Talk:Bible

Archives:

• Talk:Bible/Archive

Contents

1 Caption for photo at top? 2 bibleserver.com 3 Christian Bible 4 Opinion poll --> Bible vs Christian Bible 4.1 Bible 4.2 Christian Bible only in article about other religions 4.3 Christian Bible once, Bible thereafter 4.4 Christian Bible 4.5 Various Christian texts 5 Cannot change categories in existing poll 6 Distribution of the Bible 7 Whether you want to believe it or not, the books of the Bible are a product of a pre-scientific people in the ancient world. Really! 8 What's the Bible? 9 This article is a mess! 10 Reworded passage about history of canon 11 Massoretic? Masoretic? 12 The close of the Hebrew Canon -- Explaining my change 13 explaining my revert 14 No Link for Hebrew

Caption for photo at top?

Shouldn't there be a caption for the photo at the top? Palefire 18:59, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

bibleserver.com

An anon recently add this site. This site response time is slow and seems to be duplicative of other resources already listed. On the good side I didn't see any ads and they claim to have advanced features for registering. However, I think it should be removed. User:Trödel/sig 14:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Christian Bible

A glance at the edit history confirms that User:Jcbos wants to delete reference to a Christian Bible, as this is a pleonasm. After all, the Bibles of all other people are actually called differently (e.g. the Hebrew Bible is called Tanakh).

User:Jayjg, User:SlimVirgin and myself contend that as these books are still called Bible (especially Tanakh), it would be POV to maintain that the word Bible without modifiers is to be taken as the Christian version.

Jcbos and I have agreed to solicit community opinion through WP:RFC. Your comments, please. JFW | T@lk 06:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The definition in dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bible) gives the definition as:

1. The sacred book of Christianity, a collection of ancient writings including the books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
2. The Hebrew Scriptures, the sacred book of Judaism.
3. A particular copy of a Bible: the old family Bible.
4. A book or collection of writings constituting the sacred text of a religion.

The usage for sacred scriptures for religions other than Christianity is also given in Merriam Webster Online (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=bible&x=10&y=16), yourdictionary.com (http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/b/b0228100.html), and Cambridge Dictionary Online (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=7268&dict=CALD). I think this shows that use of Bible to reflect religious books other than the Christian Bible is recognised in English (and in my own opinion widespread), so to limit the meaning would be non-NPOV, and in some contexts lead to confusion. -- Chris Q 07:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems awkward to use Christian Bible throughout the article, at least when I read through a version with that wording. Could a compromise be to explain the different uses of the term bible, with links to the appropriate articles, and conclude with "Bible as used in this rest of this article means Christian Bible" User:Trödel/sig 15:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes this seems sensible. I would also put it explicitly where the main subject of a section is some other religious text, as in the Reincarnation#Judaism_and_kabbalah entry that started this off. -- Chris Q 15:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A solution might be to use 'Christian Bible' in articles about other religions like Islam and Hinduism and in the introduction of the Bible-article, as suggested by Trödel and use 'Bible' in christianity-related articles and in articles the have no relations with a specific religion. Would that be an idea? Jcbos 15:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the suggested use of 'Christian Bible' in articles about other religions, and 'Bible' in christianity-related articles. I think that the other uses of Bible are so prevalent in English that "Christian Bible" should be used (at least the first time) in articles the have no relations with a specific religion, especially where the specific section of an article is discussing a non-Christian religion. -- Chris Q 16:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What to do in article like Kongo language? In this article religion doesn't play a roll, and the use of just 'Bible' wouldn't lead to misunderstanding. Anyway, we are coming to consensus now. When most people like this solution, I can make a list of articles with 'Christian Bible'(using google) and we can split it in a list of articles where 'Christian' can be omited, a list of articles where we keep 'Christian' and a list of articles where more work is needed (the Bible article and maybe some others). Jcbos 16:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity I would use "Christian Bible" where there is any doubt, as it is better to have an unnecessary qualifier than possible confusion. For Kongo language, I would tend to leave "Christian" in, as some people might have cultural assumptions about the area that could lead to misunderstanding. For example, if "Bible" were used in the "Hebrew Language" or "Arabic Language" section, I would think that clarification would be essential. I know little about the Kongo, so I probably would assume Bible to mean "Christian Bible" without qualification, but I couldn't say for certain that other people would make the same assumption. -- Chris Q 16:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, then we might better keep 'Christian' in the Kongo language article and place a note at the talkpage, waiting for someone who knows more about it to change it or not. Jcbos 16:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Christian" Bible serves as a good disambiguation in almost all articles; the additional word is hardly a burden in any way, and the commonly used modifier helps clarify any article. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem goes farther than that, though. User:Jcbos wants to remove the phrase "Christian Bible" from all articles on Wikipedia, as his edit history shows, insisting that it is a pleonasm. Other editors have pointed out that the phrase is actually quite common in English (262,000 Google hits, for example), and that it is often used as a disambiguation precisely because the specific Bible being referred to is not clear. Rather than just discuss the usage in this particular article, I'd like to get a feel for how people feel about the problem in general. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We discussed this cause at the Dutch wikipedia and we came to a consensus as follows:

Only one Bible exists. Jews have the 'tenach', Musulmans have the 'Quran', Christians have the 'Bible'.

'Hebrew Bible' has sometimes been used to indicate the Hebrew part of the Bible. This term does not mean that the 'Hebrwe Bible' is a Bible itself.

Whilst the Dutch usage is interesting, it does not really affect the usage on the English Wikipedia. The fact that English does use it in other ways, as shown by the dictionary definitions, means that it should be clarified where necessary. -- Chris Q 15:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Remark that user Jayjg last night changed the definition of Bible in the Bible-article to help him win this discussion. Jcbos 15:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a pointless discussion. There are definitely cases where Christian Bible is appropriate. Bible is a seriously overused word these days (Home Decorators Bible, Pet Care Bible etc.). We cannot assume that everyone will always know what Bible means. Let's at the very least use Christian Bible if there is any doubt about what we mean, and Bible when there is no danger of misunderstanding. DJ Clayworth 15:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My two cents worth use: I agree with Chris Q. One should use "Christian Bible" once in the article and throughout the rest of the article one can use just the word "Bible". bible needs to be disambiguated. In linking one can do this, [[Christian Bible|bible]] . and it will show up just [bible] in blue.WHEELER 17:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In case it helps, the Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to the Christian Bible or Jewish Bible throughout. Below is from the introduction to their article on Bible:

the sacred scriptures of Judaism and Christianity. The Christian Bible consists of the Old Testament and the New Testament . . . The Jewish Bible includes only the books known to Christians as the Old Testament. The arrangements of the Jewish and Christian canons differ considerably. The Protestant and Roman Catholic arrangements more nearly match one another.

SlimVirgin 17:29, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph does need some clarification as to which Bible is being spoken about. The article begins with a sentence about all Bibles and then moves without transition into talking about the Christian Bible. At the very least, a clarification is needed after the first sentence, declaring that although the word "Bible" can describe multiple texts, this particular article is only talking about the Christian bible starting with the third (or second?) sentence. For that matter which is the second sentence ( "These scriptures are groups of what were originally separate books, written over a long period of history, but sharing the same overall God-view.") talking about? the Christian bible, or all bibles? Charles 19:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your posts so we can follow your comments. Although I respect those who are suggesting a compromise position (calling it the Christian or Hebrew Bible at the beginning, and then using the term "Bible" thereafter, I do not think this is a good idea. There are many religious people who believe that their Bible is the only Bible. I believe that both our NPOV policy and the need for clarity and precision means we should consistently use "Christian Bible" or "Hebrew Bible" as the case may be. I do not see how using the term "Christian Bible" consistenly is "redundant" -- if this were the case, then in any article where the term "the White House" appears, we would have to change it so that after the first instance of "White House," all other references to this building/office should be changed to just "House." Although "White House" is two words, together they constitute a single semantic term. Ditto for the Christian Bible. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I very much disagree. Within context, both groups use just Bible - no one ever just says the House. if they did they most likely mean the House of Representatives not the White House (in the context of politics). In many articles it is clear that one is refering to the Christian Bible or the Hebrew Bible, thus NPOV (use of Christian Bible and Hebrew Bible througout an article on Christianity or Judaism would not be the proper use of sympathetic tone) suggest in my mind to clarify in the first instance (the one with the wikilink) and then use Bible throughout the article. If there is confusion - such as compare and contrasting viewpoints then obviously you have to be clear to use Christian Bible or Hebrew Bible. I have never heard the term Christian Bible or Hebrew Bible in a conversation only bible - the meaning was easy to discern from context. We should do the same. User:Trödel/sig 18:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

But I have heard both terms used many times in conversation. And as I point out, the phrases themselves are common as well; for example, "Christian Bible" gets 262,000 Google hits, typically in contexts where no other Bible is being mentioned. "Jewish Bible" gets almost 100,000 hits, and "Hebrew Bible" over 300,000. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Google is not a good indicator - Bible without jewish, hebrew or christian gets 23,100,000 hits (http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&q=bible+-%22christian+bible%22+-%22jewish+bible%22+-%22hebrew+bible%22&btnG=Search), If we were to take Google as the arbiter of NPOV, the term by itself is much more frequently used. And judging from the first 200 hits which I just scanned - nearly always means the Christian Bible not the Hebrew Bible. This, obviously, is not acceptable here. Additionally, the term "Christian Bible" in the search you point to above was most often used as an adjective to modify college or study in the sense of "christian Bible study" "Christian Bible College" - out of the first 20 hits there was 5 that actually referred to the "Christian Bible". I stand by my contention that it can be clear out of the context - but that we should make sure the first reference references the correct book - the "Christian Bible" or "Hebrew Bible". User:Trödel/sig 19:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, but your search includes all sorts of other "qualified" Bibles, including "Greek Bible (New Testament)", "Poisonwood Bible (novel)", "JavaScript Bible", "XML Bible", etc. It even produces links in which "Bible" is used to signify the Torah [1] (http://skepdic.com/bibcode.html). The qualifiers are clearly needed in many cases. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What I still don't understand is why in the context of a Christian or Jewish article, you oppose the shortened term. Google can tell us nothing in this area - other than both terms are used very frequently. User:Trödel/sig 22:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You assume that a reader of a Christian or Jewish article will know which Bible is meant; but, in fact, they may be ignorant of the faith, and have no idea. Alterinatively, a Christian reader may easily assume that the "Bible" referred to in a Jewish article is the Christian Bible, and vice versa. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see where the cognative dissonance is, I do not support only the term bible, but after a suitable explanation on first use, additional use could be just Bible. I.e. a disambugation type explanation as part of the intro on this page. Similarly on other articles use "the Hebrew Bible (see Bible for other uses of Bible) and then use just Bible throughout the rest of the article. If the context does not indicate one or the other, then use the adjective to describe which Bible is meant. User:Trödel/sig 23:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Hebrew Bible" can mean the Bible read in Judaism, the Christian Old Testament, the Hebrew text of the Christian Old Testament, or even a Hebrew translation of the Christian bible. Shimmin 19:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

The qualified terms are useful where the potential for confusion may exist. However, in contexts where this potential does not reasonably exist, for example in articles about particular topics in Christian / Jewish thought, the additional qualifier is unnecessary. And since the Christian and Jewish bibles share much of their material, although different sects often prefer different translations thereof, there are circumstances where adding a qualifier adds POV where none existed before: it is NPOV to call Abraham a Biblical figure. It adds POV to limit him to appearing in only one Bible. Shimmin 19:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

Agree User:Trödel/sig 19:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think your example of Abraham as a Biblical figure is a good one (but isn't he a figure in the Koran too?) -- anyway, in this example I would not object to using "Biblical" without qualification. However, I strongly disagree with your claim that ""Hebrew Bible" can mean the Bible read in Judaism, the Christian Old Testament, the Hebrew text of the Christian Old Testament, or even a Hebrew translation of the Christian bible." You say "can be;" does this mean you are just speculating? I think we should avoid relying on our own imagination, and stick to the facts. In fact, I have never heard anyone use "Hebrew Bible" to refer to the OT (whether in English or in Hebrew) or to the Hebrew translation of the Christian Bible. Every time I have heard and read "Hebrew Bible," it was as an English translation of Tanach. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The use of "Hebrew Bible" depends on the context. Every time at the university when someone spoke about "Hebrew Bible" it was clear that they meant the Hebrew Old Testament, but one of my friend has a "Hebrew Bible", that's to say the complete Bible in Hebrew. Apart from Wikipedia I've never heard anyone calling the Tenach "Bible". Jcbos 21:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Clearly the experience of native English speakers is different. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At least Shimmin and Trödel have the same experiences, so what's your point, apart from stalking me? Jcbos 23:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are they native English speakers? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, but native or non-native can't be an argument in this discussion. Jcbos 23:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course it can, if we're talking about how English speakers use and understand the word. Jayjg ^(talk) 00:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

EN.wikipedia is for everyone, native or non-native. But what would a native speaker call a complete Bible in the Hebrew language, according to you? Jcbos 00:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In this case I would say "A copy of the Christian Bible in the Hebrew language". It is an unusual enough occurrence to warrant being completely specific and unambiguous. -- Chris Q 10:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

EN.Wikipedia is for everyone, but its English usage policies reflect common English usage. What do you mean by a "complete Bible"? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By "complete Bible in the Hebrew language" I mean: a Hebrew Old Testament and a Hebrew translating of the New Testament. I added "complete", because "Hebrew Bible" is used to indicate the Hebrew part of the Bible as well. Jcbos 19:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I see. Jews, Protestants, Catholics, etc. all consider their Bibles to be "complete", yet they all have different contents. In that case, I would call it a "Hebrew translation of the Christian Bible". Jayjg ^(talk) 19:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And what would you call it, apart from Wikipedia, when it's at your bookshelf? Jcbos 12:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• As I understand it, the primary point of discussion at this point is whether to include the disambiguation once at the top, or throughout the article, rather than whether to disambiguate at all. It's a good thing, I think, that we've largely agreed that some disambiguation is necessary, as my life experiences have made it quite clear that the use of the term "Bible" is not exclusively tied to the book that's the foundation of Christianity. As for the first (finer) point, I personally don't see it as being necessarily POV to prefer one usage over the other. Given that each community is also accustomed to simply calling their work "the bible", it does seem to be an unusual reminder for each community, looking on wikipedia, that other bibles exist. On the other hand, we're not really aiming to provide a "home" for communities here, so I'm not sure if that should bear any weight. I don't really have strong feelings on the two styles of disambig. --Improv 19:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly User:Trödel/sig 22:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is POV to prefer one useage over another, as each usage reflects the views of a different community. We should not prefer any one usage, but acknowledge each of them, and use each one appropriately and consistently. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, could people please refrain from calling it "the Hebrew Old Testament," which is POV and offensive to Jews? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the problem? What do I have to call my Old Testament in Hebrew to be NPOV, according to you? Jcbos 20:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You say, "Here is my Hebrew translation of the Old Testament." This is still quite different from "the Hebrew Bible." My objection was only to the possibility that you were combining the two. If I misunderstood, I apologize, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Hebrew tekst of the Old Testament is not a translation. It's the original. I've been thinking about a very neutral name. "Masoretic text", is that neutral? The disadvantage of "masoretic text" is however that most people will not understand that name. At the university we mostly call it: "BHS", which means: "Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia", this is the official name of the edition that we use at the university. Jcbos 21:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Masoretic Text is a technical designation which doesn't mean quite the same thing, and which in any event is not commonly known. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The "original" text of the Tanach is no longer extant; the oldest complete copy of the Masoretic Text we still have is I believe dated to around the 8th or 10th century, although we also have older fragments. I personally object to calling the Christian Old Testament the Hebrew Bible, as the Old Testament first widely used by Christians was not in Hebrew but Greek, namely the Septuagint. The Orthodox Church continues to name the Septuagint as its Old Testament, and favors translations based on it rather than the Masoretic Text. For this reason it makes the most sense to use "Hebrew Bible" when talking about a Bible in the Hebrew language, which I would assume to be the Tanach unless specified otherwise. Say "Old Testament" or "Christian Bible" or "New Testament" or "Tanach" if referring to those texts. See the related discussion at the Hebrew Bible article. Wesley 06:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no one christian bible. The RC bible contains some different books(Book of Judith) to the Anglican. The RC bible is also derived from different ancient sources to the anglican one. also there are gorunp such as the mormons etc who have different books + the appocrapha(sp}. Using the term christian bible will lead people to beleiving christians are far more unified than they are. Not sure how much the other bibles vary.--Jirate 23:51, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

These variations are shown and described in Books of the Bible. That's a different problem than what we're discussing here. Wesley 03:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No it isn't what you are doing here is trying to produce pro christian PR, by trying to present the various textx as being the same when they are not. I think everyone talking here should declare there religious affliations and the strength with which they hold them. It'll clearly demonstrate the POV nature of the debate/vote here.--Jirate 13:54, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Certainly in articles about other religions, if the Christian Bible is specifically meant we should say "Christian Bible". In some contexts it is irrelevant: Moses, or Esther, are "biblical figures" regardless of which Bible we mean. It's all going to depend on context, though, and I think it would be ridiculous to say we always say "Christian Bible": it would seem ridiculously redundant to say that "Billy Graham did a reading from the Christian Bible." None of the choices in the poll seem to accommodate my view. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:58, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Opinion poll --> Bible vs Christian Bible

Now is the time to make an inventory of the opinions, please place your vote. Arguments pro and contra can be found above. Jcbos 21:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC).

One of the alternatives discussed extensively above, is missing from the list to vote for. It is actually getting support below by added comments. Therefore I have added it as an alternative and request the earlier voters to move their vote if they wish.

The polling process has halted already several days ago. However, i do believe this poll should remain open, for another one hour and 23 minutes or so. By that time a full week has passed since the poll was opened by Jcbos 21:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC). Gebruiker:Dedalus 20:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

After closing of the poll the outcome is counted as {1, 0, 3, 12, 1} favoring the option 'Refering to the book of Christianity we should use "Christian Bible"' with an 2/3 qualified majority, to the effect that the article New Testament should keep the word 'Christian' right before the word 'Bible' in the first sentence of that article. I would like to call the assistance of adminastrators or sysops to confirm the outcome of this poll and act accordingly. Happy Eastern. Gebruiker:Dedalus 07:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bible

Refering to the book of Christianity we should use "Bible".

1. Jcbos 21:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Christian Bible only in article about other religions

Refering to the book of Christianity we should use "Christian Bible" in articles that handle mainly about another religion, e.g. Islam. In all other articles we should use "Bible".

1. ...

Christian Bible once, Bible thereafter

Refering to the book of Christianity we should use "Christian Bible" at least once per article for disambiguation, "Bible" thereafter.

1. Woodstone 13:56, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC) Having "Christian Bible" throughout would feel unnatural, but a disambiguation at the beginning is useful.
2. Omegatron But it's ok to abbreviate to "Bible" as long as it's painfully clear from context or has been disambiguated recently in the article. - 00:07, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
3. Smoddy (_t^g_e^c) 23:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) Seems logical to me. Let's not overcomplicate matters.

Christian Bible

Refering to the book of Christianity we should use "Christian Bible"

1. Improv With the note that when disambiguated once in an article, it's acceptable to later refer to it by the non-disambiguated term.
2. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
3. Wesley 03:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) Agree with Improv that after disambiguating once, it can be referred to simply as "Bible." Also when referring to books or figures found in both the Tanach and Christian Bible, references should note the book, story, person etc. is found in both.
4. JFW | T@lk 06:34, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) Johan, I thought we'd achieved consensus after a request for comment. I suggest you stop wasting everyone's time. As there are numerous combinations of Biblical books known as the "Bible", it should be disambiguated every time, apart from in paragraphs dealing specifically with the Christian Bible, in which the first instance should be disambiguated and the rest can stay as it is.
   1. This poll is meant to close the discussion, not to start a new one. Jcbos 12:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
5. Chris Q 07:35, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) It never harms to be unambiguous.
6. In the article New Testament the first sentence is "The New Testament, sometimes called the Greek Testament or Greek Scriptures is the name given to the part of the Christian Bible that was written after the birth of Jesus." and that should remain so. The New Testament is definitely not part of the Tanakh. Tanakh being a Hebrew word, it's proper equivalent in englisch is Hebrew Bible. In the article on Hebrew Bible the use of term is explained as follows. "Its use is favored by most academic Biblical scholars as a bias-free term that is preferred to both Tanakh and Old Testament when discussing the text in academic writing. See e.g. section 4.3 of the Style Manual for the Society of Biblical Literature." A Wikipedia article should not assume anything on the part of the reader. Omitting "Christian" before "Bible" in the first sentence of the article New Testament would presume the reader to be knowing the New Testament to be Christian. I am happy to see the direction of casting the ballots in the direction of remaining Christian before Bible in the proper places. Gebruiker:Dedalus 09:14, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
7. A good proposal. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
8. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
9. This would be an encyclopedic thing to do. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
10. Etimbo | Talk 12:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
11. In the original Greek, the word that has come to us in English as "Bible" referred to the Jewish Bible. (Hebrew Bible is a misnomer, and I would like to see it removed from the article: it is the Jewish Bible. As parts of it are written in Aramaic, calling it the Hebrew Bible is inaccurate and Christian missionaries who have translated their "New Testament" into Hebrew call their Christian Bible in Hebrew, the Hebrew Christian Bible, not because it's meant for "Hebrew Christians", one of their misnomers for Jews who have converted to Christianity, but because it is in Hebrew...all of which potentially muddies the issue even more, especially if things are not made clear from the outset. I can only conclude, from the above discussion, that the attempts to eliminate the word "Christian" when the reference is to the Christian Bible are the result of a belief, on the part of some contributors, that everyone who speaks English (or learns it as a second language), exists within the same social and religious context, which is neither accurate nor NPOV. This is not the place for writing jargonned articles, so I vote to retain the word "Christian" when necessary to clarify that the reference is to the Christian Bible, just as I would vote to retain the word "Jewish" when necessary to clarify that the reference is to the Jewish Bible. TShilo12 22:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
12. SlimVirgin 20:34, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Various Christian texts

The term bible should not be used as it has several meanings, instead the phrase christian texts should be used.

1. --Jirate 15:04, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Cannot change categories in existing poll

Woodstone, you cannot "split" a category and put user in different categories nbased on comments - they may have voted differently given the options. In particular JFW could be putb in either group -- Chris Q 11:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Jcbos - it is not reasoable. Gebruiker:Dedalus or Jfdwolff do not explicitly say "in the first occurance", so could be put in either category. "Omegatron" also says RECENTLY in the aticle. The only way to do it is to add the new category and let people move their votes if they wish. -- Chris Q 12:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Trying to redefine peoples' votes after they have already made them is unsavory at best; if you want people to move their votes around, ask them to do it themselves. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You could put them back together into "Christian Bible" and somehow highlight the ones that say "but only for disambiguation" like me instead. - Omegatron 22:29, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

So are we ready to move on? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Distribution of the Bible

"It is estimated that approximately 60 million copies of the entire Bible or significant portions are distributed."

1. Shouldn't that read "have been distributed" and 2. 60 million? That ain't much when we're talking about the Bible. Somebody that cares about this issue want to update that? SchmuckyTheCat 19:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's probably more than that in the US alone. Most families, even only vaguely religious ones have a copy of the Bible, and devout Christians usually have several. DJ Clayworth 15:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whether you want to believe it or not, the books of the Bible are a product of a pre-scientific people in the ancient world. Really!

Read: Galens-On Jews and Christians in its ENTIRETY; NOT just the SELECTIVE passages on early Christian writings, for a view from a contemporary ancient physician. Charlie 11 Apr 2005

Obviously. What's your point? - Omegatron 18:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ditto Tomer ^TALK 19:56, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "Charlie's" edits really rise to "vandalism". I would say that inserting his "pre-scientific" statement is not relevant to the article, and should be removed. It certainly has no place in the opening paragraph. That it can be argued to be "factual" does not mean that it must be included anywhere in an article--and certainly not in the opening paragraph.

Perhaps Charlie would be able to contribute to The supernatural in monotheistic religions, where such a concept is more appropriate.

-Rholton 19:15, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I deleted it because, as I said on this anonymous user's talk page, it adds absolutely nothing of worth to the article. Tomer

TALK 19:56, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

It adds proper perspective. The psychological mind set of the ancient pre-scientific authors is not something to be overlooked. It is very important. To support "It adds absolutely nothing of worth to the article"; or just because it is factual does not mean it should be included here. That is psychological and historical dishonesty. That's hiding things. That is propaganda. There is nothing wrong with being an ancient pre-scientific person. It should be included right at the beginning of the Bible article. 11 Apr 2005 Charlie

I find nothing convincing in your argument. Until you can show what "pre-scientific" means, and define exactly what "an ancient pre-scientific person" is, and how there's any relevance to such a description, which, as far as I can determine, you invented, I will resist including such verbiage in this article. To call not including it "propaganda" indicates that you feel the article is POV without its inclusion. So I ask, "how so?" Tomer ^TALK 03:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Agree. We could arguably add "pre scientific" to the articles on Shakespeare, Chaucer, Homer and probably half of Wikipedia but it would not add any value. -- Chris Q 06:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. - Omegatron 13:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

See: Lynn Thorndike's classic study The History of Magic and Experimental Science and Andrew D. White's classic work History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom I'm outta here. 12 Apr 2005 Charlie

Why don't you tell us what they have to say that is relevant instead? - Omegatron 13:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

There are many factual statements that can be made, but which should not be included in the opening paragraph of the article, or even in the main article itself. For example, "all of the authors of the New Testament were male" is a statement of fact (at least I've not heard any claim to the contrary). It is a fact that "is not to be overlooked" in some contexts. However, to include it in the main article is to bring a particular agenda to that main article. To decide to place that sort of discussion in an article on Sexism in the Bible or Biblical hermeneutics (or some such) is not "psychological and historical dishonesty" or "hiding information". It's organizing information and maintaining NPOV.

For what it's worth, I agree that the "psychological mind set" of the Biblical authors is important, perhaps even vital to a full understanding of what is written. Please lend your expertise to help create an appropriate NPOV article on that topic. However, don't assume that your particular area of interest/expertise must be inserted into articles which do not deal directly with that topic. It would be impractical, and just plain bad editing, to put everything that has to do with the Bible in one article.

Rholton 13:53, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

What's the Bible?

Here's what I say when someone asks me what is the Bible. The Bible is a collection of books written by pre-scientific people in the ancient world. When we read them we interprete, from the present, the ancient world as seen through their eyes. At best, we can only imagine their world. It is wise to be cautious. 13 April 2005 Charlie

Point taken, but hardly of relevance to the article huh? JFW | T@lk 21:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article is about the Bible. Not everyone I've met knows what the Bible is, or where it came from. The "Bible" article's opening lines ommit this. I found it lacking in definition. From what I understand the information in the Wikipedia is global and its audience is ageless. This is what I would say to my grand daughter, if she ever asks me about it. I don't think she'll have too much trouble with "pre-scientific people". Young chidren are very smart. They learn about science very early. Thanks for caring enough to share. 13 Apr 05 Charlie

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. You don't even need to log in, although there are several reasons why you might want to. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. JFW | T@lk 00:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is a mess!

Whatever your perspective, this page is a mess. Duplications, factual errors and irrelevancies beyond number. I've tried to sort out the first 2 or 3 sections - I hope others find this an improvement.--Doc Glasgow 22:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I have thought of it as a "disaster" ever since I began editing here in earnest...but I haven't had time to improve this article specifically—there are so many others that require attention...:-p Tomer ^TALK 06:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Reworded passage about history of canon

I dropped a bit of the history from the What parts of the Bible are canon? section.

Here is the part I cut:

St. Jerome, who created the Vulgate translation of the Christian Bible, recommended that of the Old Testament only the original Jewish canon be regarded as authoritative, and called the ones added by western Christians Apocrypha. This distinction was largely ignored until the 16th century when the churches who were part of the Reformation (Protestants and Anabaptists) took as definitive St. Jerome's definition. The Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in 1546 declared that seven books of the Apocryphal writings should also be canon. The Eastern Orthodox Church includes those seven plus a few others in its canon, but has never taken a formal decision on this matter as of yet.

My reasons:

1. There is already a much longer article on the history of the canon that this section points to.

2. The part I cut violates NPOV and is historically inaccurate. Jerome made no "definition" (which is a theological term for a definitive statement, as opposed to a comment in a personal letter). When the Bishop of Rome and the Council of Carthage chose the longer canon, Jerome did not object. It is speculation -- even though reasonable speculation -- to say that Jerome still preferred the shorter canon after this point in time. There is no historical evidence that the Reformers revised the canon because of Jerome's views, and given the Reformer's rejection of Jerome's views on the sacraments and Mary, and the Anabaptist's disdain for all non-Biblical sources, this is very unlikely. Finally, the passage above seems to imply that Jerome invented the name "appocrypha" for these books, which is false. This material could be clarified and expanded into an accurate passage, but since there are long articles about this already, this is not necessary.

Lawrence King 08:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason that a correct concise version of this can't be included. At the very least a link to the word apocrapha should be included. My most concise version.

St. Jerome, who created the Vulgate translation of the Christian Bible, did not object to the use of the original Jewish canon as the Old Testament. At the Council of Trent in 1546, the Roman Catholic Church declared that seven additional books also be canon. The Eastern Orthodox Church includes those seven plus a few others in its canon. Some churches call these writings Apocrypha.

I think this resolves your POV issues and still includes links to relevent issues: council of trent, apocrypha and clarifies that RC church ads different numbers than eastern orthodox. User:Trödel/sig 12:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

it is best left as it is. Trent just repeated earlier councils. Jeromes Vulgate was a complete Bible. Just say they are different. Neither Jerome nor Trent need be mentioned. --ClemMcGann 20:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Clem here. But Trödel does have a point that some mention of Apocrypha and different versions could be useful. What about an addition such as the following?

.... The Christian canons diverged from the Jewish canon and developed as an extension to that canon. Since the end of the 4th century, all Christian churches have agreed on the 27-book canon of the New Testament, but disagreements on the canon of the Old Testament divide the Christian churches. Protestants use an Old Testament consisting of 39 books; Roman Catholics use an Old Testament that includes 46 books; many Eastern churches use still larger versions of the Old Testament. Protestants use the term Apocrypha for those Old Testament books accepted only by non-Protestant Christians. For full details, see Books of the Bible. For a history of the canon, see Biblical Canon.

This moves the three "See Also" links into the main text. Does this seem right to the two of you? Lawrence King 23:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

To my eyes, those words seem suitable. We will never get a formula of words with which all agree. Therefore, it is, difficult to find a suitable paragraph. However that paragraph would suit.

Some reformed churches, such as Anglican and German Lutheran do use the longer cannon. Perhaps “Protestants” should be changed to “most Protestants”? Remember the 1611 KJAV did include the Apocrypha and the preface “The Translators to the Reader” claims that they were the scriptures used by the Apostles.

Different topic: Perhaps the article should have something on the different order of books. The KJAV and its successors have the Apocrypha in a separate section. (In obedience to Ezra), while Catholic Bibles integrate these books?

Again, I agree with your wording. --ClemMcGann 23:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I like this wording as well. It is concise without being confusing. I agree that "many protestants" or "most protestants" would be better than "Protestants" since that implies "All protestants". It also places the see also links in context of what they describe. User:Trödel/sig 01:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I submitted this wording. I used "most", since I the Lutherans include the apocrypha as extra books without considering them actually canon. Anglicans are indecisive about the canon, but they're also indecisive about whether they consider themselves Protestants.... *grin*

Regarding the order of the books: I would think this belongs in Books of the Bible, but oddly it's not there at present. If you put it here, or there, it's up to you. (Wikipedia's limit on page length annoys me; in a real encyclopedia "Books of the Bible" would not be a separate article, IMO.) Lawrence King 07:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not a hard limit these days, it's more of a common-sense suggestion. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

re the oder of books, I have added it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible

perhaps we should pay more attention to the project, as it may well replace the existing page? - --ClemMcGann 10:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Massoretic? Masoretic?

Before coming across this article, I never saw “Massoretic”written with only one “s”. Am I old-fashioned? The few books I have at my immediate disposal are not recent: one is Brown, Driver and Briggs: A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. They all have “Massoretic Text”, not “Masoretic Text”.

If I am wrong in using the perhaps old-fashioned spelling, someone can very easily change all to “Masoretic” at a single stroke.

Lima 15:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Both are used, but "Masoretic" is by far the more common usage. For example, "Masoretic" gets 51,400 Google hits, whereas "Massoretic" gets only 7,140. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, please be extremely cautious about changing spellings within links; that typically breaks the link (as it did in this case). Jayjg ^(talk) 17:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The close of the Hebrew Canon -- Explaining my change

I changed the date for the close of the Hebrew canon from 100 CE to 200 CE. I was sloppy leading to a technical error. I thank Clem McGann for spotting it, and Silversmith for fixing it. As to why I made the change: remember, dating is difficult. In Daniel and the Mishnah there is reference to "the books" to refer to Jewish literature but many scholars think this was an inclusive term i.e. not designating a specific canon. The word Jewish scholars use for "canon" — "holy books" doesn't appear in the Mishna or even the Talmud. Zunz argues that the close of the canon was 110 CE, in the second century but damn close to the end of the first. Other scholars explicitly argue for a second century dating (e.g. G. Wildeboer). Bear in mind that there is the possibility of ideological bias; traditional Jews would prefer the earliest close of the canon possible. One reason scholars give is that the Hebrew language of Koheleth is more like the language of the Talmud than is that of the Chronicler or Daniel or even Esther (although this is not considered conclusive by some). But the sacredness of certain parts of the Ketuvim (Esther, Koheleth, Shir Ha Shirim) was disputed by some rabbis as late as the second century of the Common Era (Mishna, Yadaim, III, 5; Babylonian Talmud, Megilla, fol. 7). I admit that dating the close at the second century is a conservative taks. But if we say that the books were canonized "between 200 BCE and 200 CE" that is certainly an accurate statement, whereas "Between 200 BCE and 100 CE" may very well not be accurate, and certainly is not agreed to by all scholars. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The canonicity of none of these scriptures was debated; whether or not certain scrolls made the hands impure, or whether certain books should be considered esoteric knowledge, was. In the 19th and early 20th centuries various scholars put forward the hypothesis (worded as fact) that these discussions were actually debates about canonical makeup. Regardless, these discussions did not take place towards the end of the second century, but rather towards the end of the first and into the early part of second. The wording "around 100 CE" covers that. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to quibble over the word "around." But when Graetz proposed the idea of a Jamnia Synod towards the end of the first century, he was speculating. From the 1960s onwards, based on the work of J.P. Lewis, S.Z. Leiman, and others, Graetz's view came increasingly into question. In particular, later scholars noted that none of the sources cites actually mention books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions were about canonicity at all, asserting that they were actually dealing with other concerns entirely. This is precisely the argument you are making about whether Koheleth made the hands impure — that used to be interpreted to reflect the debate over how holy it was i.e. does it belong in the canon. Your suggestion that the discussion means someting else is entirely plausable and shared by other scholars, but the same kind of thinking calls into question other texts used as evidence for dating the closing of the canon. Today there really is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement, then. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

explaining my revert

Up until three days ago, this article used BCE and CE which I must remind people is prerfectly permissible in Wikipedia. It seems that this article has now been targeted by Jguk in his crusade to purge Wikipedia of BCE/CE, even though it is considered by our Style Manual to be legitimate. Since Jews are not Christians, I do not think it is appropriate to use BC and AD when discussing their history. It is certainly offensive to Jews in this specific context, since Jews feel that Christians have appropriated the sacred literature of the Jews to legitimize Christian claims. Of course, I have no objection to using BC/AD when discussing the New Testament.Slrubenstein | Talk 21:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I myself would just like to add that my only reverting on this article was due to the presence of a very obvious sock puppet, who was clearly trying to act for someone else. I would have done the same for either side. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for making this clear; I certainly appreciate your intentions and in principle agree with what you did. It is just that this particular page, and several pages related, have a history that complicates matters. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk's Crusade? Tell me about it. He has extended this crusade of his to include all Iran-related articles as well. I also agree that it is most appropriate and just plain common sense to use BCE/CE when discussing the Torah/Tanakh and Jewish scripture and history in general. BCE/CE terminology itself is a result of Jewish-Christian efforts towards ecumenicalism and mutual respect for each others' beliefs and histories. To impose BC/AD upon Jewish scripture and history (and upon any non-Christian religion and history) is to reject this completely and to furthermore promote a dogmatic POV line. Folks, we live in modern times and things have been changing in regards to this issue for quite awhile now precisely for these reasons. SouthernComfort 11:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. As a serious Catholic Christian, I consider Jesus to be Lord. But it would be absurd for me to assume that everyone else considers him Lord. Many people use BC/AD without thinking of what they mean, but when someone deliberately tries to force others to use them, that's annoying. And since Wikipedia is a communal project, it represents all of us. That's why the articles are not signed. Thus I would prefer to use BCE/CE everywhere, even in Christian-related articles, because the audience of such articles includes people of all faiths and beliefs. Lawrence King 06:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

No Link for Hebrew

Quite ironically, there is no link here for the Hebrew version of this page. I would just add a link, but there is a problem - the Hebrew term for "bible", as far as I know, is "תנ"ך", Tanakh. But there is a different article in the English Wikipedia for it... can two different English articles correspond one Hebrew article? --Daniel 11:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)