Talk:Bible/Archive 14

Introduction
I think the introduction is saying that there are three different collections of text known as a Bible: the Jewish, the Eastern Orthodox Christian, the All-other Christian. If that is what it means, it ought to say that first. Only after that go on to say which chunks of text are in which.Hertel47 (talk) 10:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with the one above. There are two additional selections to which most "Protestants" belong:


 * Anglican Churches have the four canonical gospels and the ten commandments . Selecting the four gospels goes back to "quia sola canonica scriptura est regula fidei" by Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century.


 * European and American Mainstream Lutherans have "The pure word of God", or the Law and the Evangelium, comprising the ten commandments and the message of the four gospels. This selection dates back to Martin Luther in the 16th century.


 * "All-other Christian" above are mainly the Roman Catholics. St.Trond (talk) 14:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above statement is incorrect and the last edit summery and edit by St. Trond is very off the mark. Luther as well as Lutheran churches receive the books of the "old Testement" as canonical.  Hardyplants (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone interested in the correctness of the statement may google the Latin sentence by Thomas Aquinas, and will discover that there are different views between "Catholics" and "Protestants" in the reading of the Bible. It should be noted that four sources are provided for the Gospel (i.e. the canonical gospels), while only one is provided for most of the Old Testament. Besides, parts of the Old Testament brings limitations for those the text is meant for. St.Trond (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thomas Aquinas was a Lutheran? Your point is not clear to me. Also the argument that you use 4 sources for the gospels is meaningless  in relation to the Old Testament books and the argument that they are not canonical to Lutherans, its not the number that counts but the quality and relevance to the topic that matter. Hardyplants (talk) 11:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We all know, as was also known by Jesus, that the Old Testament addresses only some people, like the descendants of Abraham or Noah. This makes the relevance none for much of the Old Testament. Lutherans generally accept that the "Gospel" can only be found from the canonical gospels and that the "Law" can only be found from the Old and New Testaments. Thus the correction made by me by changing:
 * "Christianity recognises as canonical the books of the Tanakh, in a different order, as the Old Testament."
 * to:
 * "Christianity recognises the books of the Tanakh, in a different order, as the Old Testament."
 * is an improvement correcting a misleading statement. St.Trond (talk) 11:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not diasagree with St. Trond's wording, here. But above she is talking about how different people read the Bible, which is different from which books are considered canonical. She was very explicit about what she is trying to say - it just is not relevant to the introduction. As for the sentence, "This makes the relevance none for much of the Old Testament" I am having problems diagramming it. Of course, all books address all people, or no people, it is really up to the reader (does Hamlet address only 16th century Brits? That Shakespeare wrote for an audience does not mean that what he wrote must be only for that audience.)  Anyway, one perhaps could say that the "Tanakh" is only for Jews; by definition the Old Testament is for Christians. One of these is for Muslims too, but I am not sure which and in the absense of knowledge I unlike some, remain silent. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with the Old Testament is that the covenant involving Noah is only about not letting water flood over land once more, the other is related to the descendants of Abraham only. My guess is that these descendants are a small minority among Lutherans and Anglicans. May be even among Catholics? The Old Testament describes more than one creation, Genesis 1 and 6. This is in conflict at least with the Lutheran view. St.Trond (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Old Testament did not exist until Christianity. Before Christianity there was no Old Testament. For many people in the world, there is still no Old Testament. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Definition of a Religious Text
I wanted to add the Satanic Bible in the See Also section under the heading Religious Texts, but this was undone. Would you consider it a religious text? Obviously I think so. It is a book of central beliefs and practices, just as the bible is. I'd be interested to hear other peoples opinions. --UnnaturalSelection (talk) 02:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No it isn't, it was written by Anton LaVey, an atheistic Satanist. It is therefore not a religious text. Soxwon (talk) 03:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that. Atheistic Satanism should still be considered a religion. Religions do not have to be theist, although the majority of them are. --UnnaturalSelection (talk) 03:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is already acknowledged as a religion on wikipedia LaVeyan Satanism --UnnaturalSelection (talk) 03:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, I knew that, sorry about that. Soxwon (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't put Satanic Bible in the see also, but for a different reason than Sox is opposing it. The see also is already far bigger than it need be--no reason to add to the problem. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. It already links to a list of religious texts (which does contain the Satanic Bible). I think we should delete the names of the other individual texts then, because they are redundant too. --UnnaturalSelection (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm all for that. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. I don't see anyone objecting, as all the texts were already included in the list. --UnnaturalSelection (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

/* External links */
Hello,

I would like to propose the addition of this Link:

EarlyChristianWritings.com

Caulleys (talk) 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:RS. It appears to be a blog, not a reliable 2nd party source. I would consider it for the reference section if it is a library of sources as it appears to be. Soxwon (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

By your comment that it appears to be a blog makes me feel you really didn't even look at the site. It contains a list of early Christian writings, in a proposed chronological order, with links to information about each. Many have links to original Greek text, English translations and research sites, both online and off-line references. For a good example of what is available for each of the writings go to this ite on the Gospel of Peter

Caulleys (talk) 19:01, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I did look at the site, and it indeed was a blog made by Peter Kirby. Soxwon (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I guess your definition of a blog is wider and more encompassing than that accepted by most people. It appears that in your definition, any privately posted web site could be classified as a blog.

Caulleys (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to recommend the following two links:


 * Old Testament Reading Room and New Testament Reading Room: Extensive links to OT & NT online resources (Tyndale Seminary) Neufast (talk) 15:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It appears you are adding spam, a brief glance at your talk confirms this. Plz aquaint yourself with WP:SPAM. Soxwon (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Francesco Carotta
... has some interesting ideas about Biblical history ... interesting in a way that I think is the fringe of the fringe. There is thus a vote for deletion here. Those of you who are knowledgable and care about Biblical history, please check it out. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:56, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected
Under the section Bible Versions and Translations, Differences in Bible Translations - add the following: editsemiprotected "Anyone familiar with the New Testament Greek knows that this word ky′rios (without the definite article) is used in places when addressing a person and hence does not mean Jehovah. It means Lord or Sir. That is the way the New World Translation and other versions render the anarthrous ky′rios in the appropriate places. Also, when ky′rios is used as a title it appears without the definite article, as in cases like that of Philippians 2:9-11.

All the English versions of Christendom, even those in Hebrew, show that in Philippians 2:11 the ky′rios without article is used as a title, not as a personal name. That is the reason why the New World Translation renders Philippians 2:11: “Every tongue should openly confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.” No Christian has to confess that Jesus Christ is Jehovah, because that is not the truth. Jesus told us to pray for his Father’s name to be hallowed or sanctified, and every informed Bible scholar knows that the name of God the Father is Jehovah." Explanation taken from the Watchtower, May 15, 1960 page 29 and 30, edited by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society which prints the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. KL 01 24 10 (talk) 02:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Utterly unacceptable WP:POV edit. Also violates our policy on original research. This kind of edit is reverted on sight. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 03:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, with my apologies. I suggest that the phrase 'as consistency would demand' be deleted, or explained that kyrios without the article is used as a title, not a personal name. Otherwise, the statement appears to be incomplete and biased by stopping at 'as consistency would demand'.KL 01 24 10 (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. I have just deleted those words. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

porn in the bible
The bible contains porn this should be mentioned in the article to maintain it's neutrality--Narendramodi1 (talk) 10:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what this has to do with "neutrality." Could you explain? Whether the Bible contains porn or not depends on your definition of pornography. It certainly contains some frank and realistic portrayals of human sexuality, though it is not clear any of them are designed for sexual titillation. Which passages are you specifically referring to?--seberle (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Unless your citing the Pope or there is a team of scholars that decided this (and decided not publish it), I don't see how this could be considered encyclopedic considering one man's porn is another man's art. Soxwon (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The bible does NOT talk about porn! thats absurd, but out of curiosity, where did you find that? 2/11/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.172.120.206 (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

There are no references in the Bible that are too inappropiate (sorry if I spelled that wrong) but, as mentioned above, it does have some references of sexuality. Αδελφος (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Old Testament
The Old Testament is belived by Jews and Christains. I am very sure that you said that Jewish people don't belive in the Old Testament. Cole Chiodo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.148.233 (talk) 22:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also pretty sure that both Jews and Christians (Protestants and Catholics (the Catholics have some extra books in there though) all believe in the validity of the Old Testament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Invmog (talk • contribs) 20:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * When it comes to Christians, believing in the Old Testament does not include believing that the Old Testament is relevant for Christians. That is why Christians need the New Testament, hence the name "Christians". St.Trond (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Space
Can we perhaps get rid of that space above Etymology, it just doesn't look right. Faro0485 (talk) 08:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks pretty cluttered without the white space because of all the sidebars on the right. What is standard Wikipedia formatting in these cases? --seberle (talk) 18:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the article looks cluttered now. Short of removing the sidebars, is there a way to force them to collapse? I've seen some templates that can be shown or hidden as needed. Loves  Macs  (talk) 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But it is the templates themselves that must be edited so that they can "gain" this ability. There are three such templates in this article. I agree that they should be made collapsible, but here is not the right place to discuss that. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that the templates themselves had to be edited, I thought that there was some command to do it. I'll look into it. Does everybody feel that the templates themselves are a net gain for the article? Loves  Macs  (talk) 13:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Bible translations
Much of my edits about Bible were essentially a small transfer of text into Bible translations. In general, I think the entry should not only focus on translations and canons, but should also include general information about the book. ADM (talk) 18:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine by me, I just wanted to make sure everyone was ok with it before we rmved such a large chunk of prose. Soxwon (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So you basically shortened the article, while moving the information into the appropriate subarticles? If so, I have no problem with it.  In fact, a subject this major requires that the parent article be as concise as possible, I think. Carlo (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting involved
Is to late to become a participant?Hendersonsage (talk) 03:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We always need more help. I've posted a welcome template on your user talk page. If you have any more questions, you can ask me on either your or my talk pages. Welcome :) carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Typo needs to be fixed
The following text from the main article needs to be corrected...

"Some groups within Christianity include additional books as part one or both of these sections of their sacred writings"

...should read...

"Some groups within Christianity include additional books as part of one or both of these sections of their sacred writings"

...Someone with an account please fix this.

Plot summary?
Would it be appropriate to add a plot summary to this article? I went in here looking for one, and was surprised to find there was none. Zazaban (talk) 02:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it is hard to give a very generic summary of the contents. But there are actually a number of problems with plot summaries. What one considers the plot is itself an interpretation. Jews and Christians see very diferent plots in the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. Feminist Bible critics have summarized the plots of key texts (incluing Genesis 2-3) very differently from orthodox summaries. Some books have very intricate plots and to do justice to them would make this article very long - unless you left out important stuff. I think it would make a lot more sense to work on the articles for specific books, start with the major commentaries (Mikraot Gedolot + Anchor Bible, for example) and start slowly adding significant views from verifiable sources about the structure and maning of each book. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Tanach & "Old Testament" not 1:1.
This add should come up combined with the header text as:

In Christianity, the Tanakh, with some variations, is known as the Old Testament.

(Citate taken from the Lemma Tanakh.) Why: Because Tanach and "Old Testament" are not 1:1. Regarding the christian tendency to render the jewish bible old or obsolet or replaced by its new /newest chr. narratives -> this close stretto (Old Test. == Tanakh) should by all means be avoided. Sayed simple: Christian believes are not facts. & The Christian religion inherently takes the pretension to judge the Jewish religion (not in the wikipedia, please). Thank you --87.160.236.38 (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've edited the subject header for clarity. What do you think of this suggested text:
 * The Christian Bible uses the same texts as the Tanakh, collected together as the Old Testament.
 * You could also add something about certain churches including texts beyond the Tanakh as part of the OT. Loves  Macs  (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How, specifically, are the books in the Tanakh different from the Protestant Old Testament? Where do they fail to be 1:1? Carlo (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think LoveMacs suggestion is good. Of course, the books are out of order, and it is not hte same as the Catholic OT, but the main thing is that Jews do not consider it "old" in the sese that Christains do. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The current wording, "In Christianity, the Tanakh is known as the Old Testament.", is simply false. Only Protestants call the Tanakh the Old Testament. For Catholics & Orthodox, OT includes other texts as well. Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Tanakh is not 1:1 with the OT because of the different meaning behind them. The Jewish religion is different from Christianity, so everything in the 'Tanakh' of 'Old Testament' means something different to both faiths. Although the contents are the same - disregarding the added books and book order - The way they have been read and analysed is different (in my view). However, I agreee with some of the changes to be made; The different books and book order in different denominations should be mentioned.  3/11/09

Weasal words
In the Archeaology section at one point it says "others disagree sharply." Aren't those weasal words or some such? I'm not really familiar I just thought I'd bring that to someone's attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.121.152.72 (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Number of copies?
Our article on Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong says of this book (the "Little Red Book"): "The most printed book in history, Quotations had an estimated 5 to 6.5 billion copies printed during Mao's attempt to transform Chinese society." I always thought that the Bible was the most printed book in history. I didn't see anyplace in this article where the total number of copies is estimated, though. Is there any reliable source for such a number? JamesMLane t c 19:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The real problem is that there are so many versions of the Bible that keeping track of every single one of them just for the sake of knowing the number of copies being circulated is an impossible task. Given that many of these copies are bootleg and/or printed clandestinely, even a rough estimate is not exactly reliable.
 * But though I would daresay that the number of Bibles in circulation is probably higher than the 5-6G "Quotations," the fact remains that "Quotations" probably is the book that has the highest number of copies having the exact same text down to the smallest nuance of the Chinese language. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 22:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be slightly odd for the Chinese authorities to print several copies for everyone in the country? Peter jackson (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If the Communist Party of China operated the same way as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, then such overprinting is a result of "looking good to the party bosses." The material  would have  been shipped overseas, put into a sealed diplomatic pouch and returned to China for incineration, without being opened. Meanwhile,the books would have been listed as "distributed amongst the Chinese population in whatever country they were shipped to/from.jonathon (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Newer Pictures
All of the pictures of Bibles in this article are of Bibles which are over 100 years old... Should any pictures of Bibles which are newer be included in this article? Invmog (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But would a picture of a modern NIV be a copyright violation of its book cover? I'm not sure about that, and "fair use" does not apply in this article. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This picture of an NIV cover is published under a fair-use rationale. Please do not forget that even with the KJV, even though the contents are free from copyright, the book covers and page layouts are not. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Bible under attack
There are strong arguments in support thereof that in order to work about a New World Order, of One government and One church, the enemy has tried to bring about gnosticism in the biblical text in order to make room for false teachers and prophets to work about a new bible, incorporating so called "New revelations" from Jesus through false prophets, which mysticism will consider all part of one bible. Christian mysticism (which my view is not christian at all), distorts the gospel, making Christianity to be merely about works of love, abstenance (disciplines) and prayer, and not recognizing Jesus Christ as Saviour and His blood for atonement, (remission of sin) have increased significantly over the past few years. Gnostic Mysticism, as a world religion, with Christian mysticism as being just one component of it, is what is to be incorporated in order to work about a One world religion, New bible and One church.

When examining the following sources: Watch and pray, UNDERSTANDING SATAN'S DECEPTIVE PLAN to Counterfeit the Second Coming of Christ & the Restoration of All Things, http://www.watch.pair.com/new-scripture.html Robert M.. Baker, ANOTHER BIBLE, ANOTHER GOSPEL, http://www.watch.pair.com/another.html As well as the explanation of mystics, illustrating how the old testament plus the new testament plus the new revelations will combine to form the "New" bible (consisting Old Testament + New Testament + New Revelation = Complete bible (New bible), any serious bible believing Christian, should be concerned.

See also www.foundationsofchristianity.so.za

The plan of Satan is described as:
 * -To influence the early Church to work about Catholicism, which is in essence only a front for Judeo-freemasonry
 * -To distort the bible and bring in Gnostic text
 * -To discredit the New Testament as non-authoritative by sowing seeds of doubt
 * -To bring in Occult "New Revelations" to be added to the New Gnostic bible. (In addition also, to use channeling through false prophets to promote gnostic thinking

Christian mystics to advocate a "New Bible", explaining their "New Revelations" as God inspired expansion to the old and new testament
 * -To remove "questionable" text that does not fit in with the new bible.

In Baker's document he provides historical information concerning the translation of the KJV and modern versions, evidence which discredits the translators of the New Greek Text and the Revised Version of 1881 (ERV or RV), and Tables which compare selected Scriptures in the KJV, ERV (RV), NASB, NIV, and NKJV. The negative impact of numerous changes in modern translations upon Christian doctrine and also upon the Church is made apparent.

Can we please bring in a section about this in the main article? Thanks. (Torchrunner (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC))


 * Sorry, fringe views from non-notable sources do not go into Wikipedia articles. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look at Christian mysticism....and mysticism...it illustrates the problem. It is the same as saying "Christian New Age". The two terms has nothing to do with one another. Perhaps you know of a reliable source to bring some more criticism to that article as being non-Christian. It denies Jesus as Saviour, and sees his purpose to earth only to give us loving and friendly teachings? Like the Oprah church http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JW4LLwkgmqA. (Torchrunner (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC))


 * As the problem you are talking about does not relate directly to the Bible itself, but rather to the individual translations, mention of the criticism of one version over the other should go in the articles about the individual translations. And if not properly acknowledged by reliable scholars, either for or against, such criticisms do not belong in Wikipedia, regardless of how serious you think the problem is. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

The bible is just the Christian book
The intro says that the "Bible is the central religious text of Judaism and Christianity" it is NOT in any way the central religious book of Judaism, however the old testament is the central text of Judaism the difference is that Jews believe that the messiah has yet to come and the Christan's believe he was Jesus.
 * In English, the Jews call their sacred scripture the Bible. The Bible, for Jews, does not include what you call the New Testament. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and I think the article itself already makes that point pretty clear. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The adjective form: "Biblical" or "biblical"?
I recall the "with/without a capital" issue being a topic of debate many years ago but I can't find the discussion. Regardless, this article switches between "Biblical" and "biblical" regularly which is unsightly and inconsistent.

Could we get consensus on which is preferred and then standardise on that usage. (Please just put "Support" in one of the following, no need to oppose. If you want to express your reasoning, please try to keep it moderately brief) Manning (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Lower case
That the word "biblical" should be in lower case, except at the beginning of a sentence or when part of a proper noun (e.g., "The Biblical Society").


 * Manning (talk) 02:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct. "Bible" is considered a proper name when referring to the central religious text of Judaism and Christianity─Bible or the Holy Bible. It would not be capitalized otherwise, such as when it is used as a comprehensive manual that describes something (e.g., the fisherman’s bible). Afaprof01 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Trojan war PLEASE HELP
Someone told me that king Priam from the trojan war is mentioned in the bible can anyone confirm this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.147.93 (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You could try asking at Reference_desk/Humanities. Proofreader77 (talk) 02:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to be 'that guy', but..
Why is it that when you go to the page on the Koran, it says "the Holy 'Qua'ran'" and has such pristine pictures of it whereas the Bible just says "the Bible" and has close to no pictures and says that it's both Jewish and Christian where only the first testemant is Jewish, meaning that they've overlooked the entire New Testiment in that aspect. What's up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.242.40 (talk) 21:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean. I see only the title "Qur'an," and not Holy Qur'an, or "'Qua'ran."  And as far as I know, no one's stopping you from adding pictures to the NT if you can find pictures that aren't regulated under copyright law. Mitchell Powell (talk) 05:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

suggest this link
How about encyclopedia online, for an informed, neutral article? Read online. Leadwind (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Some Suggestions for Improving this Article
In the beginning paragraph, this is found: "Christianity recognises as canonical the books of the Tanakh, in a different order, as the Old Testament." But based on what I've seen, variations in order exist in both Jewish Bibles (according to Mechon-Mamre.org), and among English Bibles, a few of which even agree exactly with the predominant traditional Hebrew order. I don't know of any Christian group that holds a particular order as canonical. So maybe it would be best to simply leave out the remark about the different order, or to say something like, "Christianity recognized the canonicity of the Tanakh, although generally arranging its books in a different order, and calling it 'The Old Testament.'"

Furthermore, I'm not sure its accurate to generalize that Protestants view the Deuterocanon as apocryphal. I recently attended an Episcopalian service, and the "Wisdom of Solomon," part of the Deuterocanon, was read from and confidently referred to as "The Word of the Lord."

In the section "Torah," the following statement is found: "The Hebrew book titles come from the first words in the respective texts. The Hebrew title for Numbers, however, comes from the fifth word of that text." This implies that the other four books of Torah are named after the first word of them. But the most common Hebrew name for Exodus, Sh'mot, is the second word of Exodus, and Dvarim is the second word of Deuteronomy.

There's also this: "The Torah is divided into fifty-four portions which are read in turn in Jewish liturgy, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Deuteronomy, each Sabbath." This statement is far from clear as to whether all 54 readings are read each Sabbath, or whether one is (which I believe is the reality of the case). Also, I believe there exists an alternative and significant tradition which splits the readings over three years.

Immediately before the listing of the books of the Nevi'im are the words: "According to Jewish tradition, Nevi'im is divided into eight books. Contemporary translations subdivide these into seventeen books." My count is twenty-one: 1) Joshua, 2) Judges, 3) I Samuel, 4) II Samuel, 5) I Kings, 6) II Kings, 7) Isaiah, 8) Jeremiah, 9) Ezekiel, 10-21) The Twelve. I'm not sure how the figure 17 is arrived at, but I'm fairly certain it's wrong.

The Ketuvim section states, "The Ketuvim, or 'Writings' or 'Scriptures,' may have been written during or after the Babylonian Exile but no one can be sure." I object to "no one can be sure." This assumption is unnecessary and it disagrees with every strongly held theory as to the date. It describes the position of only those people who lack an opinion.

Similarly, "According to Rabbinic tradition, many of the psalms in the book of Psalms are attributed to David." Perhaps more accurately, "According to Rabbinic tradition and Hebrew subtitles in the Psalms themselves, many of the Psalms are attributed to David."

"The Ketuvim comprise the following eleven books:" If we want parallelism with the Nevi'im situation, I suggest we add ", divided, in many modern translations, into twelve through the division of Ezra and Nehemiah."

I think the content of the section, "Hebrew Bible translations and editions" should be merged into another section.

In the section "Higher Criticism," we find, "The traditional view of the Mosaic authorship of the Torah came under sporadic criticism from medieval scholars including Isaac ibn Yashush, Abraham ibn Ezra, Bonfils of Damascus and bishop Tostatus of Avila, who pointed to passages such as the description of the death of Moses in Deuteronomy as evidence that some portions, at least, could not have been written by Moses." Not only does this not contain any citations, it also implies that the traditional view ascribes Mosaic authorship to the description of Moses death. This uncited assertion contrasts with what I thought to be the traditional perspective: that the main body of the book was written by Moses, with the ending bit added by Joshua.

The next paragraph is a bit troublesome to: "In the 17th century Thomas Hobbes collected the current evidence and became the first scholar to conclude outright that Moses could not have written the bulk of the Torah. Shortly afterwards the philosopher Baruch Spinoza published a unified critical analysis, demonstrating that the problematic passages were not isolated cases that could be explained away one by one, but pervasive throughout the five books, concluding that it was 'clearer than the sun at noon that the Pentateuch was not written by Moses…' Despite determined opposition from the Church, both Catholic and Protestant, the views of Hobbes and Spinoza gained increasing acceptance amongst scholars." 1) it includes the dubious and uncited claim that Thomas Hobbes was the first to reject Mosaic authorship, 2) use of the word "demonstrating" in the description of Spinoza's analysis implies that he closed the discussion, which is simply not the case. "arguing" or "concluding" would be fairer.

In "Modern development," the following sentence seems unnecessary: "The relevance of these ideas to contemporary religious life is left to clerics and adherents of contemporary religions to decide."

In "Archaeological and historical reasearch," we have, "It is also used to help clarify the consistency between historical evidence and scripture." As much as I personally like the statement, it smacks of Christian (and specifically pro-literalist) POV. I think it needs to be revised towards something more neutral, like, "It is also used to help shed light on the understanding of historical references in scripture."

Because of the tensions which naturally surround accounts of the Bible, I thought I would present these ideas before acting upon them. If, in the course of a week or so, no objections emerge, I might begin editing along the lines described above. Mitchell Powell (talk) 05:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I fixed the easy stuff. Thanks for the pointers. Leadwind (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed up the rest of the things for the most part, with the notable exception of the Higher Criticism section. I'm no expert in Higher Criticism, and it's possible that I might not be right in my criticism of the section, so I'll leave that bit to others. Mitchell Powell (talk) 00:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Lead
I made significant changes to the lead, which was a confusing mess. The term "Bible" actually predominately refers to the Christian take on the term, but since the term Hebrew Bible has gained significant academic usage, here we are. One of these days, someone very smart will get a better name for the NT, but thats a separate issue. The current lead should accurately reflect, if simplified, the relationship of HB, NT, 2canonical books and their host religions. It does not accurately reflect the source or chrnology, because I think such a task is impossible to do in a one paragraph lead. If such a thing were approached, it would have to be broken into at least two parts. I also added a throwaway sentence for other uses, since the other uses derive from the original Xian reference to their Bible.

I apologize for the use of abbreviations, holler if any are confusing.--Tznkai (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work. Leadwind (talk) 03:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)