Talk:Development of the New Testament canon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Religion Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B	This article has been rated as B on the Project's quality scale. See comments
	This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page.

	This article is supported by WikiProject Bible, an attempt to promote the creation, maintainance, and improvement of articles dealing with the Bible. Please participate by editing this article, or visit the project page for more details on the projects. Guidelines: Manual of Style - Naming conventions
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B	This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments The following comments were left by the assessors: (edit · refresh) This article obviously has an enourmous amound of information, which is great, but is not balanced, and is so long that it may appear daunting to a casual reader. If we summarize it down to 1/2 to 3/4ths its current size and/or maybe add a little more th the 'early christianity section, it may be moved to GA class. Rustyfence (talk) 23:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 CoE content removed 2 Marcion 3 Catholic point of view 4 Proto-Orthodoxy 5 To the new editor that has been contributing, (careful when running over each others edits)

[edit] CoE content removed

I think the CoE stuff was helpful. It explained the position and development of the canon within that denomination, and I would disagree that the info was off topic. It also seems to have been well sourced as well, and removing of sourced content bothers me. Maybe we could find another home for this info? or maybe we could restore it and cut down on the long quotes to make it more concise?-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Strike that entire comment. I see now it has been moved to the OT development page. Sorry. I think it's a little confusing to have 3 articles on such similar subjects. Maybe we don't need the "Christian" parent article, and we can just use biblical canon as the parent? Also, we should probably come up with a Development of the Tanahk or something to cover the "Old Testament" from a Jewish perspective, or rename Development of the Old Testament canon to Development of the Hebrew Bible canon and include both Christian and Jewish POV to avoid POV forking. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:55, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been struggling to figure out how best to organize and present this material. It's a difficult question and I am not 100% confident that I have got it right. In order to centralize discussion of these issues, I have responded to the points that you raise at Talk:Biblical canon. --Richard 14:49, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marcion

Why do you assume Marcion's canon was the one edited? It seems more likely to me that Marcion had the more original version and it is the current canon that was edited to fit the redactors point of view. 24.150.120.140 06:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic point of view

This article needs to be written from a neutral point of view. Text like "The Church's response to early Christian heresies" is obviously written from a Catholic point of view. — Omegatron 22:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Consider the statement: "The development of the New Testament canon was, like that of the Old Testament, a gradual process" -- this can not be known. It can be hypothesized, even "widely accepted." But this notion has also been argued against by bible scholars, e.g. David Trobisch. -- Geĸrίtz (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proto-Orthodoxy

What on earth is Proto-orthodox_Christianity and why is it referred to as a standard term? The article on it is not very helpful at all. 128.189.175.242 04:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To the new editor that has been contributing, (careful when running over each others edits)

This article sure is getting messy. The person adding content anonymously over the last month or so from 75.0.x.x and 75.14.x.x is adding useful information for the most part, with useful citations. However some of the formatting that has been done has ran over other editors contributions, and have made parts of the article nonsensical, such as

The Codex Claromontanus canon[53], c. 303-367[54], a page found inserted into a 6th century copy of the Epistles of Paul and Hebrews, has a 27-book OT plus Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, 1–2,4 Maccabees, and the 27-book NT plus 3rd Corinthians, Acts of Paul, Apocalypse of Peter, Barnabas, and Hermas, but missing Philippians, 1–2 Thessalonians, and Hebrews.

a 27 book OT? a 27 book NT but its missing Phil, 1-2 Thess. and Hebrews??

Please be careful when replacing phrases throughout the entire article, also consider reserving bold for titles of the article. You may also want to register a user name as you have been editing for quite some time now. Thanks for your contributions. Brando130 (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

These edits are correct. There is a 27-book OT list and scholars assume there was a 27-book NT list originally even though some books are missing. Bold type is used to emphasize significant terms, such as 27-book or disputed books. 75.14.213.77 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The manual of style has a section on boldface, found at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(text_formatting)#Boldface. Your use of bolding is not covered. Can you please explain why you feel those phrases need to be in bold. The MoS says to use italics, not boldface for emphasis. That said, I'm not even convinced these phrases need to be in italics. Please also go to the same MoS page I linked above and see the list of where to italic. Can you point out under what category your use of emphasis would fall under? Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, at this point I'll just concede. The number of books in a particular canon is highly significant, see The Canon Debate for details. Likewise the terms used by Eusebius to divide the canon are highly significant, see The Canon Debate for details. Best wishes. 75.14.213.77 (talk) 21:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)