Talk:Bible/Archive 17

RFC: Article devoted exclusively to the Christian Bible
It seems to me that this current article (Bible) is misdirected or wrong in its purpose. There should be one article devoted to the Christian Bible. Most Jews don't refer to their sacred writings as the Bible. Most Christians refer to the holy scripture as the Bible. This article conflates Jewish and Christian traditions.

Why not have an article solely on the Bible of Christianity? Dynasteria (talk) 03:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree in principle. The "Jewish Bible" article is essentially Tanakh. Per WP:COMMONNAME, the "Bible" article should be the Old + New Testament (or OT + NT + Deuterocanon) book. But the article should be named "Bible" rather than "Christian Bible". In fact, I don't see a whole lot of changes necessary - just a bit of rewording in the lead. There is no need to remove the "Hebrew Bible" section. These days, many Christian biblical scholars argue for the priority of the Hebrew book order anyway. This would, however, be a good opportunity to clean up the article. There are outlines of some (but not all) of the Hebrew Bible books, but none for the NT books. This is inconsistent, and also undue weight. I wouldn't think that any of the books need more than a sentence of introduction (if that) - this should be an introductory, summary article. StAnselm (talk) 04:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If you agree in principle do you agree in fact? I agree in fact that this article is the best framework for the central article on the Bible of Christianity. And I agree that "Bible" is the best title for the article on the Christian Bible.


 * Can you expand this phrase, "priority of the Hebrew book order"? In my ignorance, I don't know what it means.Dynasteria (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In the Hebrew Bible, the books are in a different order (as outlined in this article). For example, it ends with the Books of Chronicles ratheer than the Book of Malachi. Many Christian scholars would suggest that this is the "real" order, and certainly a more meaningful one. StAnselm (talk) 21:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree per WP:POVSPLIT guideline. We already have here an article titled 'bible' that is about the book that happens to be sacred in Christianity. However, the same book (same topic) also has immense notability outside of Christianity (for example, 80% is simultaneously scripture to Judaism too, 20% is central to Samaritans, Muslims too believe the "Christian bible" originally was divinely revealed, and many atheists acknowledge its historical significance). The problem is that by trying to make the top-level-article specific to "Christian" (and thereby excluding non-mainline-Christian perspectives to fork articles) our readers will nowhere be presented with a cohesive, comprehensive and balanced coverage of this topic. This singular devotion seems only likely to (gradually over time) lend undue weight toward sectarian treatments of the topic. Cesiumfrog (talk) 12:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Let me ask you, Cesiumfrog, what book is this that happens to be sacred in Christianity? Can you provide a link to a picture of one? Yes, the problem from the viewpoint of writing an encyclopedia is that Judaism is the "source" of 80% of the Bible of Christianity, yet the two religions are not the same. How does one solve this problem?


 * Also, when you say "comprehensive and balanced coverage of this topic" would you please elucidate what "this topic" is? Your answer may help to improve this article and discussion, plus my understanding. I think I'm hearing you that you don't want Christianity to be the central topic of an article based on the term "bible" when so many other religions have the concept of "bible." Dynasteria (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The topic is the book, not the religion.


 * (What does a picture prove?) Look, about 8% of the bible differs between Catholicism and Protestantism. Orthodox christianity differs again (and mormons reject 0.3%). This article's scope is to summarise the book's contents, to describe the level of variation among versions, to recount the latest knowledge on the history of its writers and compilers, and to broadly cover what the impact and importance and interpretation of the work has been across all groups of people.


 * For example, if we were to make an unnecessary statement that this article is exclusively about the (mainstream?) "Christian" bible, this would lead toward renaming the section on "hebrew bible" to "old testament", preferring Christian sources over Jewish and other sources, and for 80% of the article tending to give undue emphasise to the POV of only one of the religions based on the exact same text. Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. Merriam-Webster defines the Bible as "the sacred scriptures of Christians comprising the Old Testament and the New Testament." The definition the article is using is agenda-driven, not based on RS. Claimsworth (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC) (sock)


 * Both Cambridge dictionary and Britannica encyclopaedia disagree. Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that word has other meanings shouldn't prevent us from have an article about the Christian Bible, which is the root meaning. OneLook has 34 definitions of "Bible," and many of them supporting this meaning. Oxford: "The Christian scriptures, consisting of the 66 books of the Old and New Testaments." Collins: "the sacred writings of the Christian religion, comprising the Old and New Testaments and, in the Roman Catholic Church, the Apocrypha." Webster's New World Dictionary: "1.the sacred book of Christianity; Old Testament and New Testament: some Roman Catholic versions also include all or part of the Apocrypha."
 * Why do you only cite dictionaries? Encarta and Enciclopedia Italiana also disagree about the root topic. Cesiumfrog (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I once found a dictionary that defined archeaology as the study of prehistory which of course is ridiculous (ie archaeology covers so much more than that). Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree, since we have a Hebrew Bible article, it is a good idea to make the section on the Hebrew Bible about how it relates to christianity, as in, being the old testament. The Tanakh is different from the Old Testament. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In what way is the Tanakh different from the Old Testament? Cesiumfrog (talk) 01:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * (Chess likes to be pinged when being replied to.) But the answer is easy - among other things, the books are in a different order. StAnselm (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


 * They also sometimes contain different content. The Tanakh is pretty much fixed in content, laboriously copied exactly, by hand, with one mistake meaning the entire parchment has to be thrown out. The old testament varies in content, depending on who you ask. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 05:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * This seems to concede no substantive difference (book ordering and source manuscript already varies among Christian bibles). If Chess simply wants the Christian POV about the book to be presented in isolation without other (in this case Jewish) schools of thought about the same writings balanced alongside in a common top-level article, I suggest reading the applicable guidelines. Cesiumfrog (talk) 03:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree As we already have one at Christian biblical canons as the proposer knows.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs)
 * Your disagreement is rather terse. Can you explain a little further? The article Christian biblical canons is about the constituent parts whereas the article Christian Bible would be about the cohesive entity. Again, an article titled "Car parts" would be inadequate toward a comprehensive treatment of "Cars" as a topic. Dynasteria (talk) 23:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * May I ask what the @ symbol signifies and ask who the author of the above ""Disagree" comment is? this makes no sense to the uninitiated. Dynasteria (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The @ symbol simply means 'to' and is added by the software when you 'ping' someone, eg I forgot to sign my edit, sorry. The lead of the article "Christian biblical canons" says " the set of books that a Christian denomination regards as divinely inspired and thus constituting a Christian Bible." It is solely about the Christian Bible. One problem is that I really have no idea what you think the content should be that would differ  from what is in this article and the biblical canons article. Dougweller (talk) 09:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The inadequacy is primarily in the name. As far as I know, the term "Bible" was invented and used for the Christian Bible in the 3rd century and has been common usage ever since. Nobody in church says: "Turn to your Christian biblical canon." Indeed, the Wikipedia article on "Biblical canon" has this in footnote 2: "We should be clear, however, that the current use of the term "canon" to refer to a collection of scripture books was introduced by David Ruhnken in 1768 in his Historia critica oratorum graecorum for lists of sacred scriptures. While it is tempting to think that such usage has its origins in antiquity in reference to a closed collection of scriptures, such is not the case." Wikipedia policy is to go with common usage for the name of the article. Additionally, it isn't clear to me that Jews ordinarily refer to their sacred texts as The Bible. Dynasteria (talk) 06:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * In English, "Bible" replaced "Bibliothek" in the 1300s. It derived (via Romance languages) from the Greek phrase "ta biblia". Hellenistic Jews had been calling their scriptures "ta biblia" since centuries before Jesus. Modern Jews today still use the term "bible" in English . This is the kind of information which I think should be represented in a top-level article on the bible, whereas an exclusively Christian perspective is more likely to leave you with the mistaken view that the name was invented by 3rd century Christians. (In fact, originally and until nearly the 5th century, Christians used "ta biblia" exclusively to refer to the old testament!) Cesiumfrog (talk) 08:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Very interesting and helpful information. It certainly expands my knowledge of the concept of Bible. I don't see how it excludes the possibility of an article titled Christian Bible, however.Dynasteria (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, I followed your link to a less-than-impressive KQED website. What's your point? I have read elsewhere that "bible" is from Egyptian. Are you sure that Hebrews were using the term for centuries before Christianity took it up?Dynasteria (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously? By KQED I assume you are referring to the article (published by a flagship PBS documentary series) whose author has a doctorate on Ancient Israel and professorship on the Old Testament? Would you rather hear it from an expert in near eastern languages? Even the books of the OT themselves (in the LXX translation which, although later adopted by Christians, predated Jesus by at least a century) use "ta biblia" referring to each other (that source is by one of the contributors to the ESV). Yes. Egyptian papyrus was called biblos in Greek (probably because of the Phoenician port where it was traded). Biblia became the term for wound scrolls of papyrus, or animal parchment, or eventually even bound codices of pages made from trees. In the wake of 4th century Greek conquest, for Jews adopting Greek language this word would have naturally centred in phrases to refer to their texts. The Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible quotes a Jewish high priest using the term "ta biblia ta hagia" (lit. the sacred books) in the 2nd century BC, and includes a ridiculous amount of detail on the whole topic. Cesiumfrog (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I followed your "exclusively" link to a page which seems to have nothing to do with your statement. Are you really paying attention? Are you actually contributing to this discussion? Please be more thoughtful and careful in the future. Dynasteria (talk) 10:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The link is to an extract from an award-winning book "The Canon of Scripture" by a professor of biblical criticism and exegesis and general editor of the NIC. It plainly states that "the first writer to use the phrase ‘the books’ (Gk ta biblia) of the two Testaments together" was Chrysostom (the particular reference corresponds to about 390AD) and that until then "in Christian usage the phrase had previously been restricted to the Old Testament writings." In other words, for centuries even Christians excluded the NT when they spoke of the bible. Do you think your invective was warranted? Cesiumfrog (talk) 15:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining all that. Now I believe you are correct. Dynasteria (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Disagree - Per Dougweller. Also, which Christian Bible?  The Armenian Orthodox, Assyrian, Catholic, Coptic Orthodox, Ethiopian Tewahado, Georgian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Protestant, Slavonic Orthodox, and Syriac Orthodox canons all have differences.  If we're going to say that those different canons are all part of the broader concept of the Christian Bible (which I'm fine with), why wouldn't the Hebrew Bible also be included in the broader concept of the Bible?  We certainly cannot say that one church's canon is the Bible and that others are not (and defining only by the books common to all churches would amount to saying that the Protestant canon is the "right" one).  The current situation, which treats "Bible" as a broad concept, with specific articles on Christian biblical canons, the Hebrew Bible, and the New Testament allow those differences to be explained without favoring one canon over another.  Ian.thomson (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You ask this:
 * "If we're going to say that those different canons are all part of the broader concept of the Christian Bible (which I'm fine with), why wouldn't the Hebrew Bible also be included in the broader concept of the Bible?"
 * I would propose that there would be an article titled "Bible" and additionally an article titled "Christian Bible" in order to avoid confusion. That way there would be a clear differentiation between the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible. Dynasteria (talk) 11:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * As any editor here knows, there is already an article titled Hebrew Bible. Dynasteria (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The Hebrew Bible and Christian bible are already differentiated.
 * The current arrangement of articles has Hebrew Bible (which covers a mostly consistent selection of texts with small enough variances to be discussed in that article, but we've got an article on those anyway), an article on Christian additions to the Bible, an article on which texts different Christian churches add onto the Bible, and then this article discussing all of the previous articles. In effect, we already have multiple articles about the Christian Bible, they just are not named "Christian Bible."
 * If we need an article specifically titled "Christian Bible," all we need to do is rename Christian biblical canons, because a Christian Bible article that doesn't cover (at least) that (much) information would just be a POV fork. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the current Wikipedia approach to the Christian Bible has the effect of fragmenting the book among diverse articles, whereas most people see it as a unified concept with some obvious variations. Judaism and Hinduism are perhaps inherently more fragmented with regard to the texts (not the religion), while Islam is probably much less so. My impression, again, is that Christianity relies on a single coherent text. It surprises me, frankly, that Christians aren't a little more turbulently engaged about this treatment on Wikipedia of the text that is sacred to Christianity. Dynasteria (talk) 02:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok with creating a new Christian Bible but oppose a hypothetical move/rename of this article The topic is certainly independantly notable and we have the section Bible that could be expanded into an article (or moved and this article turned into more of a WP:SUMMARY overview) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why it is necessary to create a separate article for the "Christian Bible". I also don't think it is neccesary to rename this article the "Christian Bible"  It is so commonly understood as a Christian text, it works fine to simply have this article be the Bible.  All that being said, if someone wants to create a "Christian Bible" article- Have at it.  Just plan on a heck of a lot more RFCs :) Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing is really "necessary" except to achieve something else. It is necessary to use steel and Portland cement to build a skyscraper. It is necessary to break eggs to bake a cake. It is necessary to breathe to keep on living. The suggestion of an article titled "Christian Bible" is not that it is even necessary but that it is simply desirable toward the goal of achieving a balanced encyclopedia. Dynasteria (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - verbatim as User:Ian.thomson reasons, - we have Hebrew Bible aka Old Testament to Christians and New Testament, there's no such thing as "Christian Old Testament" In ictu oculi (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * No one is suggesting an article title "Christian Old Testament", to the best of my knowledge. The RFC here is for an article titled "Christian Bible" which is made up of the Old Testament and the New Testament. There is indeed such a thing as the "Christian Bible". Dynasteria (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2014
41.209.116.238 (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2014
41.202.166.81 (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a change.

Requested move 9 January 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was withdrawn. No, I wasn't trying to make a point about the Holocaust or anything, but it's clear this won't be approved, and I'm not especially convinced either at this point. --BDD (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Bible → The Bible – This definitely fits the first criterion of WP:THE. The Bible is a religious text (notwithstanding "There is no single 'Bible'"), whereas a Bible is, generally, a copy of the Bible. Compare to The Holocaust and look at —this topic is pretty consistently referred to with a definite article. --BDD (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment wouldn't it be The Holy Bible ? -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. StAnselm (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC) Striking vote per persuasive arguments below. Will need to think about it a bit more. StAnselm (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose It does not fit the first criterion. It's, "Lucy placed the Bible on the desk." not, "Lucy placed The Bible on the desk." It does not fit the second criterion either. The article itself has "During the solidification of the Hebrew canon (c. 3rd century BCE), the Bible began to be translated into Greek...". Also, see Quran and Bhagvad Gita. --Neil N  talk to me 07:34, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're slightly misunderstanding WP:THE. The second criterion, not the first, addresses capitalizing "The" in running text. Your example is correct, but the same could be true for the example listed there (e.g., "Lucy placed the crown on the desk" versus "Lucy trusted the Crown to govern effectively"). You may be right on the overall point. --BDD (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The suggested name fails the criteria at WP:THE. When Bible is used as a proper noun, there is no differentiation in meaning between Bible and the Bible, nor does the form part of the title.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's also true that "When Crown is used as a proper noun, there is no differentiation in meaning between Crown and the Crown", right? --BDD (talk) 15:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Crown on its own (that is, not preceded by the) isn't typically used as a proper noun, except as part of longer titles. The most frequently intended meaning of the word Bible in isolation is the religious text of Christians; this is not the case with the word Crown. There is no more reason to refer to 'The Bible' than there is to refer to 'The Koran'. Bible is well understood to be the common name.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment See policy at WP:DEFINITE "Avoid definite and indefinite articles" and also guidance at Naming conventions (definite or indefinite article at beginning of name) which explains both "The Hague" and "The Crown" are an exception to the rule. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per PBS GregKaye 15:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - "The" is usually left uncapitalized, meaning it's not an integral part of the name; you can just as easily use the indefinite article. Hey, look, there's a Bible in my suitcase! Repeat: a Bible. The Holocaust is an irregular and extremely controversial exception and shouldn't have the title it currently has, as a perusal of the talk page history will show. Red Slash 18:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for sounding patronizing, BDD--I didn't see this was you proposing this. I'm a bit surprised--you'd rather move this page to match The Holocaust than vice-versa? Red Slash 19:14, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "The Holocaust" is the name of a specific event. No one ever says, "During World War II, there was a Holocaust." In contrast, as I pointed out earlier, and as confirmed by User:Red Slash, Bible as a proper noun, regardless of article, unambiguously refers to the Christian text.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Question I've been struggling to understand the reason for this requested move which seems very unneeded. is this move request trying to make a WP:POINT about The Holocaust? The capital B Bible is a very specific book, while lots of other books are called small b bibles, as a way of saying they are authorities on some topic. Legacypac (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reference needed for this statement "nor did it drop down from heaven as assumed by fundamentalists"
I was not aware that fundamentalists "assume" that the Bible "drop[ed] down from heaven", please provide a reference for this statement. Jeromeg52 (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)jeromeg52
 * If you tried reading the whole quote instead of just taking one small portion out of context, you'd've see that at the end of it is a little blue number. Clicking that takes you to a section titled "references," where the same number reads "Lim, Timothy H. (2005). The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 41."  A reference was provided back in November 2013.  If you want further sourcing for that statement, you'll have to check with Timothy Lim, but as far as Wikipedia's sourcing is concerned, it is adequately sourced enough to say that professor Lim said that.  Ian.thomson (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Correct you are, my mistake. So the issue is, whether this entire quote is a worthwhile inclusion in the article. Jeromeg52 (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)jeromeg52
 * It's a terrible straw man, and unworthy of inclusion here, even if it's by a reputable academic. I have trimmed the quote. StAnselm (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It does not seem clear that it is a straw man. Lim is a reliable source, and you are suggesting he is using a fallacy to present his work. Also, "trimming" the quote in this way removes an important part of what the author is saying. For someone reading the quote and reading only "of apparently divine origin" might interpret Lim as suggesting it does have a single supernatural origin and was then later amended by men. But Lim is stating in the part that was trimmed (and I replaced), that this is not the case.
 * If you don't care for the way he phrased it, that's one thing. Those are the words he chose to identify that it was not written directly by the Biblical God and handed to man. (And a few web searches will be sufficient to discover that people do believe that God wrote the Bible and gave it to man.) Alternatively, you could suggest paraphrasing it while maintaining his message and not cutting out selective portions. I myself am fine keeping the quote, but am not opposed to a paraphrase that maintains the elements of what he is saying. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not comfortable including a patently false and easily disproven statement, even if it is from a "reputable" source. This particular statement miscasts the argument made by the vast majority of fundamentalists (as delving into the web searches you cited would show) and, I would guess, stems from the source's well-documented animosity towards fundamentalists.  It is indeed a straw man, and a flimsy one at that.  Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * About one quarter of people in the US say that the bible is the actual literal words of God, not recorded by people or open to interpretation. IMO Jt, any minor differences in your own anecdotal beliefs are insufficient to demonstrate a straw man in this characterisation of the span of mainstream beliefs. Cesiumfrog (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, here is a source characterizing it as a straw man. It is a straw man because the mainstream fundamentalist view is that the Bible is fully human and fully divine, and that even though it is the literal word of God, it was not dictated (see Biblical inspiration). I appreciate the point about trimming the quote impacts the meaning; I would be in favour of removing it altogether. StAnselm (talk) 02:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * "The" mainstream fundamentalist view? Anselm, this is a no true Scotsman fallacy. Nobody is denying there exist sophisticated theologians to whose views Lim's description does not apply (although frankly, the difference between your "fully divine literal word of God" and Lim's "dropped from heaven" is indeed most subtle!), yet you seem to be denying the existence of a significant population of (perhaps naive) believers who really have have taken God to be the literal author of the bible (merely transcribed by men). Here is a different source, a rabbi explaining that for centuries the Bible was simply believed (universally) to have not been penned by humans. I'll give you a third source, a biblical scholar's book "Who wrote the bible?", which prominently asserts in the opening sentences (of the introduction) that readers of the bible "have regarded it as divinely dictated". Cesiumfrog (talk) 13:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I think we may need an RfC on this. StAnselm (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have started the RfC. You say my distinction is subtle, but it is a distinction explained in any good theology textbook. I don't think the Jewish source is all that appropriate, since "fundamentalists" in the context clearly means "Christian fundamentalists". And the Friedman quote surely isn't relevant; all he says is that some people have believed it was dictated; whereas Lim is making a much more specific claim about a much more specific group of people. StAnselm (talk) 05:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not a fundamentalist, but I am sensitive to descriptions of other's beliefs that denigrate in the guise of explanation. The Lin quotation seems, to me, to be of this type. Jeromeg52 (talk) 02:45, 11 February 2015 (UTC)jeromeg52
 * An argument that the Bible is the actual, literal word of God is not an argument that the Bible "drop[ped] down from heaven". The vast majority of fundamentalists take the position that the words are the literal word of God and yet were written by humankind, influenced by God in the process to ensure, in their view, "inerrancy" and "truth" relevant both to the time at which they were written, and today.  To claim otherwise is to miscast the argument of fundamentalism, which is precisely why Lim's inflammatory quote ought to be excluded. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC: inclusion of the Lim quote
Should the quote from Timothy Lim be included fully, partially, or not at all? In particular, is the phrase "nor did it drop down from heaven as assumed by fundamentalists" appropriate? 05:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Exclude entirely: The article would read just as well without it, and as D. A. Carson suggests, this sort of claim is a straw man, and as such unworthy of inclusion in this encyclopedia. (See also J. I. Packer and E. J. Young.) Rather than modifying the quote to remove the dubious claim, it would be better to remove Lim altogether, and possibly to find a better source. StAnselm (talk) 05:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Retain. Paraphrase if there is concern about the "drop down from heaven" wording. Lim is a reliable source (his credentials are stated in the article), and the work is published by the Oxford University Press, a fairly trusted publisher. Reliable sources do not cancel each other out at Wikipedia. To pick one idea over another (if both are presented by reliable sources) is to favor a particular point of view. This is addressed at WP:NPOV. Both ideas can exist in the same article. However, it seems apparent to me that Lim is stating that fundamentalists believe that the text was revealed or given word for word by God, not that a physical book literally fell from the sky to the ground. But even if there was editorial concern Lim is stating otherwise, I don't see why everything else should be removed. I disagree that the article would read just as well without the material. Lim provides information to the reader about how the Old Testament was constructed. That doesn't seem irrelevant to me. Airborne84 (talk) 18:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is published by OUP, but The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Very Short Introduction is a slim (152 pages) popular book talking about something else. StAnselm (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure what you're expressing here, as Lim is clearly talking about the Old Testament. The title doesn't change the reliability of him or OUP as a source. Airborne84 (talk) 06:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC) ,
 * Notability Reliability resides in sources, not in authors or publishers. If a respected author writes a popular book, that book would often be less appropriate to use than other, more substantial, works by the same author. The comment about what the OT is an unsubstantiated passing comment in a book that isn't really about the OT, but about the DSS, which is a distinct subject. He is not interacting with fundamentalists, or even quoting them, so he cannot be viewed as a reliable source about what fundamentalists believe. StAnselm (talk) 07:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's please stick with Wikipedia's policies rather than personal opinions. Notability isn't the issue here, it's reliability. And reliability at Wikipedia absolutely resides in authors and publishers. WP:RS states just past the lede that "The word 'source' when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book); the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work ... Any of the three can affect reliability" (emphasis in original). There is no distinction between if a reliable author publishes something through a reliable publisher in a book that is widely read versus a work that is not as popular. Or if there is such a policy, please share it here, as we need to ground this discussion in Wikipedia's framework, not personal opinions. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a typo, of course. Anyway, the relevant policies are WP:SOURCE ("If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources...") and WP:BIASED ("When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking...") I also think WP:RSOPINION is relevant, although the opinion is indeed attributed to Lim in the article. StAnselm (talk) 10:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * All right. I've made typos before, so no issue. We've now both pointed to policies (WP:SOURCE and WP:RS) that identify the author and publisher as reliable through credentials and reputation, respectively. I think the remaining concern is that you and Jtrevor99 disagree with the way that this reliable source stated his position.
 * I'll make two more notes here: First, I have no objection to paraphrasing what seems to be the contentious portion of the quote, but you appear to desire the removal of even the non-contentious part of Lim's wording. It might be useful to clarify why as there would then be a gap in the article regarding how the Old Testament was composed. Second, you have not suggested a different way of replacing the text you find contentious (or the the text you don't find contentious). Short of that, I'm fine to now leave it to other editors to comment. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 11:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, my initial move was to have states that the Old Testament is a "collection of authoritative texts... but you reverted that. Yes, the contentious bit is clearly the "as assumed by fundamentalists", but the other things Lim says the Bible is not don't seem all that helpful. Like, "it's not a magical book" - does anyone think it is? How many other books on wikipedia are described as "not a magical book"? The "not written by one man" bit duplicates the preceding "produced over a period in which the living conditions of the writers... varied enormously". StAnselm (talk) 11:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine, then perhaps the below is a reasonable solution: "Timothy H. Lim, a professor of Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism at the University of Edinburgh, identifies that the Old Testament is 'a collection of authoritative texts of apparently divine origin that went through a human process of writing and editing.' He states that it is not a supernatural book nor was it literally written by God and passed to mankind."
 * Paraphrasing the parts that you and Jtrevor feel are contentious and putting them at the end allows other views to be juxtaposed with them, including all notable views on this topic. Airborne84 (talk) 21:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I think we might be getting somewhere here. Thanks for making such a big effort. The only thing I'm not sure about is whether Lim would deny the Hebrew Bible is "supernatural". That's a rather vague word, and doesn't mean the same as "magical". StAnselm (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be most accurate, it would remain "magical". And that may be fine given that I assume you and others will list other ideas after that sentence. Alternatively, we could use supernatural but put Lim's exact wording in a footnote for reference if there is concern we may not be paraphrasing accurately. Airborne84 (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I concur with this approach, and also thank you for the effort! Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad we were able to work it out. Airborne84 (talk) 07:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The core issue is that Lim badly misrepresents fundamentalist belief on this topic. His wording reflects critics' misrepresentation of fundamentalism, instead of the facts.  If Lim's quote accurately reflected fundamentalist belief on the topic, or if his incontrovertibly biased phraseology on the topic was paraphrased to remove the bias and to limit itself to the facts, it would be welcome to remain.  A reasonable parallel of the concern would be, if we were talking about climate change, quoting a climate change believer who miscasts skeptics as "people who think the Earth is a magical land that will never change no matter what we do to it".  It is the very epitome of a straw man.  Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Exclude. Lim's very wording provides a powerful argument for exclusion.  He could have easily phrased his point in a non-inflammatory way and instead chose one that exposes his personal convictions, falsely espousing them as facts. Meanwhile, the statement itself is patently false - while there is no universal consensus amongst Christian fundamentalists, as they themselves admit (see for example Ron Julian at Gutenberg College), the majority clearly state instead that the Bible is the "inerrant" word of God, who inspired the authors of their times to write those words down, to relate "truth" both to their own cultures and times, and those of today.  There is no "magical book dropping from the sky" quality to the belief, nor is there a "God picked up a pen and paper and wrote this down" quality.  Jtrevor99 (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Council of Trent was not an Ecumenical Council
The article states that the Council of Trent was an Ecumenical Council. An Ecumenical Council is universal (Oikumenos = "world"), proclaiming Christian Truth that is believed by Christians, "everywhere, always, and by all." The last Ecumenical Council was in 787 A.D., nearly 800 years before Trent. There are regional councils, such as Trullo in 692, Toledo in 587 which added the filioque to the Nicene Creed, etc. Trent is also an example of a regional (western) council, as it was neither attended nor recognized by the Eastern Christian Patriarchates (Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Alexandria). The New Testament Canon was finalized de facto in the late 4th century. St. Athanasius acknowledges the 27 books of the New Testament Canon in his 39th Festal letter in 367, over a thousand years before Trent. Perhaps Trent defined the NT Canon for the Roman Catholic Church but this too seems highly dubious. So this section needs some work but the article is locked. Tpkatsa (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Correct, and AFAIK Trent had nothing whatsoever to do with defining any limits of the Canon in the western (Roman Catholic) church. Possibly it reaffirmed that the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books of the OT were considered part of the Canon, because these had now been rejected as such by the protestants, but that approval was nothing new - it had been recognized for many centuries within both the eastern Orthodox and the Roman churches. 83.254.154.164 (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I have removed the claim - it wasn't in the cited source anyway. StAnselm (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2015
209.87.18.22 (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC) I love to read the BiBle when I,m by myself and please do so will bring your uplifting high with the creator GOD who created heaven and earth and man child and the ladies in six days and seventh day he took a rest


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2015
BraJBingham (talk) 22:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I never vandalize Wikia and Wikipedia pages


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:03, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not yet able to edit the article. Please add/change this if possible. There is misleading information in the ingress/first part of the article. The canon in the classic protestant bible, who is the most used, is the same canon as the jewish tanakh, though the order of the books are different (except for messianic translations - where the order is the same). The Christian OT is also normally translated from the original Hebrew, and not the Septuaginta, who is a greek jewish translation from 200 B.C. (The NT translates from the original greek, who was lingua franca at the time, written by the first jewish believers in Jeshua as the awaited messiah, who Christians believe to be the awaited messiah described in the tanakh). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tordaniel (talk • contribs) 10:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ The first section (Versions of the Bible) does have some problems, but those are caused by poor sourcing. Adding information that lacks professionally published mainstream academic sources (and is slanted toward Protestantism and Messianic Judaism) really contributes to that problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150514190514/http://books.google.com/books?id=diqTpD-UbW0C&lpg=PA98&pg=PA98 to https://books.google.com/books?id=diqTpD-UbW0C&lpg=PA98&pg=PA98#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150515132545/http://books.google.com/books?id=iBu5Tpc4DtcC&lpg=PA27&pg=PA27&dq=isbn%3A0156106981 to https://books.google.com/books?id=iBu5Tpc4DtcC&lpg=PA27&pg=PA27&dq=isbn%3A0156106981#v=onepage&q&f=false
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080413180222/http://www.churchcouncil.org/ccpdfdocs/01_Biblical_Inerrancy_A&D.pdf to http://www.churchcouncil.org/ccpdfdocs/01_Biblical_Inerrancy_A&D.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 11:02, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Dubious
Note: I did not add these tags. I simply noticed them and found there was no discussion on them (yet).

The unifying property of the Tanakh is that all its books are originally written in Hebrew, and, to a very minor degree, in the Aramaic language. The unifying property of the varying Christian Bibles is that all their books were originally written in Greek.
 * Section: Jewish Bible
 * Section: Christian Bibles

Bataaf van Oranje (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion


 * Just delete them. The bit about "Christian Bibles" is blatantly false, and they both constitute original research. StAnselm (talk) 21:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, the statements are broadly accurate (that the Hebrew bible was basically written in Hebrew whereas Christian appendages to it, eg. the entire NT, were basically written in Koine Greek). Sources: Although I'd weaken the editorialisation (the " The unifying property" part). Cesiumfrog (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

=== thats all that listed on historical higher criticism?? a paragraph????

"There is no single Bible"
I have changed the line in the introduction that read "There is no single "Bible" and many Bibles with varying contents exist." This statement is tendencious and reflects an anti-religious bias, but moreover it is misleading. Although the list of canonically accepted "books" of the Bible does vary, it varies only slightly. And although the Jewish Bible does not contain the Christian scriptures, the Christian Bible does include the Jewish Bible in its entirety. Thus there is not a plurality of Bibles, but only of Bible canons. It is misleading to say that "many Bibles exist" - this implies that there are a number of completely different and unrelated books which all go by the name "Bible". Wwallacee (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you checked to make sure that the wording you changed it to actually reflects what the source says? If not, then you are attributing words and thoughts to an author who didn't present them. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2016
Request to edit the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible.

Currently:

The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books") is a collection of texts sacred in Judaism and Christianity.

Suggested Change:

The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books") is a collection of texts sacred in Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Discussion: Jews, Christians and Muslims are all People of the Book. As discussed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_view_of_the_Christian_Bible, Muslims believe that three of the books made it through history unscathed but that the rest were corrupted. They believe the Koran is the corrected text, but still the Bible. How shall we accurately and sensitively edit this text to indicate this? Professional discussion may be required.

Greg Hebert greg@gjhebert.com multicad@ix.netcom.com 734.355.6619

Ghebert (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. It would be misleading to mention in the first sentence that the Bible is considered sacred in Islam, as it might imply that it is a central religious text in Islam -- it's not. The Islamic view of the Christian Bible is already mentioned in the body of this article under the subsection "Other religions". Whether to include it in the lead might be worth discussing, but I don't believe it should go in the first sentence. Mz7 (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081221231334/http://mideastfacts.org:80/facts/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=34 to http://mideastfacts.org/facts/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=34

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Luke was apparently a gentile.
Article claims, "a collection of writings by early Christians, believed to be Jewish disciples of Christ, written in first-century . . . ." Since it appears that Luke was a gentile (and Luke wrote a very large chunk of the NT), should that "Jewish" claim be modified? (PeacePeace (talk) 03:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC))
 * Yes, that's right - I added the word "mostly". StAnselm (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Use of female psychology
The bible seems to be a compilation of mostly figurative speech and female psychology compared to the earlier male prose of deities. Any study on this done by biblical scholars and the effects on biblical theology e.g. given that the western world has become mostly female centered with male psyche becoming more absent as we speak by day? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.97.160.122 (talk) 16:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Also the fact that most scientists came from bible oriented families and have led to total loss of faith in the bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.97.160.122 (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

"Also the fact that most scientists came from bible oriented families and have led to total loss of faith in the bible." Ignoring the meaningless terms do you claim most american scientists are christians because the country is christian? That be reasonable guess assuming averages. But we find people with Doctorates are extremely skewed to Atheist/not religious, Esp in sciences.--Kkkkkk8888 (talk) 08:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Unknown any references are pure guess work
"believed to be mostly Jewish disciples of Christ"

Bible contains old testament nobody makes the baseless claim it was written by them.

Can believe anything they want in any bible religion but I thought wiki had standards? There is no information on who wrote what or even if the disciples existed. So believe all they want its not a baseless claim that wiki should make.--Kkkkkk8888 (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your comments above are almost incomprehensible. Please try to explain more clearly. Sundayclose (talk) 17:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Divine Inspiration
"a collection of authoritative texts of apparently divine origin that went through a human process of writing and editing."

Let me guess this reference is from a christian! Do other people make this claim? No

So at least be balanced, how about quote from a person who think its the devils work just to be unbiased?--Kkkkkk8888 (talk) 08:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * By leaving out the first clause of that quote, "Timothy H. Lim, a professor of Hebrew Bible and Second Temple Judaism at the University of Edinburgh, says that the Old Testament is ...", you are misrepresenting what it is stating. The statement is factual and does not need altered.  You also neglect to mention that the statement immediately preceding it already gives a non-religious balance to this quote. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with . The criticism is meaningless at best. Sundayclose (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 August 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk •&#32;mail) 11:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Bible → The Bible – Per WP:COMMONNAME. This is a clear exception to WP:THE, since no one calls this "Bible"; it is universally given with "the", like The Hague (or with a descriptive modifier that replaces the definite article, e.g. "Gideon Bible"). The short title violates MOS:TITLE; we do not remove "The" (or "A"/"An" for that matter) from the titles of works, even if they're traditional or manuscript materials rather than single-author, modern works. The word "bible" (lower case) by itself is used informally millions of times a day to refer to any comprehensive work on a topic ("a bible of fly fishing") or authoritative source ("her book is the bible of mobile device security"), and appears this way in the actual titles of many published works with nothing to do with religion (The Linux Bible, etc.), and is even sometimes used in a comparative way for other religious works ("the Q'ran is the bible of Islam", etc.) The shorter "Bible" title should, of course, continue to redirect here, per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But the very fact that the phrase "the Judeo-Christian Bible" exists and is in fairly common use shows that the word by itself has some ambiguity issues, especially for non-Christian, non-Jewish readers (many of whom may come from cultural backgrounds where the broader usage is more common than it is in the US, UK, and other predominantly Christian, anglophone countries). Regardless, it's just weird that this is without a leading "The". — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  12:02, 26 August 2016 (UTC) Revised. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose move. Every copy I own is titled "Holy Bible" or simply "Bible", without a definite article. Of course in English it is typical to address the religious text as The Bible in much the same way we address other important literary works: The Arabian Nights, The Kama Sutra, The Almagest, The Quran, etc. Note the redirects. In Wikipedia articles we do remove "The" from the titles of works. There are situations when it is referred to and not preceded by the definite article: Bible commentary, Bible concordance, Bible scholar, Bible character, Bible passage, Bible verse, etc. It is demonstrably untrue that Bible is always preceded by "The". I don't think there is a good case for unnecessarily lengthening the title of this article. The Bible already redirects here. And I don't consider the current title of the article to be "weird" or unexpected. --Hazhk (talk) 16:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Cover style chosen by publisher doesn't address the WP:COMMONNAME argument (though I forgot to link to that specifically in the original post). We care about what the reader expects, not what publisher prefer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Are we going to add "The" to all the other religious texts too? THE Quran, THE Lotus Sutra, THE Book of Mormon, THE Guru Granth Sahib? Editor2020 (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of those are not comparable because they're non-English names, and we should not tack English The onto them. A The ... English-language title (that is an official or conventional title, not a sometimes-used approximate translation of something non-English and eschewed in other cases) should usually be at a The title here, just like The Lord of the Rings or any other published work. We do not strip a leading The from the English titles of works, not just "because they're religious".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:36, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose While it is often referred to as "the Bible", I dispute that the is part of the proper name. It's perfectly fine to refer to a Bible (that is, an individual copy of the Bible) or his/her/their Bible. Compare Quran or Bhagavad Gita. I'll add more to this later regarding sources and whatnot. clpo13(talk) 17:07, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment this requested made me look at The Bronx. I was surprised that Bronx is not the main article but a redirect to The Bronx. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * We do seem to be treating reglious texts, for some reason, differently from both geographical locations like the Bronx and the Hague, and (more importantly) from the titles of other published works (books, films, etc.) in which we retain a leading "The". I see this as problematic. "Do 'Bible' because we do 'Book of Mormon = the WP:OTHERCONTENT argument to avoid, and just points out other articles that need their titles fixed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment First of all I think this is kind of making a mountain out of a molehill. It's not like anyone won't be able to find the article because the title is off. That being said, I see two arguments that haven't yet been touched on in support of changing the title to "The Bible", namely:
 * Both the Merriam-Webster and Oxford online dictionaries have "the Bible" as the most common usage when referring to the Christian or Hebrew scriptures.
 * The original language--Koine Greek--uses the definite article. A weak argument to be sure, but an argument nevertheless.
 * Ultimately it doesn't matter very much! People will find the article either way. And yeah I think it looks a little odd as is, but then I find other WP title conventions (such as using sentential capitalization for article titles) a little odd as well, so I'll live. Webbbbbbber (talk) 01:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Firstly, most, if not all relevant dictionary entries (including Oxford Dictionary of English) are alphabetically sorted as "Bible", meaning you wouldn't find "the Bible" under the letter "T". In terms of WP:THE the article discusses both the Bible itself and its copies, initially in the lead, then in the separate section Bible, so the absence of "the" provides a sort of appropriate topical fluidity. This is not the case of, say, The Old Man and the Sea where "the" is a dead-stiff and integral part of the title. Brandmeistertalk  19:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title is more concise, and the proposed title fails this part of THE: For example, The Old Man and the Sea includes the article "The" because sentences such as "Ernest Hemingway wrote The Old Man and the Sea in 1951" are written with a capitalized "The". On the contrary, United States does not include the article "The", because sentences such as "California is part of the United States" are written with a lowercase "the". Chase (talk &#124; contributions) 20:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible (possible source)
The ANE list received this from Russell Gmirkin

Routledge Press (New York–London) has now officially released my new book for publication, Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible, as part of the Copenhagen International Seminar series. Its abstract reads as follows:

Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible compares the ancient law collections of the Ancient Near East, the Greeks and the Pentateuch to determine the legal antecedents for the biblical laws. Constitutional features in biblical law are shown to contain striking agreement with those found at Athens and described in Plato’s Laws of ca. 350 BCE. Similarly, biblical statutes contain many striking parallels with Athenian laws, and specifically with those found in Plato’s Laws. The literary structure and legal force of biblical law collections are also shown to correspond closely with Greek rather than Ancient Near Eastern law collections. The Pentateuchal presentation of legal content within a narrative context is also found in a variety of Greek literary forms, especially Greek foundation stories, which closely conform in outline to the biblical story of the exodus, wilderness wanderings, and conquest of the Promised land under Moses and Joshua. The legal and narrative content of the Pentateuch thus reflect substantial Greek influences, especially from Plato’s Laws. Finally, this book argues that the creation of the Hebrew Bible took place according to the program for creating a national ethical literature found in Plato's Laws, reinforcing the importance of this specific text to the authors of the Torah and Hebrew Bible in the early Hellenistic Era.

Although the book concludes that the Hebrew Bible is largely a product of Greek legal and literary influences in the early Hellenistic Era, readers on this list may find much of interest that is relevant to Ancient Near Eastern studies, highlighted below.

Chapter 1 (Introduction) argues that, since the first external evidence for the Hebrew Bible appears in the Hellenistic Era, it is appropriate to take both Greek and Ancient Near Eastern laws fully into account in seeking to identify the antecedents for biblical legal materials.

Although Chapter 2 (Athenian and Pentateuchal Legal Institutions) is primarily concerned with extensive parallels between Greek constitutions and Pentateuchal governmental institutions and other sometimes explicitly constitutional content, it has an important discussion on the complete absence of the genre of constitutional law in the Ancient Near East down to the end of the Persian Era.

Chapter 3 (Biblical, Ancient Near Eastern and Greek Laws) contains the first systematic comparison of biblical, Greek and Ancient Near Eastern laws, including laws on homicide, assault, theft, marriage, inheritance, sexual offenses, slavery, economic relief, livestock, property crimes, commerce, the military, magic, treason, religion, and ethics. While a few Pentateuchal laws derive from Old Babylonian and Assyrian collections, many have striking parallels with Greek and Athenian laws, and especially with Plato’s Laws.

Chapter 4 (Greek and Ancient Near Eastern Law Collections) compares Ancient Near Eastern, Greek and biblical law collections as literary forms. It is shown that the biblical law collections correspond to Greek law collections rather than either Ancient Near Eastern law collections or the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon with respect to sources, purpose, framing structure, divine promulgation, public recitation, ratification, educational utility and prescriptive force.

Chapter 5 (Greek and Biblical Legal Narratives) discusses the integration of legal content with narrative found in both the Pentateuch and Greek writings, but not in the Ancient Near East.

Chapter 6 (The Creation of the Hebrew Bible) argues that the closest comparison to the Hebrew Bible is the approved ethical national literature proposed in Plato’s Laws of ca. 350 bce, and that both the Torah and the earliest Hebrew Bible were created in ca. 270 bce in accordance with the literary program laid out in Plato’s Laws. The model of literary production by educated elites under governmental sponsorship, direction and authorization as found in Plato’s Laws contrasts with the usual Ancient Near Eastern model of the organic growth of the Hebrew Bible in palace, temple and hypothetical prophetic scribal circles. The upshot is that the Torah and Hebrew Bible are substantially Greek in their conception and major literary influences, a conclusion that is likely to impact Ancient Near Eastern studies in the future vis a vis the biblical text.

A separate abstract for each chapter may be found at http://russellgmirkin.com/newest-plato-book, and Chapter 1 may be found either online on the Routledge site or downloadable (with permission from Routledge) at my page on Academia.edu.

Doug Weller talk 16:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A guestion
I am not really sure who should I ask, but is the "bible" a reliable source, in the way that for example, I write about a biblical palce, and describe the place's story according to the bible? Throwing off an example, can I describe the story of the Tribe of Zebulun, using the bible as a source? (referenced as "Joshua 11:21")--Bolter21 (talk to me) 22:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Bolter21 It's ok if there isn't much content dependent on religious text as a source in the article, but it's really recommended that a more trusted source be used instead for the sake of avoiding POV pushing and WP:OR. I recommend using an academic source via Google Books echoing the biblical narrative. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, my main intention right now, is to add a section for the article about Hama, telling the story of David's conquest of the City and its vassalization. I also plan on searching for non-bible source, like ones who might say "there is no evidence this happend" or ones that say "this was also described in [a name of a tablet]" or "archeological foundings proved that..". So from what I understand, I can describe what is written in the Bible, even if I don't find sources beyond it.--Bolter21 (talk to me) 23:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2016
Please change:

> The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books"[1]) is a collection of sacred texts in Judaism and Christianity

to

> The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books"[1]) is a collection of religious texts in Judaism and Christianity

In the first sentence, the Bible is described as a collection of "sacred" texts. This is rather imprecise, since 'sacred' usually indicates that something actually is holy, which of course the Bible is not. A better word would be 'religious'. FinanceOnWikipedia (talk) 23:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -- Dane 2007 </b> talk  06:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: User:FinanceOnWikipedia has now been blocked as a sockpuppet. StAnselm (talk) 02:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Mikraot Gedolot Haketer
I suggest to add a link to the project of Bar Ilan University: Mikraot Gedolot Haketer - https://www.mgketer.org (Hebrew) You can see a little bit about this project here and in Hebrew at the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emmanuel678 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

We definately need to mark the bible as fictional
in the light of the discovery of a body in the tomb of jesus, the new testament should be classified as 'Fictional'. The evidence presented by archeologists is overwhelmingly disproving to the biblical tale of jesus, which further undermines the Old testament. Also, if you block me or mark me as sockpuppet, that would be discrimiation, which I WILL file against wikimedia, due to my status as a athiest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy Minh (talk • contribs) 01:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ...Why do you raise the issue of sockpuppetry? Also, no legal threats allowed on Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Not saying it´s anything that should be in the article, but it sounds interesting. Which tomb of Jesus, where can I read about this discovery? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * I am assuming that the reference is to The Lost Tomb of Jesus which is a highly speculative documentary and not something that I would view as a reputable secondary source. This should be compared to the National Geographic Society's report on the opening of the reputed tomb of Jesus.   Taxee (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I am an atheist myself, but I do not follow this logic. Jesus is dead, so this undermines the Old Testament? How? The Bible is a collection of disparate texts. Dimadick (talk) 15:47, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed: this argument makes no logical sense, and one's personal beliefs are (or at least should be) wholly irrelevant both to the content of an article, and to one's behavior on WP. Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

"First book ever printed using movable type"
The article has the claim that the Bible is the "first book ever printed using movable type", which is not true, it even links to the Movable type article. Can somebody edit or remove this erroneous claim? 80.44.139.118 (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ That statement wasn't supported by any source on this page. The article on movable type says Jikji is the oldest extant movable metal type book.

It may however, be of note that “The Whole Booke of Psalmes,” or the Bay Psalm Book, was the first book printed in American.````

Names.
If there is no section for Bible names, I think we should add a section and put the names in. Tybomb124 (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * , are you looking for something like List of biblical names? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah. Maybe we should merge that page into this page. Tybomb124 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I don´t think that´s a good idea. If you go to the bottom of the Bible article, you find an expandable section called "Bible lists", where you find List of biblical names and much else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017
There are a couple linguistic oddities in the article. "The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books")[1] is a collection of sacred texts or scriptures..."

Scriptures means "sacred writings/texts" so it really sounds like the sentence reads "The Bible is a collection of sacred texts or sacred texts." It would make more sense to just write "is a collection of sacred texts or writings" since "scriptura" is technically just the latin word for "writings." And the use of the term by the NT authors is in this context as well.

- - - "Many different authors contributed to the Bible."

The word "contributed" seems to be completely misused here. The implication is a foreknowledge by the writers to help with a future endeavor, just like I were to "contribute" an article to a magazine, I have foreknowledge of its final purpose/use. But this is incorrect. None of the writers expected their work to be part of a later compilation. The writer of Psalms never expected his work to be paired or grouped with Maccabees, Esther, Chronicles, Ephesians, the Gospels, etc. And I think this is an important distinction to make somewhere in the article. It is the later editors/compilers who decide, without the author's consent, to group the works together into an authoritative text. This is true of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible. A more accurate statement would be to acknowledge this historical fact, that the works individually had different authors who wrote in different periods for different purposes and to different audiences, each group (hebrew and christian) separately decided what was holy to them.

- - -

"Attitudes towards the Bible also differ amongst Christian groups."

After stating that there is both a Hebrew Bible and a Christian Bible in the paragraph immediately preceding, it is confusing as to which "bible" the statement is referring. The placement of "also" is confusing as well. It makes more sense to say "Attitudes towards the Christian Bible differ amongst the various Christian groups." Or "Within Christianity, there are differing attitudes towards the Christian Bible."

Actually there becomes a problem with the entirety of the Wikipedia "Bible" page once there is the mention of a "Hebrew Bible" and a "Christian Bible." Everything that follows, which is not specifically denoted, implies that the term "Bible" could refer to either text/compilation of books.

- - - Under "Etymology > Textual history," it states: "By the 2nd century BCE, Jewish groups began calling the books of the Bible the "scriptures" and they referred to them as "holy,"....."

Since there was no "bible" (either Hebrew or Christian) in the 2nd century bc, it is a very odd sentence to state anyone "began calling the books of the Bible the "scriptures." No one would ever say "at the beginning of time, they first started calling the parts of the car the "wheel."" It is better to say "By the 2nd century BCE, Jewish groups began referring to their holy books as the "scriptures" or "the writings.""

The second part of the sentence is equally awkward/incorrect where it states "....and they referred to them as "holy"..." implying that it was the first time they were considered holy. But the internal evidence in Deuteronomy notes that right from the beginning Moses directed the Israelites to give them priority as a law of God. [Deut 31:9-13, and again Deut 31:24-26] The very next author, Joshua, reinforces this in Josh 8:32-35, and later on in Josh 24:26, and again in Neh 8:1-8. The written words of the prophet Samuel were considered holy as attested to in 1 Kings 10:25. In 2 Chronicles 29:30 it attests to "the words of David" being used in praise of God. Later on in 2 Maccabees 2:13-15, it becomes even broader, including "the books about the kings and the prophets, and the writings of David, and the letters of kings." The point of all this is that though they collectively may have first started to be called "the writings" in the 2nd century bc, they were "referred to as holy" far far earlier, and sometimes almost immediately (as with Moses).

- - - "The books which make up the Christian Old Testament differ between the Catholic (see Catholic Bible), Orthodox, and Protestant (see Protestant Bible) churches, with the Protestant movement accepting only those books contained in the Hebrew Bible, while Catholics and Orthodox have wider canons. A few groups consider particular translations to be divinely inspired, notably the Greek Septuagint and the Aramaic Peshitta.[citation needed]"

The presentation is oddly un-chronological (presenting Protestants first) and lacking historical context. It makes more sense to rewrite it as following: "The books which make up the Christian Old Testament differ between the Catholic (see Catholic Bible), Orthodox, and Protestant (see Protestant Bible) churches. The original Christian Bible followed the Septuagint. While Catholics and Orthodox continued its use, the Protestant movement initially accepted them but separated the Apocrypha before later removing them all together in favor of only those contained in the Hebrew Bible. " This better represents historical facts and order of events. (Prior to 1827 ALL Bibles, Catholic, Protestant, etc., which can be attested to by opening any Protestant Bible prior to that time. While the 7 Apocrypha were in dispute, no one dared remove them from the Canon. It wasn't until the British and Foreign Bible Society decided in 1827 to remove these books from further publications, thus ending the dispute among Protestants as to their legitimacy.) I could find no reference to any christian faith that relied upon the "Aramaic Peshitta," which is probably why a citation would be needed.

- - - "In Eastern Christianity, translations based on the Septuagint still prevail." Not true. We know from history that the Early Church canonize the books of the Septuagint in 397 at the Council of Carthage. We also know that while they used the books, they did not use the text. Jerome (who translated it) relied on the Hebrew originals as the basis for his translation, which became the Latin Vulgate. (FYI, both of these statements are verified on your own website.) One could say that the NT writers relied heavily on the Septuagint, since their quoted material is almost identical to the Greek and not the Hebrew, but not that the translation was based on the Septuagint text. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1908 also attests to this.

"The Septuagint was generally abandoned in favour of the 10th-century Masoretic Text as the basis for translations of the Old Testament into Western languages." The reason a citation is needed or missing is because the statement is false. The Latin translation was the basis for other translations into western languages until the Protestants came along. Once the Catholic Church translated the Old Testament into Latin, they continued to reproduce and use only the Latin Vulgate because it was the declared, authoritative text. And again, the Septuagint was never the primary source for the translated "text." It is possible that it may have been the original source for Jerome. But that still would make the statement "The Septuagint was generally abandoned in favour of..." logically false.

- - - "Modern Protestant traditions do not accept the deuterocanonical books as canonical, although Protestant Bibles included them in Apocrypha sections until the 1820s. However, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches include these books as part of their Old Testament."

"However, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches include these books as part of their Old Testament." should be rewritten to say "Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches never excluded these books as part of their Old Testament." Since from the beginning of the Bible in 397, the disputed books were always included in the Bible, the Protestant question/dispute was regarding whether the books should be removed or excluded.

- - - "The Old Testament canon entered into Christian use in the Greek Septuagint translations and original books, and their differing lists of texts. In addition to the Septuagint, Christianity[vague] subsequently added various writings that would become the New Testament."

Both sentences make little sense. Writing "The Old Testament canon entered into Christian use in the Greek Septuagint translations and original books..." is like saying "The car entered into Ford's use of the Taurus...." The OT is the general term for Hebrew scriptures and the Septuagint is the specific term for the same thing. Thus the sentence makes no sense. The quotes of the NT writers with respect to the OT is most closely represented in the Greek Septuagint, which is why the Early Church also relied on the Septuagint. If it was the main source document for the quotes in the letters they revered, it was hard to dispute its importance.

The second is inaccurate. The early Christian congregations relied heavily on the letters of Paul, Peter, Matthew, Luke, and other letters which would ultimately form the NT. So they did not "add" to the Septuagint, but the Septuagint was later "added" to the letters. And the reason the Septuagint was important to them was because the writers of the letters were using it for quotes. And to reinforce this view, one only needs to look at 2 major Catholic Church Councils: the Council of Carthage and the Council of Trent. The Council of Carthage only listed the books of the OT but did not define them as canonical... which is why Luther would be able to dispute them later. It is the Council of Trent, in response to Luther's dispute, that they finally canonize the 46 of the OT from their original list at the Council of Trent. Again, this is another thing that is reinforced on your own website.

- - - "Somewhat different lists of accepted works continued to develop in antiquity. In the 4th century a series of synods produced a list of texts equal to the 39, 46/51, 54, or 57-book canon of the Old Testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament that would be subsequently used to today, most notably the Synod of Hippo in 393 CE."

This too is very odd phrasing. After stating that things "continued to develop in antiquity," it is followed by a run-on sentence that really adds no clarification. On first reading it appears that it is focusing more on the OT... until the NT is added... and then the inclusion of a Synod which had no doctrinal authority (thus the Council of Carthage in 397, which did). The "continued development" of the OT and the NT should be separated so it is not confusing. This would then allow for the inclusion of the different Jewish canons in antiquity, which seems oddly absent from this discourse. Both Josephus (in "Antiquities 18.16") and Origen (Against Celsus 1.49) write about the Sadducees only respecting the 5 books of Moses as holy, the Pharisees having 22 books (Josephus, "Against Apion," 1.37-43, LCL), and the Essenes seeming to have 94 (4 Ezra 14:23-48). Additionally your own site notes that the Tanakh declared the number of books to be 24. Thus there was no established Jewish canon at the time of NT writers, which is why Jesus and the NT writers just refer to holy texts as "the writings" or "scriptures." That came (as your site does mention) later around the 900's, well after the Christians had already chosen their 46 based on the Septuagint.

- - - Thats all for now. Thanks, mv Markvacha (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Thanks for sharing your thoughts about the article. Unfortunately, the preceding is what's known around here as a wall of text; few, if any, of the volunteer editors here will read it carefully in its entirety. Edit requests should be relatively succinct and phrased in the form, "change x to y"; reliable sources should be included for any substantive changes. If you'd like to see multiple changes, it's usually best to request one at a time. Rivertorch   <sup style="color:#FF0066;">FIRE <sub style="color:#0066FF;">WATER   05:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Fictitious Dispute
Since millions of people base their lives around this book I think it is inherently wrong to say that this book is definitively fictitious in the opening sentence describing it. The Quran and Torah both have "is the central religious text of" but the bible, the basis of the biggest religion in the world gets "is a collection of fictional sacred texts" this doesn't seem like we are treating all religion's equal. please update either Quran and Torah's page or give the Bible the credit it deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.222.238.25 (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It was a recent addition that has now been reverted. StAnselm (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * People can always learn things from books, but that doesn't mean it isn't fiction. The whole book is just ridiculous. So many names are mentioned, but only few characters are really described. The writing style is just terrible like mentioning a bunch of people begetting further irrelevant names. And you really want to tell us humans used to have a life expectancy of centuries? The dates don't add up. Historical novels are classified as fiction, there is no doubt in that. --178.7.46.121 (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you prove it's fiction? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 04:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:NOTFORUM. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

"So many names are mentioned, but only few characters are really described."

In other words, several characters are not properly fleshed out. Valid criticism on the characterization, but it can not be used to determine historicity. Dimadick (talk) 16:09, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * In response to the IP, the Old Testament is considered one of the finest works of literature, at least according to Nietzsche, so no, the writing style is not terrible.Music314812813478 (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It isn't even a novel, it is several myths that provide archetypes, so you can expect long lines of genealogies.Music314812813478 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The focus shouldn't be on the writing style and a famous person's opinion doesn't become holy. Moreover, using literature and the concept of characterization contradict your views. Existent or nonexistent characterization is part of the narrator's bias. You can't deny that facts have been altered and misinterpreted throughout the years. Proving non-existence is impossible. Religions always started out as small sects. If your book today has enough followers, you can start something as well and believe in an entity like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. People will deem you crazy because your book was published in the wrong era, where major beliefs have already been established. The Bible was just lucky, but no one will admit that since it contains God's words, which are sacrosanct. No one believes that a certain Chinese man lived for 300 years, but the longevity described in the Bible must be true. --147.142.63.183 (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Best Selling? or Most Printed?
I'd like to point out that while the bible might be the most printed book of all time, it is not certainly the best selling book of all time. There is no support in making the claim of best selling book because there are limited record keeping for actual sales. To say there are 5 billion bibles sold you would need records of all the production costs, who printed them, when where they printed and how much was the selling price. Bibles are given away for free around the world. You can get one any time you go to a hotel. You can find them given away in missionaries. You can get free bibles on Google. That's part of the gimmick in a religious sense.digitalbeachbum 11:16, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Choice of Words When Invoking the Word "Bible"
The very first line of this article reads: "The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books")[1] is a collection of sacred texts or scriptures that Jews and Christians consider to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans." I believe this should be changed slightly, perhaps to the following: "The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books")[1] is a collection of sacred texts or scriptures that Christians consider to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans. A portion of the Bible, known as the Hebrew Bible, is held in a similarly high regard by Jews."

I suggest removing the direct association between the “Bible” and “Jews,” and while adding a sentence afterwards to explain the Jewish view more clearly. It is certainly true that Jews do not regard the entire Bible as sacred; they only regard a portion of the Bible as sacred. When we English-speakers refer to the “Bible,” we must be clear about what we are actually talking about. That which one might call the “Bible” in a Jewish context and that which one might call the “Bible” in a Christian context are certainly not identical. Therefore, it does not make sense to talk about the Bible in an English sentence that also makes reference to both Judaism and Christianity. To clearly and accurately distinguish the two religions’ conception of what is sacred, I suggest we only relate one religion to the “Bible” – Christianity. In my opinion, this is not a sign of disregard for Judaism but is rather a way of making the sentence make more sense from a Jewish point of view. Since the English language is not neutral (it developed in a Christian society and thus contains inherent Christian biases), it makes sense to define the (one and only) Bible as uniquely Christian. In an English sentence, it makes sense to use a different word to refer to what Jews would call the “Bible.” That is why one can use the Hebrew word tanakh or the scholarly term “Hebrew Bible;” in an English-speaking context, these terms are essentially reserved for this exact purpose, while the same cannot be said for the “Bible” in a Christian context. If this Wikipedia article were written in Hebrew (or even in a language with no bias between Judaism and Christianity), then the translation would be different. ref: Solomon, Norman. “Introduction.” Judaism: a Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HChalfin (talk • contribs) 04:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Rfc at Bible and violence please comment
Talk:The_Bible_and_violence — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenhawk777 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Bible
Bible...what is bible?..every one thinks that bible is just a book with some logics..is that true?...no,bible is the book of life that originated from the almighty...bible is the answers for all our questions.the whole world its stratergy,the recent stage till 2018 and till world end,all the things are in bible.the things wrote in the bible about humans are 101 percentage truth and all the signs are happening in our world...just wait for the anti christ..the bible says that our almighty will be back and that is true...the concept is on the book of revelation...the bible is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshil antony wilfred (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion, nor is it a place to preach. We're just an encyclopedia, all we do is summarize sources.  Ian.thomson (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC, if the Bible were published today, would it be a crime of hate speech laws?
See wikipedia "hate speech", "Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.[1][2] "

Quote the Bible "That whosoever would not seek the Lord God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." (2 Chronicles 15:13)

Clearly this is hate speech against Hindus, Buddhists and any religion that does not seek the God of Israel.

Hate speech includes attacks on basis of religion.

Therefore my point is that if the Bible were published today, it would be hate speech.

Agree? Per in Sweden (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Interesting question, but wrong place. Actually, I can't think of a place on WP that's right for it, per WP:TPG, Legal disclaimer and all that noise. To put this in some kind of WP-context, you'd have to find reliable sources that discuss this question and then (try to) add it to a WP-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:51, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If you google "bible hate speech" you get a lot of links that discusses this, especially in gays rights issues.Per in Sweden (talk) 08:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hate speech mentions Åke Green, if you remember him. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * That is true, I saw it. I think you can consider the Bible as a reliable source in the context of quotable source that does not change. If one includes the above quote, and a reference to hate speech wikipedia article, one could safely say that "it could be argued that the Bible contains hate speech." I did not find any reliable sources that argues 2 Chronicles quote is hate speech, but I would not consider it a leap of logic to argue that it is hate speech, in my view it is self-evident. Per in Sweden (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

If you went by the standard that you set as "hate speech", most religious books would be called "hate Speech". For example, the Quran has lots of "hate Speech". GreyPage (talk) 19:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Necessity of including “For the song by Biffy Clyro, see Biblical (song)” in page heading.
Does the placement of this text presuppose that someone will one day come to Wikipedia seeking information about the above mentioned Number 70 UK Singles Chart hit, type in the word “biblical,” and be surprised to find instead an article about the similarly named collection of sacred texts? Perhaps we are right to accommodate such a theoretical Scottish alternative rock fan, in which case it is only fair to note that the linked article, “Biblical (song)”, includes not one link back to “Bible (book)”. Whitebeltsomestripes (talk) 01:34, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Related article in need of attention
Concubine_of_a_Levite

I reviewed the above page and while doing so, removed a section with the advice that the section, if restored, should be pruned of all original research and validated with in-text attribution. The editor who is currently contributing to the page restored the material without any changes. I’m not much for reverting and the talk page message I left is unanswered. I was hoping an interested watcher of this page could take a look. Many thanks Edaham (talk) 09:21, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree that intext-attribution is needed, this is an opinion-y topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:10, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for taking the time to review the material. I’ll make any further replies on the subject there in order to keep off topic conversation to a minimum on this talk page. Many thanks again Edaham (talk) 09:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 July 2018
Under § Etymology, the Greek phrase τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἅγια is used twice, but is transliterated differently each time: first as ta biblia ta hagia, then as tà biblía tà ágia. Considering it is the same Greek phrase, this should probably be standardized. My request is therefore to change ta biblia ta hagia to tà biblía tà ágia under § Etymology, unless Wikipedia has some standard practice for transliterating Greek with which I am unfamiliar and which should prefer the former romanization, in which case the request should be to change the latter to the former under § Textual history. Thanks! 76.10.186.58 (talk) 20:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 23:43, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion notification
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Tanakh, regarding a page relating to this article. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Jewish Bible
Accuracy in terminology please. Do the Jews call their scriptures bible ? Or do they call it the Torah ? Alan347 (talk) 11:14, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Naturally not. The Hebrew Bible is alternatively called "Tanakh".

The Torah is the Greek/Christian Pentateuch and only includes the 5 first books in the entire collection: Book of Genesis, Book of Exodus, Book of Leviticus, Book of Numbers, and Book of Deuteronomy. Dimadick (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Because I just did a minor edit specifying that the bible has been written between 600 BC and 100AD. This applies for the Christian bible only. Alan347 (talk) 13:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jews often refer simply to the "Bible". e.g. StAnselm (talk) 09:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

composition of the Bible
There's almost nothing about the history of how the various Bibles and their components came to be written, redacted, and compiled. A lot of editors seem to want to skip over what historians say about the Bible because it doesn't square with certain Christian viewpoints. But WP is about reflecting what the reliable sources say. How about we add material that reflects modern, mainstream scholarship? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I have a copy of the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, which covers the basics really well. I added this to the page: 'Traditionally these books were considered to have been written almost entirely by Moses himself.[26] In the 19th century, Julius Wellhausen and other scholars proposed that the Torah had been compiled from earlier written documents dating from the 9th to the 5th century BCE, the “documentary hypothesis.[26] Scholars Hermann Gunkel and Martin Noth, building on the form criticism of Gerhard von Rad, refined this hypothesis, while other scholars have proposed other ways that the Torah might have developed over the centuries.[26]' Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

where do these figures come from
These figures are in the info box

period = 4000s BC – 96 AD

Where do these figures come from? I would say 950 BC to 150 AD for the years that the earliest and latest parts of the Bible were written. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Is "period" in that Infobox intended for the period during which the Bible was written, or the period of history the Bible claims to cover? If the latter, the figures are accurate. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not that "period" is that clear, but as a reader I would expect the former. In Quran it's 609–632. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See the section just above "the bible has been written between 600 BC and 100AD" - I'd agree more with Jonathan Tweet, but these dates at both ends are probably too uncertain and controversial to put anything in an infobox. And yes it is ambiguous, and if the period covered is intended, not really worth saying. There probably are people who think the Bible was written between "4000s BC – 96 AD", and we shouldn't be adding to their numbers. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's composition, not historical scope, that's meant. We all seem to agree, so I'll make the change. 1 Peter was written after bishops were in place, so maybe 150, but it the page says 100, I'll use that number. Johnbod, you seem to be saying that we are obliged to concern ourselves with the view of "people" who believe the traditional story about the Bible's composition. I'm happy to talk about that. I think that the WP rule is to represent what experts say, not people in general. It sounds like you’re saying that we should limit what we say on the basis of popular opinion? How accurate would that be?  Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No I'm not saying that at all (and I don't understand how you got that from my comment), except that we should not be encouraging (even if only through ambiguity), popular misconceptions/non-mainstream views. Personally I'd just remove that item from the box, as its too complex & uncertain for an infobox, and liable to be misunderstood. Johnbod (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So I see you have gone for "period = c 600 BC – c 100 AD" - both figures are too uncertain for infobox use, imo. Better to just cut it. Johnbod (talk) 05:06, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's unsourced and dubious. Strange that suggested dates for the Bible aren't mentioned at all in the article - they probably should be. I don't know where the 600 BC date was pulled from - someone doesn't believe in 8th century prophets. But the Book of Amos article suggests its from 750 BC. StAnselm (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed - we actually have loads on this, and Authorship of the Bible, which is given a "main" link, seems the easiest way in. Someone (not me) should summarize the topic here, with links. There is a lot here on the development of both Jewish and Xtian canons, but not on the origins of the actual texts. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree with Johnbod, infobox is for simple stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod, maybe I misunderstood you, and if so, I apologize. You said, "these dates at both ends are probably too uncertain and controversial to put anything in an infobox", but the only people who say that the dates are uncertain are the people who don't agree with the mainstream historical view of what the dates are. I'm saying that we don't need to worry too much about people who disagree with the mainstream view. Maybe I should ask to what extent you personally align with the mainstream view about the Bible? Personally, I am all about promoting the mainstream view, and that's the WP way. I'm happy to take any mainstream source and use it as a source of WP content. But can I ask how you feel about the mainstream view of the Bible? Based on our previous interactions, I might guess that you're no big fan of the mainstream view. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You seem so persistently to misunderstand what I say that it isn't very tempting to expand on it. I've no idea what you think you basing this on. I have no problem with mainstream views, but I don't believe they are nearly as settled at particular dates as you imply - as your own edits, hopping around like anything just in the last few days, rather demonstrate. I believe a 6th-century start date for OT texts as texts is not a fringe view, and no doubt some estimates for final NT composition are later than the dates here, and perhaps some earlier. Johnbod (talk) 06:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "The only people who say that the dates are uncertain are the people who don't agree with the mainstream historical view of what the dates are" is completely wrong - there are few, if any scholars, who would say that all the dates are certain. But "mainstream" is a very slippery term - more so in biblical studies than in, say, physics. StAnselm (talk) 09:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

user:StAnselm reverted the change to a version that no one supports. Everyone here says we should not encourage non-mainstream vies, so I'll cut the reference. It shows a pro-Christian bias to exclude well-established information just because it doesn't square with some Christian views, but better to exclude it than to promote non-mainstream views. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was, of course, objecting to your addition of something sourced purely to a talk page comment. But I also think it's important to refer to dates (both of authorship and events) in the body of the article. StAnselm (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's fair, and it was my mistake. I misread the comment and thought that the commenter was quoting from the page itself. In your estimation, what do mainstream scholars say about the range of composition of the Bible? I think it's c 950 BC to c AD 150. What do you think the range is, based on your understanding of the mainstream, historical view? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Mainstream" is a rather loaded term, and suggests a consensus that might not exist. 150 is the extreme end of dates for 2 Peter. "c. 100" is probably a fair call for the end date - but we would need a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Editors who oppose the mainstream view of religious topics generally downplay the strength and breadth of the consensus. StAnselm, can I ask what you think of the mainstream scholarly view of the Bible? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think I can answer that unless you tell me what you think that view is. StAnselm (talk) 02:28, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I googled bible mainstream scholarly view and the top result was a blog post decrying Wikipedia's use of the term. StAnselm (talk) 03:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not a terribly coherent post, & he didn't get too much support in the replies. I think we needn't worry about continuing to use the phrase - 'by their publishers shall ye know them' is my first test (though it doesn't always work). Johnbod (talk) 03:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, JT, please stop doing these pointless surveys! Since we have only had this infobox since September, when it was added without discussion, & it has caused endless trouble, & even in its reduced form still does:  "religion = Christianity ;  language = Biblical Hebrew, Koine Greek, Aramaic" (probably WP:UNDUE in a summary) ;  chapters = varies; see Books of the Bible (gee thanks).  So I have removed it & gone back to the previous top. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

anyone want to help me add modern scholarship to the page?
This Bible page is rated C, but it's of top importance. It has almost no scholarship in the lede. I have several reliable reference works I could use. Unfortunately, certain editors oppose the mainstream scholarly view of the Bible, and they will stonewall me if I try to do anything alone. If someone would like to work with me to add modern scholarship to the page, I would be willing to do lots of the work. I just need someone backing me up. Otherwise I just get stonewalled. Anyone feel like working on the Bible page with me? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The lede:
 * The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books")[1] is a collection of sacred texts or scriptures. Varying parts of the Bible are considered to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans by Christians, Jews, Samaritans, and Rastafarians.


 * What is regarded as canonical text differs depending on traditions and groups; a number of Bible canons have evolved, with overlapping and diverging contents.[2] The Hebrew Bible overlaps with the Greek Septuagint and the Christian Old Testament. The Christian New Testament is a collection of writings by early Christians, believed to be mostly Jewish disciples of Christ, written in first-century Koine Greek. Among Christian denominations there is some disagreement about what should be included in the canon, primarily about the Apocrypha, a list of works that are regarded with varying levels of respect.


 * Attitudes towards the Bible also differ among Christian groups. Roman Catholics, high church Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox Christians stress the harmony and importance of the Bible and sacred tradition, while Protestant churches, including Evangelical Anglicans, focus on the idea of sola scriptura, or scripture alone. This concept arose during the Protestant Reformation, and many denominations today support the use of the Bible as the only source of Christian teaching.


 * The Bible has been a massive influence on literature and history, especially in the Western World, where the Gutenberg Bible was the first book printed using movable type.[3] According to the March 2007 edition of Time, the Bible "has done more to shape literature, history, entertainment, and culture than any book ever written. Its influence on world history is unparalleled, and shows no signs of abating."[3] With estimated total sales of over 5 billion copies, it is widely considered to be the most influential and best-selling book of all time.[3][4][5][6] As of the 2000s, it sells approximately 100 million copies annually.[7][8]

Breakdown and comments: That's enough to be going on with :) PiCo (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books")[1] is a collection of sacred texts or scriptures. Fair enough, but so are the Four Vedas. Possibly something a little more defining is needed?
 * Varying parts of the Bible are considered to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans by Christians, Jews, Samaritans, and Rastafarians. Well...'various parts'? Which parts? And does anyone at all consider the Song of Songs, for one, to be "a record of the relationship between God and humans"?
 * What is regarded as canonical text differs depending on traditions and groups; a number of Bible canons have evolved, with overlapping and diverging contents.[2] Yep - but does it need all these words to say that different communities have different canons?
 * The Hebrew Bible overlaps with the Greek Septuagint and the Christian Old Testament. Not sure I understand what this means - 100% the same, partly the same, if not same then in what way and where and why? (It is, after all, the Word of God - does God have different words?)
 * One of the tricky things in this article is maintaining the balance between the Bible as a single book and as a collection of books. Why not just say, The Bible is considered to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans by Christians, Jews, Samaritans, and Rastafarians? But certainly there is indeed a long tradition of seeing the Song of Songs as a "record of the relationship between God and humans". StAnselm (talk) 04:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe just start with that first defining sentence? "The Bible ... is a collection of sacred texts or scriptures"? Even that isn't quite adequate. Use a good generally accepted bible dictionary or encyclopedia?PiCo (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The problems of the first sentence can be removed by combining it with the second: "The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books") is a collection of sacred texts or scriptures, considered by Christians, Jews, Samaritans, and Rastafarians to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans." Though I really don't know why we have "Samaritans" there - the total population is 810. StAnselm (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not so simple - Bible dictionaries don't have entries for "Bible". Maybe like dentists not drilling their own teeth. But here's something - a chap called Christopher Gilbert, who has a book called [Introduction to the Bible (actually there's quite a few books with that title): "those writings which were collected and preserved as the scriptures (sacred writings) of the Jewish and Christian communities" (see page 7) PiCo (talk) 04:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * A few do - though only older ones tend to be online. But the ones that I looked at don't say what the Bible actually is, unless it's by means of a theological statement ("the revelation of God to man," "A collection of writings which the Church of God has solemnly recognized as inspired," etc.) StAnselm (talk) 04:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "which the Church of God has solemnly recognized..." Well, not something you'd do in a light-hearted moment. But what do you think of Gilbert's definition? I don't like the way he uses "writings" twice in one sentence - it's stylistically messy - but one of them could be replaced with "texts". PiCo (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm OK with it. StAnselm (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Good :) I realise you preferred a version that mentions "divine inspiration" and "record of relations between God and man" but I suspect there might be problems - Orthodox Jews, for example, consider the torah to be dictated, not inspired, and "God's relationship with man" sounds right but I wouldn't be surprised if someone queried it with a "what about?" type question. If there's no further comment I'll put it in the lede tomorrow and let people change/object if they wish.PiCo (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I had thought you were suggesting Gilbert to replace the first sentence, not the second as well. I think there should be some reference to Biblical inspiration in the lead (not necessarily the first paragraph). StAnselm (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Just further on this, the Quran article has a reference to revelation in its first paragraph ("which Muslims believe to be a revelation from God..."). It would be appropriate to have something similar here. StAnselm (talk) 09:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * "Varying parts of the Bible are considered to be a product of divine inspiration and a record of the relationship between God and humans by Christians, Jews, Samaritans, and Rastafarians." as written seems to do the job, I think there's a wider spectrum of (believers) views here compared to the Quran. Question though, isn't at least parts of the Bible considered divinely inspired by Muslims as well? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Dumb question, it's in the article... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps "a product of divine inspiration or revelation" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I have several reliable sources that I could use to add mainstream scholarship to this page. Is there another editor out there who would like to see more mainstream scholarship added to the page? If so, I'm happy to get started. I figure I'd start with the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, and then I have a scholarly study Bible and a university textbook on the Bible to bring in. Is anyone willing to support me as I add mainstream scholarship to the page? Otherwise it's too easy for the opponents of mainstream scholarship to stonewall me. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Bible sidebar
Since this is the fundamental Bible article, I would prefer to have the sidebar fully expanded as default, to give the reader an easy glimpse of the many many related articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Is there a WP policy against having the sidebar fully expanded by default? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)`


 * I'm fairly certain it's within editorial discretion, and in this specific case it doesn't mess with images below either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Anglican Bible
The following paragraph appears about half way down the article as needing a citation.

"The Anglican Church uses some of the Apocryphal books liturgically. Therefore, editions of the Bible intended for use in the Anglican Church include the Deuterocanonical books accepted by the Catholic Church, plus 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh, which were in the Vulgate appendix."

Observations: 1. The Anglican Communion is not structured like the Roman Catholic Church - the term "Anglican Church" will refer to different churches in different places, although they are all still in full mutual communion (at least at the present time, and ignoring a number of small breakaway groups using the title in some form). Therefore there is no universal requirement for editions of the Bible intended for Anglican use to include the Deuterocanonical books.

2. A citation for the first part of the statement could be the Lectionary included in the Church of England's Common Worship book (Church House Publishing, 2000), although it has to be pointed out that alternatives are invariably offered for the small number of Deuterocanonical readings suggested there.

3. The Deuterocanonical books are formally regarded as of lesser authority wherever the Church of England's 39 Articles are recognised - to quote the relevant clause from Article VI: "the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine". Something of a minefield to assert how much influence this has on what people actually believe about these books! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.38.84.70 (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Overview of contents of "new testament"
I'd like to see an overview similar to the one under "Final form" under "Septuagint", but for the "new testament". ie With "original" Greek (presumably) names, etc. Could anyone competent enough do this? --StephanNaro (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Christian
please change ((Christian)) to ((Christianity|Christian)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:541:4500:1760:add9:8aa3:d575:fea4 (talk • contribs)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I've unlinked it completely, as "Christians" is already linked in the preceding paragraph. 14:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Highly read little edited
I came from from Topviews, https://tools.wmflabs.org/topviews/, a service of Pageview statistics which shows the most popular articles by readership.

This article, "Bible" was #11 in the list of most popular English language articles for 2019. Other reports show that, unusually, this article has few edits or editors as compared to other popular articles. Also strangely, 95% of traffic to this article is from desktop computers, when most of the other popular articles get 65%+ mobile traffic.

Although obviously the many people of the world get information from many sources, among the available sources, Wikipedia is probably the single most consulted source of information on this topic. I wish there were a way to draw attention to Wikipedia's reach and use that as a way to invite more people to edit Wikipedia.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  11:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe a high desktop % is normal for "serious" or "schoolwork/study" articles, where pop culture & sports (no doubt most of #1-10) get high mobile views. Johnbod (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
 * From one point of view there is a sort of collective intelligence between readers, editors, and articles. I've noticed this in art articles, space articles, and likely true for religious articles. You'd think hundreds of people would be editing them, getting into edit conflicts, breathing down each others necks. Bible students and academic scholars, ministers, writers, those "called" to edit, and the high school kid on lunch break who wants to toss a few grains of rice into the machine, should all be showing up and editing or vandalizing major biblical pages. Yet they don't, and editors and their friendly bots are not overwhelmed with edit and fact checking new additions or deletions. The "Wikipedia as common as sidewalks" concept (few think of where sidewalks come from, we just use them and don't go out of our way to build one), especially for young readers who know Wikipedia as "always been there", leaves major articles such as this one inexplicably manageable and in good shape, with incremental improvements weekly. This also relates somehow to average views of almost all pages, which, aside from promotional-based spikes, tend to base-level out around the same number day after day. As editors we ask why aren't there more of us, because it seems like a natural thing to do. But to the vast majority of people Wikipedia is there when they need it, like a sidewalk, and they never think of improving it. Until they do. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I think views by different Christian denominations should be added
I think in the views section they should add what each Christian denomination thinks of the Bible. CycoMa (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I thinks that's what's called Biblical hermeneutics, but don't take my word for it. There may be other related articles. In general, I think they think pretty highly of it ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m just saying they add what Islam thinks of the Bible but never address what Christianity itself thinks of the Bible. CycoMa (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The article is rife with references to Protestants, Anglicans, Catholics, etc. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, "Christianity itself" is a complex something, but don't you see anything relevant to that in Bible? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I must ask why aren’t they mentioned in the views section? CycoMa (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I think it's largely a Summary style and perhaps somewhat WP:PROPORTION thing. The Bible topic is HUGE, and this article is the top of the pyramid. Stuff can be found in articles like Biblical inerrancy, Biblical criticism, Rapture and many others. But all WP-articles can be improved. If you make a suggestion of text to include with good sources, editors may agree with you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The article names and quotes John K. Riches, a scholar from Glasgow, several times. His book cited is a contemporary pop-culture summary of the Bible, including in that "views" section. This person has no wiki article and may not pass WP:GNG, so name dropping this person in this article has little value. I agree - the section on "views" is omitting the Christian view, and in place of that, has this person's direct quotation. It would seem right to have quotes or perspectives from a leading voice from Christianity in this section.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  11:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)


 * True, he has no WP-article, though his chair does. Seems a respectable scholar to me. What makes this OUP-book pop-cult? His quote seems relevant and on-topic to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Cain_and_Abel
For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Muhammad and the Bible
If you have an opinion on the recent extensive edits, please share at Talk:Muhammad_and_the_Bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Mentioning that Biblical Archeology is not the same as Biblical Pseudoarchaeology
Archaeological and historical research a section from Bible Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doremon764 (talk • contribs) 16:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC) People may assume that Historian are catogarized with the psudoarchaeoligist that are trying to prove Creationism and Noah Ark as real events in history Religiously motivated pseudoarchaeology from the Pseudoarcheology page. Doremon764 (talk) 05:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * But, yes, that is the very point: calling someone a "biblical archeologist" is a form of mockery.

"Apart from the well-funded (and fundamentalist) “biblical archaeologists,” we are in fact nearly all “minimalists” now. ... For it seems that rather than a “minimalist-maximalist” debate we now had a confrontation between two “archaeologies,” one following the theory and practice of the discipline as generally acknowledged elsewhere, the other continuing the established agenda practice of biblical archaeology—defending the Bible. Some practitioners were apparently confused enough to do both—decry “minimalism,” accept a high degree of biblical non-historicity and yet still “defend the Bible.”"

- Philip Davies


 * "Biblical archaeologist" is a sophisticated way of saying that such person is irrational. Synonym: "Bible thumper". Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Christine Hayes stated And it was explicitly referred to as biblical archaeology — an interesting name, because it suggests that the archaeologists were out there searching for evidence that would verify the details of the biblical text. We're doing biblical archaeology; archeology in support of the biblical text. [...] Increasingly, practitioners of what was now being termed Palestinian archaeology, or Ancient Near Eastern archaeology, or archaeology of the Levant, rather than biblical archaeology — some of these archaeologists grew disinterested in pointing out the correlations between the archaeological data and the biblical stories or in trying to explain away any discrepancies in order to keep the biblical text intact. ... People who equate truth with historical fact will certainly end up viewing the Bible dismissively, as a naïve and unsophisticated web of lies, since it is replete with elements that cannot be literally true. But to view it this way is to make a genre mistake. Shakespeare's Hamlet, while set in Denmark, an actual place, is not historical fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should fix up Archaeological and historical research and call it out for what it is trying to make the bible a reality. Apha9 (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:RGW. Your sentence is too complicated for me to tell if you are for or against the Bible, anyway WP:RGW. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Extrabiblical Christian scriptures
Regarding this deletion...Christian scriptures redirects here, but there are canonical scriptures outside the Bible for these and possibly other denominations. Do you think we should point that redirect somewhere else, add a hatnote to this article, mention this fact in the intro (it's now mentioned in the body), or some other solution? -- Beland (talk) 07:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think maybe Christian scriptures should redirect to Christian biblical canons and that article should be expanded with a short section on Christian New Religious Movements. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Something like that may fit under Bible. Is "Other religions" supposed to mean anything other than Judaism and Christianity? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That section seems to be more about non-Judeo-Christian views on the the Hebrew or (historical) Christian Bibles. I think maybe we shouldn't be including additional texts that are accepted as scripture but aren't part of any pre-modern canon.  I would be surprised if otherwise-reliable LDS sources actually identified the Book of Mormon as historically being a part of the Bible (rather than additional canonical scriptures).  Ian.thomson (talk) 09:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

I've redirected to Christian biblical canons as suggested. It's tagged for merger with Biblical canon, which actually already explains about the LDS canon, and I was planning to do that merge and move material that relates only to the history thereof to Development of the Old Testament canon and Development of the New Testament canon. (That's split into two articles because otherwise it's just too much to handle.) I can update the redirects to the merge target once that happens. BTW, it seems there are also Christian traditions, both ancient and modern, that reject most or all of the Old Testament and New Testament, such as Cerdonians and Marcionism. There seems to be general agreement that "Bible" refers to some variation of the Old Testament, or Old Testament plus New Testament, and not other collections of Jewish, Samaritan, or Christian scriptures. But for readers not familiar with that distinction, and who might not know that other canons exist, I think a hatnote is warranted. -- Beland (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think this edit of yours sounds reasonable, ideally you should ref it but it is a little WP:BLUESKY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Peshitta
Peshitta is the standard version of the Bible for churches in the Syriac tradition. Religious affiliation with Syriac Christianity. This form of the bible should get a mention in the Christian Bible section. Doremon764 (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Don't know if Peshitta should be under Christian Bible or treated as the Septuagint.Doremon764 (talk) 18:40, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I’m sorry but the views section is kinda biased
That section mentions how other religions and how critics of Christianity view the Bible. I have no issue mentioning what those groups of people think of the Bible but, let’s not pretend Christians and other Christian denominations have their own interpretations and views of the Bible.

It just seems really biased to them the critics without mentioning what believers thought.

Also seriously “provides the following view of the diverse historical influences of the Bible:“

That just sounds like an excuse to quote what a certain individual thinks. CycoMa (talk) 07:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The quote is neither puff nor unduly bashing the Bible: it is a fairly neutral evaluation of the role of the Bible during human history. The view that the Bible has only been used for advancing the good is, frankly, naive. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * That’s fair, it was my mistake to remove that quote. But, there was no need to remove the part where I added what Baptist’s thought.CycoMa (talk) 14:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Also, the statement you made that "The view that the Bible has only been used for advancing the good is, frankly, naive." is a little problematic itself.
 * Here is the thing about good and evil, it is merely something we humans created. What is considered good differs from culture to culture. The Aztecs thought sacrificing people to their gods was morally righteous. And even some modern-day cultures think hanging homosexuals is morally righteous. Nothing in nature said that rape was okay or not. CycoMa (talk) 17:21, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

"Modern Bible scholarship/scholars (MBS) assumes that: • The Bible is a collection of books like any others: created and put together by normal (i.e. fallible) human beings; • The Bible is often inconsistent because it derives from sources (written and oral) that do not always agree; individual biblical books grow over time, are multilayered; • The Bible is to be interpreted in its context: ✦ Individual biblical books take shape in historical contexts; the Bible is a document of its time; ✦ Biblical verses are to be interpreted in context; ✦ The "original" or contextual meaning is to be prized above all others; • The Bible is an ideologically-driven text (collection of texts). It is not "objective" or neutral about any of the topics that it treats. Its historical books are not "historical" in our sense. ✦ "hermeneutics of suspicion"; ✦ Consequently MBS often reject the alleged "facts" of the Bible (e.g. was Abraham a real person? Did the Israelites leave Egypt in a mighty Exodus? Was Solomon the king of a mighty empire?); ✦ MBS do not assess its moral or theological truth claims, and if they do, they do so from a humanist perspective; ★ The Bible contains many ideas/laws that we moderns find offensive; • The authority of the Bible is for MBS a historical artifact; it does derive from any ontological status as the revealed word of God;"

- Beardsley Ruml


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu. And the Bible is not against rape: it has instructions upon how to rape women prisoners of war. Catholics considered these instructions Word of God. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:41, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay I think you have no idea what and why I edited the views section. Because we are going on tangents. CycoMa (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I am sorry to say that a _lot_ of people who, in the self-proclaimed[by the above mentioned text of Beardsley Ruml,(et.al.)] 'moderns' who are so easily offended is not quite what the original issues were about. I have to agree with CycoMa. But, all right: if you could please succinctly state any of the parts of the Bible that are in disagreement or contradiction with the others, then we can get back to the original issues. Please understand that I am asking, not to confront you (typed words don't carry inflections and it can be _so_ easy to misrepresent oneself and I don't want to do that), but it has now become the main course, if you will, so we may as well "Dig in!" as they say. I mean, this is not a simple, "Nah; Read it, didn't really make sense, don't recommend it," of some New Age Fad-of-the-week. Please keep in mind that there are over 25,000 pieces of documentation that give weight and credibility to the **Holy Bible** (was the main topic, btw). Look up Dead Sea Scrolls. Then, let's see if we can resolve this issue. Respectfully, MichaelTheGamer MichaelTheGamer (talk) 22:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you are suggesting a change to the article or not, but perhaps Internal consistency of the Bible will have something you find interesting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Little change of title request
Hi there. Not very much important nor relevant, but it would be a little bit better if the title was "The Holy Bible" rather than "Bible" alone. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.157.80 (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * ❌ See WP:RNPOV. We are a religiously neutral, secular encyclopedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * While I concur, and think no change is needed, this does bring up an interesting point: "Bible", broadly speaking, can refer to any religious scripture, not just the Christian/Jewish one (per Merriam-Webster), and "bible" to any book or tract considered authoritative on a given subject. "Holy" could be used to (partially) disambiguate without indicating an endorsement by WP - since that is its cover title in a majority of cases. That said, the colloquial use of "Bible" seems unambiguous here, at least for western cultures, and a redirect is already set up, so I still wouldn't change it. Jtrevor99 (talk) 05:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That is what the hatnote and disambiguation page are for. "Bible" is the correct name for this article per WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. the term as used is widely recognised) and WP:NPOV (i.e. we don't make a POV judgement about it being 'holy').-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

You should do some research about it. I do believe that "The Holy Bible" is the original title of the book rather than "Bible" alone. And it's not something about POV nor adjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.80.188.218 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * First of all, the Bible is not a book. It is a collection of more than 60 books (some variations between churches) written in three different languages, during a period spanning several hundred years (possible over 1000 years). As such, it doesn't have an "original title". Jeppiz (talk) 14:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Every book of this description (or compilation, or whatever you want to call it) I've ever seen, explicitly says "Holy Bible" on the cover, not just "Bible". As a matter of fact, I don't think you'll be able to find any edition that is just labeled "Bible".139.138.6.121 (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The truth is that Christians call it "The Holy Bible" while non-Christians call it just "The Bible". This would be akin to updating the Quran article to be titled "The Holy Qu'ran", as most editions do indeed title it as such (in Arabic, of course). Yet that is terminology that only Muslims would use. Meanwhile, there are examples of publications entitled just "The Bible"...the YouVersion app on my phone labels it as such :) Jtrevor99 (talk) 16:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

The meaning of the word biblion is not "paper"
The text contains an error. The meaning of the Greek word biblion could not have been "paper", since paper was invented in China probably in the second century BCE and the earliest known examples of paper use in Europe are from 11th century CE. See Wikipedia page "History of paper". Instead, biblion is a diminutive form of the word biblos, meaning papyrus, a word that came to be used to mean scroll. Thus, the original meaning of biblion itself was 'little papyrus', or 'little scroll'. See: https://web.stanford.edu/class/complit172c/8jan.html Tpalonen (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I changed it in the text. Jeppiz (talk) 14:23, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you! Tpalonen (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Title
I know this isn’t a big deal but it’s more of an OCD thing. Shouldn’t the name of the article be italic like the names of other book articles? CyberSecurityGuy (talk) 00:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)


 * @CyberSecurityGuy That is not without logic, but for whatever reason, MOS:ITAL says we don't do that: "Italics are not used for major religious works (the Bible, the Quran, the Talmud)." See also Manual_of_Style/Titles. If you're interested in the why-ness, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style is probably the place to ask. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you saying I have a point? CyberSecurityGuy (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Why is this trending?
? Turtleshell3 (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * As in ? I have no idea, perhaps the topic came up in a recent superheromovie? Or Donald Trump said something. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We had a conversation about this the other day on the Discord. |United_States|Jesus|Harry_Potter This page has very odd trending in comparison to other articles. SkippyKR (talk) 04:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Smallbones, any good guesses? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You asked for a "good guess", so this may not qualify. But as a wildly speculative guess, I think it's pretty good! It could be The Gideons International advertising or linking to this article, you probably know them as the folks who give away 70 million Bibles every year, most notably in hotel rooms, This graph needs a logarithmic scale because the page views for the Bible are 10+ times higher than for the Gideons, but otherwise the pattern is quite similar.
 * How did I reach this tentative conclusion that the Gideons are advertising Wikipedia's Bible article? Well the mission that they've taken on is to literally spread around the good news of the Bible - in hotels, prisons, schools, doctor's offices and hospitals - why should the internet be any different? At first I thought it might be churches doing the linking or advertising. There must be over 10,000 church websites in the U.S., and they have much the same goal of spreading the word. But I think the average daily hits for church websites must be pretty low, and linking to the Bible there would literally be preaching to the choir.
 * My experience with people marketing individual Wikipedia pages is pretty much limited to Brooklyn. About January 2020? I got an ad with link for the article in my Marketwatch news feed in my email. I asked the WMF why they were advertising Brooklyn, ditto members of the NY Chapter. Nobody knew anything about it. I edited the article, removing what I thought might be a hidden ad - well lets say "mixed results". But after a couple of years Brooklyn's extremely high page views are almost back to normal.
 * Maybe I should send the Gideons an email and just ask? Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Speculation at it's finest! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Mythological
The majority of people consider the bible Mythological (not product of divine inspiration) yet nowhere is this stated in the article. Should the article describe the bible from the perspective of those who believe in it even if those are the minority? Wikipedia: Neutral Point of View Arnodenhond (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * First, you would need an RS that states you are correct about the “minority”. Second, “mythological” is not the inverse of “divine inspiration” considering that a large proportion of the Bible contains wisdom literature, songs, statutes, letters, and the like, that “mythological” by definition could not apply to. Third, a large proportion of the aforementioned portions, and many of the historical events in the Bible, are described as factual, or at minimum plausible, by secular scholars given historical sources and archaeological evidence. “Mythological” simply is not appropriate for this article. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum: the article already conforms to NPOV because it uses the formula “believers hold that…”, etc. It simply describes the contents and makes no assertion of veracity on the portions that are not subject to historical or other scholarly validation. Please thoroughly read the article you link to on the subject as it covers this point. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:35, 16 October 2021 (UTC)


 * This is how Wikipedia describes Myth:

Myth is a folklore genre consisting of narratives that play a fundamental role in a society, such as foundational tales or origin myths. The main characters in myths are usually non-humans, such as gods, demigods, and other supernatural figures.
 * Surely mythological is a very appropriate description of the bible. There is no secular scholar who believes the main character could have factually or plausibly existed because he is claimed to be born from a virgin. Are you a (biased) believer perhaps?


 * I think Wikipedia would be more neutral if it also described the perspective of rational people, as is already done in the articles about Scientology and Deepak Chopra, for example. Arnodenhond (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 * First, make sure your comments do not break up the comments other people have written. Second, your posting of the definition of "mythological" proves my point that "mythological" is not an appropriate description for the Bible - for the reasons I already described - so thank you for doing so. I would reiterate what I've already written but you can reread it. Third, you are wrong regarding secular scholars and what they think: you need to read more on the Historicity of Jesus. Yes, the article makes clear that most scholars reject the "Christ myth" (and "mythological" may be an appropriate description for that one story, but not the Bible as a whole), but very few reject the idea that a historical Jesus existed. Don't conflate the two. Fourth, be very careful accusing other editors of bias when they have already shown you how the existing article conforms to Wikipedia's NPOV requirements, lest you appear as a (biased) nonbeliever. You need to read the article that you've linked to, and then perhaps you will understand why the article is already NPOV. Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)


 * my sincere apologies for breaking up your comments. since they were signed individually i figured they were separate. thanks for moving my comment below your second comment.
 * i've reread your comment but of course i still don't see why you say that mythological is not an appropriate description of the bible. i wonder if you are trying to talk "with" me or merely talk "to" me. the very first chapter of the bible is a "foundational tale or origin myth". the god character is actually a god and the jesus character fits the description of a demi-god i'm not even talking about the myriad supernatural figures like talking donkeys/snakes/angels/demons/whatnot. you admit that mythological appropriately describes "that one story" but the bible is chockfull of mythological stories (also called miracles). you need to read the bible.
 * we agree that there could be many naturally conceived people called jesus and that there could not be any divinely conceived person called jesus as described in the bible. i was clearly referring to the latter. honestly, which one of us is conflating the jesuses?
 * it seems to me that you should be very careful in calling my question about your bias an accusation lest you be treated in that way yourself!
 * you say the article is already NPOV but in my view thats not binary but rather gradual. i would like to make the article MORE NPOV, you see? wouldn't you agree that the articles about scientology and deepak chopra would be less neutral if they were written without the description of non-biassed nonbelievers?
 * Arnodenhond (talk) 17:44, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * My argument was clearly stated. The Bible contains wisdom literature, poetry, laws, historical events that secular scholars have verified actually occurred, and more. The definition of “mythological” that you provided, by definition, does not apply to any of those sections. Nor have you addressed the need for a RS on stating that “most people see the Bible as mythology”. Nor have you addressed the fact that the NPOV requirements are already satisfied, in that the article merely states that “believers hold that…” and “the Bible states that…” - examples that the NPOV article go through. Trying to label as “mythological” what cannot be mythological, by definition, without RSs, makes the article LESS NPOV: it would overemphasize one group’s viewpoint without scholarly backing.
 * I am not talking “at” you. I am reiterating points that you are not addressing, or that are supported by the arguments you are making. The point is this: the Bible cannot categorically be mythological, full stop - such a label simply does not apply to the majority of the Bible, from a volumetric perspective. If you want to state that certain passages and certain stories contained therein are seen as mythological by most people, and you have a scholarly RS to back that up, then go for it. I am not opposed to that. Example: it’s fine to state that the creation story or virgin birth are seen as mythological by most, if you have a RS; but labeling proverbs, poems, statutes that are still abided by today, etc. as such is nonsensical. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:48, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * To add to this, there isn't consensus among various religious groups as to what is and isn't mythological in the Bible. For example, the Roman Catholic church recognizes the creation story in the first chapters of Genesis as mytholicical, while other more conservative Protestant sects view it as 'truth'. SkippyKR (talk) 18:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
 * "The majority of people consider the bible Mythological" While I see no difference between the Bible and Jewish mythology, do you have sources on how it is viewed by the majority of rational people? No change in the article can occur without sources. Dimadick (talk) 06:39, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Dawkins Quote
While an entire paragraph devoted to any quote, regardless of content, probably is inappropriate for the lead - particularly when not adequately covered elsewhere in the article - I would agree that the lead should do a better job covering atheist and agnostic thoughts. I would propose something like the following:
 * Add a sentence to the end of P1 or somewhere in the middle of P4 of the lead along the lines of "Atheists and agnostics, however, largely view the Bible either contemptuously for its perceived immoral code and mythological content, or consider it antiquated and irrelevant to modern society." Or something like that - provided someone can find an RS along those lines. More than a short sentence is not appropriate due to the lead already being overlong, and one should be careful not to assume Dawkins' quote is representative of all (or even most) atheists' thoughts.
 * The Dawkins quote, meanwhile, would be well suited to expand upon this, but in the Views section, along with (hopefully) something that better covers agnosticism. I'm not sure if criticism of the main character of the Bible best fits in the Bible article, but I'm not sure what article it would be better suited for. Jtrevor99 (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * After thinking this over a bit more, I realized any new section in "Views" would need something that links Dawkins' quote to the general attitude of atheists towards the Bible. Otherwise it's simply Dawkins' viewpoint. To give an example from personal experience, I know at least 2 atheists that still think highly of the Bible from a moral, ethical and historical perspective. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * An article like this should generally not have quotes or names of particular thinkers in the WP:LEAD. They're all drops in the ocean. I'm not at all sure that atheists and agnostics largely view the Bible like that, but sources, of courses. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We could perhaps have half a sentence counterbalancing the 2007 Time quote at the end of the lead, that might demonstrate sufficiently widespread acceptance of viewpoints critical of the Bible (as a moral guide? as a source of historical information? as a teaching aide?), assuming we have an appropriate source. The section Bible could be expanded to contain more material related to popular views of the text that are not related to any academic field, or expanded to give general summaries of academic studies and disciplines that are explicitly secular or atheist, but @User:Arnodenhond, the Dawkins material you introduced is hardly fit even for the article Criticism of the Bible, and probably belongs in q:Richard Dawkins or maybe The God Delusion if sufficient relevance to the topic can be shown. Comparing Christianity to Scientology is not likely to help you achieve your goals here. With love, Folly Mox (talk) 02:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well said! The point is we are NOT hostile to reliably sourced and secular criticism of the Bible here. On the contrary, it belongs here. It’s just important to ensure it is written well, reliably sourced and appropriately brief for the lead. Jtrevor99 (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous! I very clearly compared the lack of NPOV in the article about the bible to the amount of NPOV in the article about scientology. @User:Folly Mox You know very well that i did not compare christianity to scientology. What are you really trying to accomplish? Arnodenhond (talk) 14:14, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm upon a second reading, that does more accurately describe the comparison you were making. I must have been sleepy. Do you have any less strident material to introduce for this article or the Criticism of the Bible article? Folly Mox (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * While equating Humanists’ thoughts with those of all atheists may be incorrect, a good possible place to start for RS on general views might be https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/reasons-humanists-reject-bible/. The Pew Research Center also has good material. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, why do you consider the Dawkins quote openly hostile? Isn't it a good summary of the page you linked to? Arnodenhond (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Calling God "homophobic" among other slurs is open hostility, and is directed against God, not the Bible. If you remove Dawkins' open hatred for all Jews, Christians and Muslims from the quote, and just characterize atheists' thoughts on the subject (i.e. "atheists express misgivings/concern about the Bible's stance on homosexuality", etc.) then the concern is addressed, factual rather than using what some would characterize as hate speech, and better in line with the article I linked to. Subjects like this one need to be handled with "kid gloves", as it's far too easy for people on both/all sides to get upset over wording, and stray again into POV or even discrimination territory. Finally, frankly, Dawkins himself has no qualms about calling himself openly hostile and divisive, and his speech reflects that. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:08, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to understand your opinion. So you wouldn't consider Leviticus 20:13 to be hate speech? Has Dawkins ever called for Jews, Christians and Muslims to be put to death? Arnodenhond (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the length here. Looking at part of the Bible in isolation will inevitably lead to erroneous conclusions. For example, this needs to be paired with John 8:7, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone", and with the various passages which clearly state the OT law has been superseded. Additionally, you must remember that homosexual behavior in the OT was usually (not always) paired with cultic worship of other gods. So it's important to consider the cultural setting. Another argument: calling the being who (in the view of believers) created the very concepts of sex and love "homophobic" because he insists that the only version of either that is acceptable and moral is one man, one woman, in a loving marriage of which sex is only a part, is missing the point entirely. It's utilizing incendiary language to try to put people ahead of God in deciding what's moral. It's also utilizing emotionally charged language from someone who openly admits his hatred for that group, which will trigger hatred in some, and create wrong conclusions in others. (To wit, the same passage you quoted also bans bestiality and incest, which for the time being culture still considers wrong, and other passages ban adultery, sex outside of marriage, etc. - all are considered equally evil in the Bible.)
 * Or, here's an illustration: imagine if someone insisted on putting a quote in the lead of some article that you feel defines much of your (non)belief system, from someone who has openly and repeatedly expressed hatred for you, that called anyone who agrees with you "narcissistic, amoral, hubristic, moronic, evil, racist, intolerant, religious bigots", etc., etc. There are some in the religious community who think that about the nonreligious, and if I looked I could probably find a quote from someone along those lines. But it would not be appropriate to put that in the lead, or probably even in the article. Even if I thought it was true. In fact ANY quote is not appropriate for the lead. Instead, sticking to factual statements devoid of emotionally charged language is the way to go. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Why should we include Dawkins at all in the lede? How is his personal opinion WP:DUE? Jeppiz (talk) 01:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Although the apparent lack of interest in my opinion does make it seem like you are talking "at" me, I will give you my opinion anyway:
 * as you said "in the view of believers" doesn't apply to those who are not believers therefore to them the comment is not "openly hostile" at all in any way. in fact, calling it openly hostile is rather offensive in the view of non believers. does that make sense to you?
 * Would you agree that non believers (from they own view of course) are not at all missing the point entirely ?
 * Although the bible is certainly full of contradictions, if i'm not mistaken, leviticus does not state that homosexuals need to be killed by "casting stones"
 * Also, keep in mind that "pairing" goes both ways! so John 8:7 is now also paired with the violent hate crime of murdering homosexuals.


 * i find your illustration very interesting although i deeply disagree with it.
 * have you seen the dawkins quote in the Deepak Chopra article? Does he "hate" those people too?
 * do you think the followers of Scientology can get away with demanding that the article about their belief system should be handled with "kid gloves" like you insist should be down for your belief system? how quickly would wikipedia lose its neutrality if that were done? please try to look beyond your bias more?
 * let me give you an illustration too: if, as you say, there are people in the religious community who feel that atheists are "narcissistic, amoral, hubristic, moronic, evil, racist, intolerant, religious bigots" then i would certainly advise them to add this to the article about atheism!


 * I don't care if it comes from humanists or bart erhman or whoever, but the lead of the bible deserves just as much criticism as the articles about Deepak Chopra or Scientology. go read those articles.
 * Arnodenhond (talk) 15:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I have clearly and repeatedly made it obvious your opinion is welcome here (I’m not sure what part of “the lead needs to do a better job on this” was unclear, for example). Nothing you have said warrants further comment on my part. My points stand. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m going to step back and leave it to other editors to comment at this time. I will not comment further anytime soon. We have tried to make it clear that atheist and/or agnostic viewpoints are not only welcome, but necessary for this article; we are not in the business of silencing viewpoints (or should not be). Your self-professed mentor, User:ARoseWolf, weighed in and agreed that a healthy discussion not designed to silence you is what is happening here, when you asked. But your (or any) edits need to be done in a scholarly, productive manner which conforms to WP standards, including style standards for the lead; even without the distracting conversation on what constitutes “hate speech”, this hasn’t been addressed at all. Regarding “hate speech”: on such a sensitive subject one needs to go out of the way to ensure they do not edit out of anger, frustration or hatred, but out of a desire to improve things. Practically speaking, that often means hypersensitivity toward how opposing groups will receive critical language, or quoting those who have expressed hatred for their group in the past. And, we don’t have the right to tell a group that something they see as hate speech, isn’t. In short, I am trying for constructive dialogue here, as are the other editors that have spoken in unison against the edits made thus far; that means reworking, not silencing. Jtrevor99 (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist. The Bible isn't his field at all. I don't see why a quote from him is relevant. If you want quotes from atheists, there are atheists who are actual Biblical scholars - like Bart Ehrman - who actually have some expertise on the subject. Dawkins opinion is no more relevant than anyone else's. Carlo (talk) 00:14, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Civility is a big concern in our discussions, especially on subjects we feel passionate about. Civility doesn't just include the words we say to one another but our general tone throughout discussions. It's very hard to maintain but even harder to regain once it is let go. It will have a lasting affect on any discussion. I was asked about this topic on my talk page. I read the discussion and gave an honest and observant opinion. I am not a scholar on the Bible though my grandmother made us read the Torah often. Reliable sourcing can be tricky. Dawkins may be a reliable source when it comes to evolutionary biology but not a reliable source when it comes to Biblical authenticity and history. That is decided by the community and we all have to abide by the consensus. That is not to say that the article should only be filled with quotes and viewpoints of Biblical scholars and no other. It just means that the community should decide. There seems to have been a breakdown in the discussion falling along what constitutes hate speech. I don't really get into such discussions once we reach the point of trying to find that line. I have a personal line which none of you are obliged to adhere to. What I would say is that Wikipedia does not care what you or I say or believe on a personal level. It does not care what Dawkins believes or says on a personal level. It only cares about what is said in reliable sources about the subject. It also concerns itself with due weight. Should one man's opinion outweigh ten others in dissent? Should the ten drown out the one limiting their voice? The community is the keeper of the key and consensus must be gained or there is no moving forward. I encourage everyone involved to evaluate their tone and words and come back to the discussion with an open yet definitive mind on what they want and how what they want improves the article for all readers. -- A Rose Wolf  13:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

"Ayey Ngkarte-Akerte" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ayey Ngkarte-Akerte. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 November 26 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Certes (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 December 2021
I'm referring to the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible In the Hebrew Bible part, under the section Nevi'im, and sub-section Latter Prophets, in the first sentence it says that Daniel is part of the Latter Prophets. That is not correct. Daniel is part of the Ketuvim, as it correctly says under the sub-sub-title Other books there.

I suggest that the reference to Daniel in the Nevi'im chapter be deleted.

/HakanLiIL HakanLiIL (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. That's a Christianity thing. ◢ <i style="background-color:#F7E3F7; color:#960596"> Ganbaruby! </i>  (talk) 08:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Trending Page Over a Month in 2021?
Any thoughts on why this article is suddenly so popular (especially for such an extended period of time)?

It seems like an anomaly similar to Cleopatra being a top ranked article for an extended period of time when Google Assistant recommended searching "Show me Cleopatra on Wikipedia" on their Android phones.

2600:1700:7D10:C130:F8E3:8B0A:2ED3:E9DD (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Previous musings at Talk:Bible/Archive_17. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Starting very suddenly on March 6, 2019, the number of views for this article exploded (with no matching rise on Google trends). This spike was driven entirely by desktop views, indicating this is likely some kind of bot activity. The views counts are large enough and sustained enough that the Bible has been the most-read article on desktop for months and months and months. The question is: why?

Dmildy (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Xhosa
I think Bible make us believe more 🙏 41.114.236.28 (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Believe in what? Dimadick (talk) 19:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Xhosa? Kaylahackman (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Lead too short?
I noticed an editor recently substantially shortened the lead. I’m worried the new lead does not provide an adequate summary of the topic. Needforspeed888 (talk) 04:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the contributions and reverted to an earlier version since I determined the changes weren't constructive. The lead (introduction) is supposed to summarize the main body of the article, and I think it currently does an adequate job of this. So taking the content from the lead and placing it in a separate section was not helpful as it diminished the purpose of the lead. Your shorter lead was also inadequate in part because it was far too Christianity-focused. Moreover, your new 'origins' section (which was largely unreferenced) unfortunately duplicated much of the information already found the  and  sections. Please read through the article beforehand to check whether the information is already present, and then add new information to the existing sections where appropriate. --Hazhk (talk) 09:08, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Hazhk, please undo reverts
I think Hazhk is wrong to delete the new intro, when instead the rest of the article needs a thorough elaboration where the article is more clearly about the book and not its users (who have their own articles in Wikipedia, which of course this article should be linked to).
 * I ask you Hazhk to undo your reverts 08:42 and 08:52, 24 January 2022
 * Without, it is not even clear what bible we are talking about, in the present Hazhk article version.
 * This article should be about the bible defined as the common Bible canon by the Councils of Hippo in 393 and in Carthage in 397 AD, and nothing else
 * This edition translated is what is published today in 100 million copies a year.
 * Else we do not even have a definition of what we are talking about.
 * All other bible definition and use should be mentioned later in the article with a link to their own Wikipedia article.
 * The article should be based on the Septuagint and the Vulgate editions because every later edition has its path from here.
 * The Masoretic text it should be referred to because its books are the origins.
 * And certainly in Carthage in 397 AD it was only about the common Christianity and every other later such aspect should be mentioned lower in the article.


 * We continue this debate from there, in general talk about how we can enhance the rest of the article, else we do not know what we are talking about.
 * I have not edited in the previous text, just but a new title Context over it, so lets talk from an non-destructive state?

The edits
I have written the new intro (24 January 2022) to the article about the bible and the purpose is to start a process to make the article more accessible (regardless of who the reader is). An article should be organized so that the basic formalities and definitions should start the article and then come to content and detail, to make it possible to keep orientation and comprehend the later text in the article. The article on the Bible is long and needs a working layout.

I think
 * 08:52, 24 January 2022 Hazhk −9,223 WP: REVERT. Sorry but your recent changes stent constructive. The lead summarized the content Already in thevredtvof the article, and your new 'origins' section duplicates the existing 'Development' section. Please read the article first
 * No, the article is poorly written communicative and one should not have to read the whole article with lots of detailed elaborations to get its basic formal content and origin.
 * The article needs a very short intro about what it is and when it was defined. It needs a brief overview of who wrote it, when and how (which in this case is a little more complex than usual).


 * 08:42, 24 January 2022 Hazhk +30 The Bible is not significant in Christianity only. Some recent changes need discussing
 * No, the bible is significant in only Christianity as the main thread. The common Bible canon by the Councils of Hippo in 393 and in Carthage in 397 AD were certainly only Christian.
 * Those non-Christianity religions who use it should be mentioned later in the article, definitely not in the introduction, they are uninteresting to 99% of readers, but exist. That it is of religious significance is initially covered by "of very special significance and therefore called" the Holy Scriptures "." And may be clarified later in the article.
 * The article should be about the book not about its users, where the book is so large that there are articles about its users that the book article should link to.

--Zzalpha (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Just as your lead edits were way too long and not an effective summary, so too your reply here. Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)