Old Testament Canon

Discussion in 'Abrahamic Religions' started by radarmark, Apr 13, 2012.

  1. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    We read a lot here about scripture and canon in Judaism and Christianity. So I thought I'd compile a list of the various canons I know of. This is a list of the OT canon.
     
  2. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Okay, do any of you know how to post an excel worksheet here?
     
  3. seattlegal

    seattlegal Mercuræn Buddhist

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,635
    Likes Received:
    110
    Valid file extensions: bmp gif jpe jpeg jpg pdf png psd txt
     
  4. taijasi

    taijasi Gnōthi seauton

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    Likes Received:
    6
    You could screenshot it [PrintScreen] if it fits on the display, then edit it with Photochop or a program like Paint ... then use one of the aforementioned image formats (which I did about half hour ago) ...

    ... or Excel might let you export directly as one of those images.
     
  5. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    thanks, will work on it.
     
  6. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    See the attachment. It gives 74 books (including a lot you have probably never heard of); 5 Jewish (Samaritan, Esra-elwi, Karaite, Mosoretic, and Speptuagent) canons; Assyrian, Tewahedo, Coptic, Syrian, and Armenian Oriental Orthodox; Georgian, Slavic, and Greek Othodox; Catholic; and Protestant versions of each book.

    Yes means they are canon, no means they are not. Other comments should be pretty self explanatory.

    The whole object is to show just what the differences are within Judaism and Christianity by what we mean as "Scripture" or "Canon".

    For instance the Esra-elwi (Ethopian Jew) tradition has very few of the Books we others consider conanical, but the Chief Rabbinate declared them jews. Not so the Samaritans (who only have Torah, and a divergent one at that).

    Christian canon is even wilder. Look at the Assyrian (Edessan Chistian) books versus the Tewahedo (Ethiopean) and Armenian canon versus the Protestant (which was pretty much declared canon by one man, Martin Luther). Again, you will find wild divergences.

    So when we speak of scripture or canon, we must remember our brothers and sisters may have a very different idea within Judaism and Christianity.
     
  7. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Here are files
     

    Attached Files:

  8. wil

    wil UNeyeR1 Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2005
    Messages:
    21,880
    Likes Received:
    1,968
    How about the shuffling of the order?

    In our Christian bibles they rearranged the portion of the Jewish Cannon they accepted.
     
  9. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Okay, but I did it according to (as you guessed I used Tanakhic order, because it was the four schools of Judaism I was focusing on).
     
  10. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    Per wil's request I have put the books in the order of KJV and reversed the order of the groups (from Protestant to Samaritan).

    Do these work?
     

    Attached Files:

  11. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    What I am trying to show are the differences between what (say) a Karaite Jew and a Coptic Christian mean by "Scripture". I think that word is abused by the Protestants here, taken to mean exlusively the KJV or some derivative thereof.
     
  12. fadded blue jeans

    fadded blue jeans New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    the truth is
    Luther had nothing to do with the christian canon he only recognized as many others before him also did what was alreay canonized by Jesus
    through his profits and apostles .

    THERE IS A VAST DIFFERENCE IN SIMPLY RECOGNIZING CANON AND HAVING THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE CANON AS God DID..

    in fact if you read scripture clolsy like luther did you to will find where Jesus canonized many parts himself Not even using his profits and apostles to do so..

    Even i have been able to find IN THE NEW TESTAMENT where Jesus himself in scripture AFFIRMS THE canon OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

    How do we know that the New Testament books we have are indeed part of the canon, are written by those claimed to have written them, and are truly inspired?

    http://www.wels.net/what-we-believe/questions-answers/new-testament/new-testament-books
     
  13. fadded blue jeans

    fadded blue jeans New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
  14. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faded Jeans, that is highly manipulated information you've been given. Reevaluate. Martin Luther made himself into a king, and he nearly quenched the (already existing) spirit of reform which had been in motion for a long time before he was born. He took advantage of existing consternation to divide people. Modern Lutherans are much different from him, but don't cover up for him, please. He gave previously allied governments justification to make war. Unlike sincere reformers like John Wycliffe and the Lollards he made religious decisions into political life or death ones. He approved killing individuals simply for disagreeing with him. On his turf you accepted his Canon or you were scoffed at and disdained, persecuted, imprisoned, fined or killed. Not surprisingly, everyone capitulated to his definition of canon. Luther, Calvin and some others practically deified themselves; and its because of them that so many American Christians struggle to comprehend scripture whilst being drowned in an unworkable family of commentaries that deaden the conscience to the sufferings of others. I hope that this does not come across as praise for Martin Luther, because its not.
     
  15. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    I like your reply, dream. It does seem that every Christian Church seems to have somne really good justification for their version of canon and their version of what the text is. I kinda go with what my eyes can see and my brain can figure out. In the case of the OT this always gets me back closer to the Masoretic (thank G!d I can at least muddle through the Hebrew).
     
  16. fadded blue jeans

    fadded blue jeans New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0

    Like most Lutherans i would with out hesitation say- Luther NOT ONLY knew more about christianity than you or i ever will . Luther proved he was willing and ready to die for christianity . you or i really compared to him are just minor league wanna bees.

    instead of acting so foolish you and i both could learn from what God has shown Luther.
    :D

    Grace is given to heal the spiritually sick, not to decorate spiritual heroes. Martin Luther

    If any man ascribes anything of salvation, even the very least thing, to the free will of man, he knows nothing of grace, and he has not learned Jesus Christ rightly. Martin Luther
     
  17. Dream

    Dream New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2008
    Messages:
    3,677
    Likes Received:
    1
    I did not know you were a member of a Lutheran denomination. Sorry to be so heavy handed.
     
  18. fadded blue jeans

    fadded blue jeans New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thats ok-- I would like to point out one can be Lutheran in faith and not BE a member of a denomination OR Synod though.

    one also can be just A Lutheran in name only never beleiving the bible is to be the infallable inerrant pope over them.
     
  19. fadded blue jeans

    fadded blue jeans New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2011
    Messages:
    73
    Likes Received:
    0



    Eck castigated Luther for the ``black pope'' of ink on paper that Luther was proposing. `Give us a fine, a living pope!'' HE MEANT (POPE LEO X)


    LUTHERS POPE
    Hebrews 4:12
    For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
     
  20. radarmark

    radarmark Quaker-in-the-Making

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2011
    Messages:
    3,212
    Likes Received:
    2
    To get back on track, there are differences between what books of the Bible are canon, ranging from Karaites to Catholics (the former may be the most restrictive, the latter the most inclusive). Most Protestant groups use Luther's recommendations which are very close to the Masoretic (Orthodox Jewish) text.

    The point was (and is) that if we speak of "Old Testament Canon" (OTC) it varies from place to place and group to group. I personally prefer the Masoretic (have both Hebrew... not good at it but can struggle through it and English) because certain modern cultural misunderstandings (as I see them) are more easily de-bunked (see my discussion of samael, satan, and ha-satan on other threads).

    Is one version of the OTC truer than another? I do not claim to know but tend to like the Ethiopian (or at least they interest me the most). And of the plethora of divergent renderings of each book across the canon (there are differences even between the Karaite and Masoretic texts of Torah), I really do not know if any are true.

    But then, I am a physicist by education and a statistician (really Probability and Decision Theory wonk) by nature, so uncertainty is first nature to me. All that being said I do not believe that empirical truth of OTC or any particular book will ever be certain (hence "known"). But we flawed human minds can take a certain text and by applying logic and the scientific method and verify it in terms of the larger corpus or validate it to the world. By verify I mean "does this passage fit into the known book or this book fit into the known totality?" By that criteria Luther was pretty spot-on in going back to the Masoretic text. By validate I mean "does this passage or book fit in with what we empirically know?" By that criteria "mistakes" (like bats being birds or pi equalling one) can be identified and explained (not too bad a grouping--bats and birds fly and are warm-blooded and not too bad a guess for a nomadic folk).
     

Share This Page