Old Testament Canon

radarmark

radarmark

Quaker-in-the-Making
Messages
3,212
Reaction score
5
Points
0
Location
Yellow Springs Ohio USA
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Here are files
 

Attachments

  • Scripture1.pdf
    91.6 KB · Views: 501
  • Scripture2.pdf
    86.8 KB · Views: 478
  • Scripture3.pdf
    82.6 KB · Views: 523
  • Scripture4.pdf
    83.4 KB · Views: 411
How about the shuffling of the order?

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

Attachments

  • OTKJV1.pdf
    45.4 KB · Views: 382
  • OTKJV2.pdf
    40.9 KB · Views: 415
  • OTKJV3.pdf
    36 KB · Views: 476
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.
 
radarmark said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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).
 
Dream said:
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
I did not know you were a member of a Lutheran denomination. Sorry to be so heavy handed.
 
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.
 
fadded blue jeans said:
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.
Click to expand...




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.
 
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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top