Jews and Christians throughout the centuries have produced bibles that vary in content and organization. This chart is a sampling of the different bibles used today.
Protestant Reformers like Martin Luther doubted the canonicity* Canon: (kanōn; κανών) comes from the Greek word for “reed” or “rod,” used as a straight edge or ruler for measurement. In biblical studies, when we talk about a canon, we mean that list of books that a community considers both authoritative and inspired. Canonical books form the standard against which other writings, doctrines and practices are measured. of the Apocrypha*Apocrypha: Jerome, the translator of the early Latin Bible, maintained a distinction between those books he considered canonical and the non-canonical books that should be read for the edification of the church. With some modification, this list of edifying books is sometimes called the “Apocrypha.” Other theologians, such as the influential Augustine, did not maintain this distinction, and were more inclusive in their canon lists. , but when Luther prepared his translation of the Bible into German, he did not remove the Apocrypha; he simply moved those books to an appendix. This tradition continues in many European bibles.
The English were the first group of people to remove the Apocrypha altogether. In 1599, an edition of the Geneva Bible was published without the Apocrypha. In 1615, during the reign of King James the First, George Abbot, the Archbishop of Canterbury, declared the penalty for printing a Bible without the Apocrypha to be a year in prison! But over the next three centuries the growing influence of Puritans and Presbyterians over the populace, the government, and the British and Foreign Bible Society led to a strong tradition of printing bibles containing only 66 books.
The situation today reflects this bifurcation. The bibles used by many European Protestants, as well as the Anglican Church, still include the Apocrypha. Most other English-speaking Protestant churches have bibles without the Apocrypha.
via here.
Bob Burns at the Biblicalist group has released a spreadsheet or two as well.
The table as an XML spreadsheet:
http://www.summascriptura.com/files/apocrypha.xmlAs an MS Excel spreadsheet:
http://www.summascriptura.com/files/apocrypha.xlsAs an image file:
http://www.summascriptura.com/image/apocrypha.jpg
The above can act as a widget, but you will have to get the HTML code at that site. For those interested, I would have the canon to be similiar to that of pre-1546, with some understanding as to what should be considered inspired and others merely helpful. Also, I would have the Pslams of Solomon printed as an appendix.
#1 by M on December 25, 2008 – 12:39 pm
As a Greek Orthodox, I use a Septuagint OT. In my mind, apart from being inclusive, it has the great advantage of predating sectarian agendas.
#2 by M on December 25, 2008 – 7:39 am
As a Greek Orthodox, I use a Septuagint OT. In my mind, apart from being inclusive, it has the great advantage of predating sectarian agendas.
#3 by Polycarp on December 25, 2008 – 1:13 pm
M, since I have discovered the Septuagint, I have consistently used it as a comparison tool, but with the advent of the Orthodox Study Bible, the LXX has become my OT of choice.
#4 by Polycarp on December 25, 2008 – 8:13 am
M, since I have discovered the Septuagint, I have consistently used it as a comparison tool, but with the advent of the Orthodox Study Bible, the LXX has become my OT of choice.