Talk:Protocanonical books

Major Restructuring

I'm making a big change here; the once short article is starting to get jumbled. In particular I'm separating out the discussion on the enumeration from the discussion of the canon; they are separate issues but can easily be confused. To wit, when we talk about a 22 versus 24 book enumeration, we are not talking about two separate canons, one with two fewer books than the other, but two different enumerations of the same canon. Rwflammang 17:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent revisions

Not many of the recent changes to this article are accurate. It is simply false to say that use of the term protocanonical is restricted to Calvinists. Many non-calvinists also make distinctions between deuterocanonical and non-deuterocanonical, canonical works. Saying that the 39-book count is restricted to Protestant bibles is not true, most Catholic English bibles also split up the 12 minor prophets, count Ezra, Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles as two books, and so on, and so 39 protocanonical books are counted in those bibles as well.

Moving the 39-book enumeration to before the enumeration section leaves it dangling, its significance unclear.

Deleting the controversy section does not improve the article. The qualifier "almost" preceding "without controversy" begs for further explication, which has now been removed.

Is there any reason why I should not undo these changes? Rwflammang (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but let's consider the points one by one. They differ in nature.

1. Though an Episcopalian for 47 years, I do not remember references to protocanonical, though I do remember deuterocanonical. I admit I would not be surprised to hear that anabaptists use protocanonical also, though I don't know therefore didn't say. Can you say definitely how widely the term is used? I merely think that it is in the best interest of the article not to over-generalize, to be specific instead.
2. I did not write the text about the 39-book count; I moved it, except I changed "English" to "Protestant", thinking that the wider category was to be preferred. I confess I was thinking English "national", not English "language". How about "English-language bibles"?
3. Moving the list and enumeration sections: I disagree. It was the list that dangled before the move. The list makes specific and concrete the contents of the protocanon category the article addresses. The enumerations then expand the information already presented in the article by showing where the alternate counts come from and what they apply to, all of which are the less common, less widely applied uses today.
4. Deleting the controversy section: Again I disagree. First, the material is not controversial. Second, it is not relevant to defining protocanon. Instead, it belongs (if anywhere) to development of the original ancient canon (although what Marcion, as a heretic, did to advance that, I'm unsure). And in that context, the rest is not controversial either. It was simply part of the process the church went through before arriving at its canonical decisions. Evenssteven (talk) 02:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

My comments regarding each point

1. My own experience is that deuterocanonical and protocanonical are terms used primarily by Catholics, who make a three-fold distinction of deuterocanonical, protocanonical, and apocryphal. Protestants in my experience are more likely to stick with a two-fold distinction, canonical and apocryphal. But I will not say this in the article, since it would violate WP:OR. I think that saying more than we can possibly know about usage would be foolish and even off topic. We should discuss what the term means, which we do know, and not who uses it, which we don't know, or at least can't reference to a reliable source.
2. I like your idea of changing English to English-language. I had not previously realized that this usage was confusing.
3. In my opinion this is a rather minor point, and I won't belabor it. I can live with your change.
4. The protocanon is not controversial now, but it was controversial in the early church. I will be happy to rename the subsection if you think it is misleading. It is very relevant to this article, since the very term protocanon refers to the fact that these books were considered canonical very early on. We can't talk about how they were considered canonical in the early church while glossing over the fact that not all of them were considered canonical everywhere. If you want to omit the mention of Marcion, I'm okay with that, but the mention, e.g., of the discrepancies with the early Alexandrine canon has to stay.

Rwflammang (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Well, I am surprised by your experience, and admit I was not aware of "protocanon's" use in Catholicism. Let me explain my recent experience here on WP before getting back to you. I have recently seen in a couple of other WP articles some writing about doctrines believed by only certain groups or denominations (which while potentially POV can also be done in a manner that simply informs about the issues that separate the denominations). The problem is that the wording implied that the doctrines are accepted by a larger group than they are, and while that point had been made by others in talk pages, the article texts remained unchanged. When I changed them I was challenged and needed to overcome some resistance, but eventually the article texts were changed, I think by common consent. When I saw the text in this article, it appeared (from all my experiences) to fit into that pattern, so I was challenging it. Yours is the first reply I have encountered on WP that provides constructive evidence that my experience (and evidence) was incomplete. For that I say thanks, and accept your explanation, agreeing fully that "saying more than we can possibly know about usage would be foolish". That is essentially the point I have made elsewhere, that overreaching generality is one way to "say more". It's clear from what you say that "protocanonical" is not a term used to support such a generality, however, so lest the article say too much, I have reverted the changes I made to the lead paragraph and "New Testament" section. I have entered a few new (different type of) clarifications in that section, though.
2. Glad you liked that one. I've made that change also along with the reverts.
3. Ok. I hope I didn't stress my point about it too hard. I agree that it is rather minor.
4. "The protocanon is not controversial now, but it was controversial in the early church.": exactly. If Catholics have been using "protocanonical", then they will have applied it (as you said) to distinctions and controversies of ancient times, not only to the disagreements of the Reformation. My point is that those controversies stopped being controversies once the canon was settled in ancient times. Some Protestant groups do refer back to them, but often do so in reference to controversies that began during the Reformation. Those are different controversies, and the two must be carefully distinguished: one set was settled 1500 years ago, the other started 500 years ago and continues today. So for half of Christian history, there was no controversy over this at all, anywhere. I think that's a significant point of fact that is quite unknown to many general article readers, and it needs to be clear in order to put any of the controversies into perspective.

That much said, my criticism of the controversies section is not severe. I just thought those controversies belonged more in the realm of articles on canon development, rather than here in canon description. But if you'd like to put it back, I won't object. It just needs to be clear that the controversies discussed were settled in ancient times. I feel more strongly about omitting mention of Marcion, however. One whom the ancient Church considered a heretic had for that very reason no influence on the outcome of canonical decisions. Is it remarkable that one outside the church refused to accept the church's protocanon? Perhaps it's a side-issue of some historical interest, but it seems a marginal connection to this article, imo, so I would prefer that his mention be omitted (WP:UNDUE). Otherwise, I'll let you redraft the section, as it seems you have a clearer idea about its relevance than I do. Perhaps rename it "Ancient Controversies"? A final thought: is "controversy" the word that is really required (was it that intense?). The section material doesn't indicate. Would the word "disagreement" be ok, or is that not strong enough? I suspect you'd know that better than I do.

Evenssteven (talk) 08:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Protocanonical books. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070210102404/http://www.ibri.org:80/DVD-1/RRs/RR013/13jamnia.html to http://www.ibri.org/DVD-1/RRs/RR013/13jamnia.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:24, 16 January 2016 (UTC)