Talk:Anchor Bible Series

NPOV
User:Duncharris plastered a " " on this poor stub before anything other than the fact that it exists had been entered. I had wondered why the Anchor bible series was excluded from the list of recent translations. Must be something in this... Wetman 01:26, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is great work, for a stub. I do not understand why the neutrality is disputed. I think we should remove the NPOV warning -- unless someone can come up with a justification. Slrubenstein


 * The only line I see with a possible problem is: "has been setting a high standard during the decades". But I hardly think this warrants a NPOV tag for the whole article. Rmhermen 17:12, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * If you feel that the Anchor Bible Series hasn't been setting a high standard, please enter your balanced opinion in the article. Wetman 17:24, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that question is aimed at Duncharris. Rmhermen 14:53, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)
 * It was. But I think he's entirely forgotten this article and it was his little joke after all... Wetman 16:36, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * No doubt every volume will have its admirers and detractors. For example, the three volumes on Psalms have often been attacked for excessive concentration on Ugaritic parallels, ignoring the fact that this was precisely the editors' intention in asking Dahood to write them.  But my personal opinion is certainly that many volumes are excellent, whereas others are far from the best available commentaries on these books, and I'd be surprised if the majority of people didn't agree. RachelBrown 12:49, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * I hope that RachelBrown will expand on that and add a paragraph on variation within the series and its reception.--Wetman 17:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pseudepigrapha
So what is the deal under draw backs, this Bible doesn't include the Gospel of Thomas? Why should it? It isn't considered a part of the Bible by any Protestant, Pentecostal, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox Churchs. I think that this is a moot point and am going to clean up that part of the article if no one objects.
 * (No objections registered. Done, apparently. Wetman 17:34, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC))

I'm not sure. I believe non-canonical books should still be discussed, as canonicity varies between churches. Enoch and Jubilees are accepted by Ethiopian Orthodox I believe. Many books no longer accepted as cononical in any religion were accepted by some communities in ancient times- for example, the Gospel of Thomas, which was accepted by the Gnostics.--Rob117 04:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Most Bible commentary series don't even cover books generally accepted as apocryphal. Praise to this series for covering them.  Asking for books that no established church now regards as even apocryphal is a bit much. - Newport 18:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does this commentary series get special attention in the English Bible box links?
Why does this commentary series get special attention in the English Bible box links? -- Chris 8 July 2005 22:06 (UTC)


 * Which series is your candidate? --Wetman 8 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)


 * I think that's the point - there are several other candidates (Word, NICOT, Hermeneia) so why pick just one? 81.134.14.236 05:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Publisher of Anchor Bible Series
My priest spoke very highly of this collection but mentioned he somehow lost the volume on Revelations. I'm trying to replace that very one (1978 edition) as a gift for marrying me. Does anyone know the publisher? I'm having a difficulty finding out that information.
 * It's now published by Random House. Not sure if Revelations is still in print; if not, search for a 2nd hand copy on www.addall.com.  Best wishes on your wedding. RachelBrown 18:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

POV
Sorry, but words like formidable, responsible, and authoritative clearly mark this sentence as POV:


 * The formidable Anchor Bible Project continues to produce volumes that keep readers current on recent scholarship while grounding them in the timeless tradition of responsible, authoritative analysis.

Epl 04:00, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Advertisements as source?
When I did a Google search for specific phrases in the sections on the "Dictionary" and "Commentary," I found that those sections (or at least major parts of them) had exactly the same text as advertisements at randomhouse.com. I would say that this is a very good reason to dispute the neutrality of this entry.

128.42.158.172 12:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please add link to main article
LA Times obituary for the General Editor of the Anchor Bible. It is an obit well worth reading. http://www.latimes.com/features/religion/la-me-freedman17apr17,1,6096298.story rumjal 05:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Exodus
If there is anyone who has the Exodus volume of this series in their posession and is willing to help me out a little I would really appreciate it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Books in the Reference Library
Looking over some of the books listed in the Anchor Bible Reference LIbrary, I noticed some of them actually are not part of the actual series. For instance, Bruce Chilton's Rabbi Jesus and Rabbi Paul are not part of the series. I have deleted those from the list. However, there may be more that don't actually belong there. I haven't found a complete list, but if anyone has an updated list, it may be worth checking them over.

DustinBoyd (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)DustinBoyd

Copyviol of WP / third parties copyight on WP articles
It seems that the World Heritage Encyclopedia and the Wikipedia's article are the same.

The http://self.gutenberg.org shows an article which can be dated before 2006, since it states that "A work in progress, as of 2006, the series has produced over 80 volumes, some of which are updates of earlier works. The series is 99% complete". The first WP oldid whose sections are closely similar to the current version is dated back to the same period.

It's unclear if World Heritage Encyclopedia has copied Wikipedia or the vice versa. The WHE doesn't provide a publishing date. However, their Web Page provide the following statements:
 * at the top: "Compiled by World Heritage Encyclopedia™ licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0;
 * at the bottom: "2018 © World Heritage Encyclopedia. All rights reserved."

If the WHE article was derived by Wikipedia, why do they apply copyright on CC BY-SA 3.0 articles? Has the World Heritage Encyclopedia become the new owner of Wikipedia? This question is more general than for this article. Can WP contents be copied by third parties applying their copyright, even continuing to use a CC BY-SA 3.0 license?Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Date Error?
The article states the following: "....co-venture which was begun in 1956,.................As of 2008, more than 120 volumes had been published, initially under oversight of the series' founding General Editor David Noel Freedman (1956–2008)". Was the founding editor really editing it in the year he was born ...!? Anthya1117 (talk) 19:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)