or qualification should go with the title. The word "evangelist" is still used today to refer to the gospel writers, so I think that both the Billy Graham meaning and the St. Matthew meaning are in current use today. I don't think that the word "bishop" carries different shades of meaning in contemporary usage. I also think that the question is whether those so-called "church fathers" also engaged in a little historical revisionism to suit their own purposes. I personally think that a little hisorical revisionism was going on for some time in the early history of the church for reasons of self-interest on the part of certain individuals and institutions, but that is neither here nor there. I don't think it is historical revisionism to take a scholarly approach to the early Church history and not to simply give the official party line, without also identifying or making clear when there is some ambiguity. soulpatch

It's entirely appropriate to cover different shades of meaning of words like 'bishop' and 'pope', especially when the terms are controversial and the controversy is historically significant, which is clearly the case here. The question is whether this needs to be done every time a bishop or pope is mentioned, or only in the bishop and pope articles. I think that's the core of the issue as it relates to this particular entry, which is trying to document the history of the biblical canon, not the history of bishops. BTW, how do you like my attempted compromise in the actual article, attributions and all? Wesley 18:31 Nov 18, 2002 (UTC)

I am sorry to but in here, but if this as an article on the Biblical canon, I think there are two peices of information that are absolutely crucial: What word is used in the Bible itself (and what meaning it had for the original audience of the text, if that can be reconstructed), and how this word was interpreted by those people who authorized the canon itself. I am really out of my league here -- but I have been trying to follow the above discussion because it interests me and frankly I would like to read a Wikipedia article that would illuminate these issues for me -- but it seems to me that there are two issues here: the first is that a particular person in the Bible (John, James, Peter, whomever) may or may not have been identified by a particular word in the Biblical text itself. I'd like to know that. The second issue is that the people who canonized the Bible may have included certain texts because they exlicitly or implicitly identified a certain chain of tradition or authority (thus, claiming a link between a disciple of Jesus and the early Church through the use of the word "Bishop"). I'd like to know that too. I find all of it interesting and important -- but I would like to be very clear about what is actually in the text itself, versus how it was read/understood by those who canonized it. Both of these seem very appropriate for an article on "Biblical Canon." Slrubenstein

Thank you for again helping us focus on what is important for this article. I recently (last few days) edited the main article to indicate that the New Testament text itself does not use the word 'bishop' (or 'episkopos') to identify James; I hope that it now makes clear who considers him to be what, in a way that will be agreeable to all. I'll have to look later to see who the NT does identify as bishop. In at least one of Paul's letters to Timothy, he gives Timothy a list of qualifications for a bishop, and I believe extrabiblical tradition has both Timothy and Titus as bishops. As for the second issue you raise, I'm not sure I've done enough research yet to answer it well. I would venture to say it appears that all or most of the NT books were already being widely used before people started to talk about formulating a canon. It may be possible that some books were circulated more widely than others because they identified a certain chain of tradition, but they would have had to have already achieved a certain level of circulation to be considered for the canon. Or at least that's my impression. Wesley

Slr, your perspective on this subject is very valuable, and I appreciate your attempt at being fair on the subject. As an outsider you can approach the article from the perspective of a reader who is seeking information, and you don't have a body of assumptions that you are working from. There is no question that the question about what was a bishop in 50 AD and how it relates to modern bishops is a subject of debate among various Christians sects, and I am not really knowledgeable enough to approach the question very well in a way that would satisfy all sides. It does relate somewhat to the formation of the canon, I think, because part of what would make a work acceptable to the canon is its theology. But Wesley's comment is also valid, namely that these works were probably circulated among various Christian groups for some time. So it is probably a combination of things. soulpatch

Well, I am very glad if my comments can be useful. It sounds like there would indeed be room for detailed discussion of the history of the meaning/uses of such words as "bishop" and "pope" in eponymous articles. I suggest that a discussion of any debates over the meanings of these words, or the authority of those people to whom they attach, be limited in this article to whatever was relevant to those people who contributed to texts that were eventually canonized, or to those people involved in the process of canonization, with links to the relevant articles that provide further discussion of the post-canonization period (if possible). It certainly sounds like this article is becoming even stronger, Slrubenstein

---

Fascinating and informative article! Thanks to all who've worked on it!

---

{the leaders of these communities believed them to be inspired by God} It is ambiguous whether "them" refers to the books or the lists, from the previous phrase. Need to pick one or the other, or both, and clarify what the hell is meant here :)