Talk:Development of the Old Testament canon

message: This article may have started from a crib of the EB 11 article, which was a gutting of the much more thorough EB 9 article:
* .
* .
There's obviously more modern scholarship, but there might be lines that were simply copied that should be attributed and the EB 9 article is a good source for the traditional views in the 19th century, based on the surviving textual resources. See also the EB 11's article on the Bible, which has detailed sections on the canon:
* .
 — LlywelynII 14:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for future article expansion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Development of the Old Testament canon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070809124209/http://www.orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/apocrypha.PDF to http://www.orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/apocrypha.PDF
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071110004750/http://www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928/articles/AnglicanTeaching/041.htm to http://www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928/articles/AnglicanTeaching/041.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Development of the Old Testament canon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wels.net/cgi-bin/site.pl?1518&cuTopic_topicID=22&cuItem_itemID=3656
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071110004750/http://www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928/articles/AnglicanTeaching/041.htm to http://www.episcopalian.org/pbs1928/articles/AnglicanTeaching/041.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Galllager and Meade - citing Bogaert - state "Bogaert has emphasized that when the ancient canon lists, whether Greek or Latin, mention two books of Esdras, they must have in mind the books known in the LXX and Old Latin as Esdras A and Esdras B; i.e. our 1 Esdras and Ezra-Nehemiah."  Somehow this article has been re-edited to reflect the formerly dominant critical opinion that separate books of Ezra and Nehemiah are intended in such references; in spite of there being no material evidence for such a division, either in the plentiful surviving manuscript witnesses before the 9th century or in patristic citations.   Or does anyone know of recent scholarship that challenges Bogaert's finding?  TomHennell (talk) 01:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two books of Ezra. 

message: the Book of Baruch has always been considered canonical in the East; but in the West is never specified separately as canonical in early canon lists; its text being consistently cited as being from the Book of Jeremiah.  Jerome, however, specifically excludes it from Jeremiah - and does not otherwise include it separately in the Vulgate - and consequently Baruch appears to have ceased to be considered as canonical by authorities in the West after the 5th centuries, only to regain canonical status in late medieval discussions.  I have lifted the section on canonicity from the Book of Baruch article; but it no doubt needs some trimming.  TomHennell (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  book of Baruch 

message: I've never heard this anywhere else, and it's not mentioned in the article cited.
In compiling his index of the Old Testament, Luther drew from the 24 books of the Hebrew Bible, which was still an open canon as late as 200 and probably even after the Catholic canon was set in 382. [9] 2603:6010:8100:F602:E909:3DA8:E747:C77B (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing of the Jewish canon