Talk:Books of the Bible
|
|
Shouldn't this be re-directed to the entry on Biblical_canon, or vice-versa? Over the last year there has been an explosion of new entries all on the same subject! RK
- I agree with the above sentiment. The Biblical canon article seems to be the more compelling, and it also seems a bit empty without an actual list of Canons. I'm going to wait on doing anything about it though. If anyone has any compelling reason why this material should not be moved to Biblical_canon please say so. If there Are no objections within 24hours, I will move the list to the Biblical canon page, and redirect this page to that. Also adding Qoholeth as an alternate name to Ecclesiastes as that is used in the NJB translation. User:J.F.Quackenbush
- I think this article is just fine where it is. It is a very basic listing of the Books of the Bible with links to the books themselves, and should satisfy the needs of the many who don't want to get into any issues about canonicity. It should include the "Apocrypha" from the Catholic version of the Bible, but shouldn't need to go much beyond that. There are many places in Wikipedia where list and text pages are separated. Eclecticology 16:58 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)
I have taken the time to divide the Apocryphal/Deutrocanonial into four categories that was devised by the NRSV translatiors. They are:
A. Books in the RC, Gk and Slavic Bibles:
- Tob
- Jdt
- AddEsth
- Wis
- Sir
- Bar
- LetJer
- Azar
- Sus
- Bel
- 1Ma
- 2Ma
B. Books in the Gk and Slavic Bibles, but NOT in the RC Bible:
- 1Es
- 3Ma
- PraMan
- Psa151
C. Books in the Slavic Bible and the Latin Vulgate Appendix:
- 2Es
D. Books in the Gk Bible Appendix:
- 4Ma
This list of catagories makes crystal clear which books are in which churches bibles. The previous list was a bit too ambigious to me.
Reorganization
I have reorganized the list as to who's list is older. That is: Tanakh, a table listing a difference between the Prod/Cath OTs, the apocrypha, and the NT. -- iHoshie 08:35, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- The current list appears to have dropped the deuterocanonical books of the Septuagint not kept by the Roman Catholics but retained by the Orthodox that were listed as groups B., C., and D. above. I noticed when I tried to find 3rd and 4th Maccabees. Did they just get missed in the reorganization? Wesley 05:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- I just added an Orthodox column to the end, because that was easiest. It still has a couple of omissions, and one or two more footnotes wouldn't hurt. The Orthodox Bible has a Psalm 151, and a few more verses at the end of Job telling who he is and how he's related to Abraham, for instance. Wesley \
- To keep the columns ordered by age, I believe the Protestant column would come last; not sure how the Catholic and Orthodox columns would be sequenced, probably matters far less in that case. Wesley 16:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
WikiProject
Based on a suggestion in Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, I have started the skeleton of a WikiProject to try to cut down on the overlap between the various presentations of the canon. I think that a lot of people working here will want input on this. Feel free! Mpolo 13:24, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
Location Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekhiel
Why aren't the three books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekhiel in the Tanakh at the same level with the corresponding three books in the Christian Bibles in the table? Thanks. (Bronto)
Same question. Also, if the intention is to list the books in the order used in the holy book in question, shouldn't that be mentioned in the description? Aliter 16:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Ditto re: alignment. Portress 01:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)