Talk:Bible/Archive 20

Source TOCs
Legend:
 * - Origins, authorship, texts/manuscripts, production, translation, transmission, and canonization of the Bible
 * - the historical context in which the Bible was written; the influence of the outside world upon the Bible
 * - literary genres of the Bible (biblical genre)
 * - Religious teachings/instruction/interpretation of the Bible (Biblical theology)
 * - methods of scholarly study of the Bible (biblical criticism)
 * - The influence of the Bible on the outside world

John Barton (2010), The Bible: The Basics, Routledge

John W. Rogerson (2012), An Introduction to the Bible, Equinox Publishing

Michael Coogan (2021), The Bible: What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford University Press

John Riches (2022), The Bible: a Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press

John W. Rogerson and Judith Lieu (2006), The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, Oxford University Press

John Barton (2019), A History of the Bible, Viking Press

Bart D. Ehrman (2017), The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction, Oxford University Press

TOC discussion
Above are the tables of contents (TOC) from the books listed in. I have colorized them according to broad categories, which are listed in the "Legend". (Everyone should be able to expand the collapsed section to see the TOCs, and then expand the individual TOC parts/chapters to see sub-parts/sub-chapters. Please let me know if it's not rendering for anyone and I'll try to fix it. No guarantees about this being usable on mobile.)

A few preliminary notes:
 * I didn't colorize Ehrman 2017 because I do not have access to it, only to the table of contents, but I listed it anyway.
 * I did not list the table of contents for the New Cambridge History, because it's a 5,000-page 4-volume series, because it's a multi-author work (dozens of scholars submitting a chapter), and because, being a history, it's just ordered more or less chronologically; I'm not sure it will help enough for our purposes to be worth the effort given its size.
 * The color scheme isn't perfect; there are some bits and pieces of one category in other categories. For example, Rogerson 2012 discusses genre (green) along with development (pink) in several chapters, but I've just gone with pink for those chapters. Barton 2019 Part Four, which is mostly theology (orange), also includes some information about development (pink), but I've colored the whole thing orange. Barton 2019 Chapter 6 is mostly development (pink) but also includes some context (yellow); I've just colored it pink. The truth is, not every chapter of every book fits neatly into one of these categories I've applied, which is why I'm bringing this here for input.
 * Parts/chapters that have multiple colors are expanded by default.
 * Some parts/chapters/sections I did not color because I just didn't know how to categorize them. For example, Barton 2010 Chapter 5 is about the historicity of the Bible; I wasn't sure what to do with that in terms of categories, as it seems to be the only work on this list to dedicate a chapter to historicity.

What these books have in common is that they are written by bona fide biblical scholars, published in the 21st century, by academic publishers (except for Viking Press, which is mainstream), and they provide an overview of the entire Bible--Old and New. I think by looking at how these books (and any others we might add to the list) organize the information, how they categorize/sub-categorize topics, how much space or weight they give to various sub-topics and sub-sub-topics... all of this can inform how we structure our article, Bible.

However, before even looking at our article's TOC, I first wanted to share my analysis of the sources' TOCs, to see what others thought. Some specific questions:
 * 1) Are the categories selected correctly? Should some categories be split? Removed? New categories added?
 * 2) Are the categories applied correctly? Should some parts/chapters/sections have their colors changed?

Any and all feedback welcome. I think if we can analyze the TOCs to our satisfaction, we can then apply that to our article's TOC to see what changes should be made. Levivich[block] 23:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow, this is incredibly helpful - a genuine step forward in every possible way. Thank you so much. I totally and completely love your 6 categories in This rearrangement would dramatically improve the entire article imo. If you are ready to tackle this, I will leave you to it. If you want any help with anything, ping me at any time for any aspect of anything you would like me to do. You have my complete support. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Great! I'll probably post a proposed TOC here for comment before rearranging the article. Levivich [block] 20:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2022
184.19.116.192 (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Please list this book as mythological as every other religion except other current mainstream religions have been dismissed and listed as mythological!
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 17:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Reasoning provided is not correct. Quran, for example, is not listed as mythological. Additionally WP does not take a stance on the validity of religious beliefs - it only reports what both adherents and non-adherents have to say. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed outline 1

 * Development
 * Table comparing the books of Jewish/Catholic/Protestant Bible
 * Hebrew Bible
 * HB context, origins, authorship (inc. HB pseudographia)
 * Pre-exile
 * Post-exile
 * HB canonization
 * Torah
 * Nevi'im
 * Ketuvim
 * HB translation/transmission/manuscript witnesses
 * Targums
 * Septuagint
 * Samaritan Pentateuch
 * Masoretic text
 * Dead Sea Scrolls
 * HB apocrypha/deuterocannonical
 * New Testament
 * NT context, origins, authorship (inc. NT pseudographia)
 * Gospels
 * Pauline epistles
 * Catholic epistles
 * NT canonization
 * Councils
 * Schism
 * Reformation
 * NT translation/transmission/manuscript witnesses
 * Papyrus to codex
 * Vulgate
 * KJV
 * NT apocrypha
 * Genres
 * Narrative
 * Law
 * Wisdom
 * Prophecy
 * Poems
 * Gospels
 * Letters
 * Apocalyptic
 * Myths
 * Prayers
 * Proverbs
 * Theology
 * Organization TBD; might be topical (nature of God, nature of evil, etc.), canonical (Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, etc.), or chronological (ancient, middle ages, post-enlightenment, etc.)
 * Fundamentalism should probably be discussed here?
 * Study of the Bible (criticism)
 * Textual criticism
 * Form criticism
 * Source criticism
 * Redaction criticism
 * Structuralism
 * Poststructuralism
 * Rhetorical criticism
 * Literary criticism
 * Canonical criticism
 * Historical criticism
 * Tradition criticism
 * Social/political/cultural/ideological criticism
 * Feminist criticism
 * Biblical archaeology
 * Influence
 * Literature
 * Politics
 * Jurisprudence
 * Science and medicine
 * Ethics
 * Art/music/culture

This is really a first attempt, so it's pretty rough and inexact. I do not intend that every item on this outline be a separate section with a section heading; some of the sub-topics should be grouped, etc.; the exact sub-headings can be figured out later. But I wanted to list the types of information that would be conveyed in each section, with a real focus on the top-level divisions. Thoughts? Levivich [block] 17:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)


 * As I think about it more, I think the heading "Development" should be dropped, and everything under it promoted up one level in the outline. Levivich (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Dare I take silence as consensus? :-D Levivich (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Your ambition is admirable and exactly what this article needs. However, this is the kind of article that no matter how much it is watched, will only get bigger—the size is already a bit above the recommended (11592 words vs recommended 10000), and I suspect the relative overwhelm of your new proposal's perceived size has led others to avoid comment here. Thus, while I agree that each topic would not have its own subsection, it should be considered in advance how to group the Genre and Study categories into more manageable big-topic divisions. Looking optimistically, the development is on the edge of impossibly long in the proposed form, so such information will need to be treated extremely to the point.  Aza24  (talk)   20:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion Aza24 is right on the mark. It will be a difficult and time consuming almost total rewrite in order to make what’s here-which was requested-more concise. The requested part matters because taking it out would likely result in being asked to put it back down the road. I also admire the willingness to make that kind of effort on behalf of WP. I support your desire to improve this article and am sorry we could not reach more agreement on what that involved previously. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

All good points, thanks. I'm working with on condensing the overall outline and fleshing out the lvl 3 subheadings and if I think I've made progress I'll post a second proposed outline here. Levivich (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

remove this?
I am thinking this sentence should be removed because it is not about the Bible: Thoughts? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree, it seems to say more about the Church than the Bible. There are better sources for discussion of the Bible's influence on the status of women. Levivich 22:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the earth may be rotating backwards, but you and I are in agreement, so I can probably assume no one else will argue against it. I will go ahead and remove it. Biblical teachings on women are a very mixed bag - both repressive and supportive. Do you have any thoughts on how much of that should be included? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (...and everyone thinks climate change is caused by pollution...) I don't have thoughts on that yet, mostly because I haven't looked at the sources to see how much/what they say about the topic, but at some point I'll get there. Levivich 20:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha ha!! You have a sense of humor! I had no idea! That's awesome! This is cool, let me know when I can help. I do care about this article, so I want to, and even though we have disagreed on sources, I think we have agreed on much more, and that has usually been where content alone is concerned. No humor intended! I will happily wait and follow your lead here, as it seems that will lessen conflict - and produce humor - which totally rocks! Thank you.
 * Also, imo, all the recent edits by everyone are improvements. It's looking good! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"Biblija" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Biblija and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 01:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

"The Original Bible for Modern Readers" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect The Original Bible for Modern Readers and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 23 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 01:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2022
The bible is cool 104.153.29.126 (talk) 16:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please post specific text you want to change (A->B) and supporting sources. Thank you. -- Mvqr (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2023
I am a theoretical physicist, and this page is anti-scientific. See, for example:

The oldest books began as songs and stories orally transmitted from generation to generation <- Current academic theories consider that ... The Bible was written and compiled by many people, most of whom are unknown, from a variety of disparate cultures.[10] <- Current academic theories consider the ..

The books of the Bible were initially written and copied by hand on papyrus scrolls.[12] No originals survive. <- Gee, that is convenient.

At the very least, there should be a statement at the top indicating that this article is operating according to current archaeological reconstructions and textual analysis theories in the academic world. 128.244.38.5 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)


 * ❌ Wikipedia is reliably sourced not democratically sourced. So, of course, Wikipedia kowtows to the mainstream academia, like the Ivy League. Do Britannica and Larousse do otherwise? No, since that's what a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia is based upon: academic learning, not religious dogma and not popular opinion.


 * Wikipedia isn’t a free speech website. It isn’t democratically sourced, it is reliably sourced. That means that the mainstream academia (Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, Sorbonne, and Yale) gets the lion’s share. Your religion will be presented from the perspective of CHOPSY. There is no point in protesting against it, since Wikipedia is interested in the academic truth, the CHOPSY truth, not in the truth of your religion, nor the truth of political correctness. So, don’t waste tears if you see your religion bashed by CHOPSY, since this is the only choice Wikipedia has. You have the choice to disregard CHOPSY, Wikipedia doesn’t.


 * To tell you the truth, there is no real difference between Wikipedia, Britannica, and Larousse. They all have the same norms and values about what amounts to knowledge. So, if you see Wikipedia, think it is Britannica 2.0.


 * Oh, yes, in case you missed the memo: Wikipedia isn’t WikiLeaks. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * tgeorgescu Wow. That was unnecessary. Cultural insensitivity has become an automatic go-to on talk-pages I guess.


 * @128.244.38.5 (talk) My sympathy for the treatment you received here, but what tgeorgescu says is perfectly correct. There is no need to include because that is always assumed in every WP article in existence. The rules are strict and adherence is monitored by EVERYONE.


 * After apologizing, I have to say that I find your complaints puzzling. I can't even begin to figure out what that means.


 * The 3 statements you reference are common knowledge. Of course the Bible began as oral history. Oral history is still used in places around the world, it has been allowed in courts of law, and it has a long and distinguished history of its own. There is evidence - both internal and external - of that fine tradition in the currently existing biblical texts. Philippians 2, for example, was originally a hymn. There are a little more than 4 dozen of these in the NT and more in the Old. These excerpts are older than the written text, which is a significant fact, as they date the concepts they purvey back to the origins of Christianity (and in the OT, Judaism). I don't understand the problem.


 * Any preacher or teacher in any Christian church or Jewish synagogue will tell you that. There is no disagreement. You can see that for yourself just by going through it and checking. Well, no, it really isn't. It has left a lot open to question. But again, this is common knowledge. There is no one of any reputable group that would tell you otherwise. So again, I am lost as to what the problem is. Perhaps you would care to explain further. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)


 * tgeorgescu, your reply is really out of topic. The anonymous user suggested making it clear that our current understanding of the Bible is based on "current archaeological reconstructions and textual analysis theories". He/she did not dispute their accuracy, nor were they advocating for any religious dogma. Dimadick (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, all our history or archaeology articles are based on "current archaeological reconstructions and textual analysis theories". Why should this article be singled out? tgeorgescu (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * tgeorgescu You're right, it shouldn't be singled out. We all agree on that point - well, except for the original poster - and they were terrifically unclear. Perhaps  Dimadick  understood better than I because I am still confused. Anti-scientific? What?!? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * They were unclear with what they wanted, but their only actual proposal for changes was in the last paragraph of their text. Dimadick (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Question
Is the Bible a considered a sacred text (perhaps less holy than the Quran) in Islam? The Jews and the Christians are, to my knowledge, considered "people of the book" and have prerogatives in Islamic countries. 21:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC) SpicyMemes123 (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I believe Islamic view of the Bible might be the article you seek.  Skipple  ☎  21:40, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe so. Sheanobeano (talk) 23:52, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Bible
Holy Bible is the proper title. Devout religious and spiritual groups believe it is the inspired words of God Himself. 96.18.209.11 (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed multiple times - most recently [|here]. Consensus is that it should not be changed because, as a secular institute, WP does not make judgment calls on religious scriptures. See for example WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RNPOV. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "Devout religious and spiritual groups believe" Their bigotry is of no interest to us. Dimadick (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * True, and I am not accusing the previous editor of this in any way, shape or form. But I will caution that we as editors in our responses to any religious topic must also be careful to avoid bigotry. It is a balancing act that comes with experience, and requires all of us to learn not to allow our personal experiences or biases to color our editing - positively or negatively. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Can I carry you with me and quote you everywhere I go? I have a short essay on neutralizing bias on my user page that starts with "everyone is biased". Not everyone seems willing or able to see that. I am genuinely pleased to run across someone else who does. Thank you. Perhaps you would allow me to add this quote to my essay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I would sincerely be honored! Thank you. And how very true: it's impossible for any of us to avoid bias...even the act of trying to avoid it can inadvertently introduce it. But, so long as we are cognizant of that and trying, they can contribute constructively :) Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Jtrevor99 you are now on my user page where I list 6 steps for neutralizing bias:
 * Recognize the problem. It helps to become aware it isn't just you. It also helps to become aware it is you. It's everyone.
 * Vet your sources Learn to recognize when an author neglects facts, fails to acknowledge opposing arguments, or dismisses contradictory studies. They are biased.
 * Test Yourself by looking for contrary evidence. Make sure to include sources that disagree with your own personal POV.
 * Create consistency by using the same standard for all. Don't cut an author you like slack that you would not give to one you don't like. That too is bias.
 * Consensus hinders bias. Never revert a good faith edit because you don't personally agree with it.
 * Most importantly, Be wary of overconfidence. "The more certain you are about an opinion, the more likely you are to employ confirmation bias... Sometimes the best time to expose yourself to opposing views is when you are most certain you already have all the information you need".
 * And then, there you are. Thank you for being an example of what's best on WP. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course everyone is biased. That is a given. The day that nobody is biased anymore would be the day there are 0 edits on wikipedia. Latin Beau  06:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you Latin Beau  you are so right, but it isn't uncommon for it to be a very difficult thing to see in one's self. We think what we think because we think it's right - if we weren't right, we would think something else!  I admire anyone who sees how this makes each of us biased. I admire those who work at seeing and acknowledging that - and setting it to the side. So, from me personally, please take away my respect for this comment. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * "Never revert a good faith edit because you don't personally agree with it." Not a good advice on Wikipedia. Quite frequently, good-faith editors mess up an article's structure and sources. The only option is to revert the changes and talk to them. Dimadick (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps should be amended to state "...based on content" or something of that nature. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Dimadick It's the reason for reverting that differentiates those, but perhaps you're right and that should be clarified. "Never revert an otherwise well sourced, good faith, valid edit just because it is contrary to your personal views". That's WP policy and should be upheld.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be called "Holy Bible." Respect Christians. Sheanobeano (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Respect Christians." Respect is earned, and I doubt they have earned it. Dimadick (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

New Testament apocrypha?
An editor recently copied a large section of New Testament apocrypha (with some edits) to this article. I question whether that is helpful: not just because of the duplication, but because the article is already bordering on being too long, and because (in my opinion) a "Bible" article ought to be limited to content which was, or is, part of at least one major extant group's Bible. Additionally, it was added under "Content and Themes" which appears incorrect, since - with a couple small exceptions - none of the mentioned works are or were ever considered part of any canon. Since New Testament apocrypha is also already linked to in the New Testament history section, and since this section already adequately summarizes NT apocryphal history, I suggest that the newly added section should be scrapped entirely, saving for mention of books such as 3 Corinthians or 1/2 Clement (which are included in some Bibles) in the Canon variations section. Thoughts? Jtrevor99 (talk) 04:33, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with (mostly) removal since it's not in what I commonly understand as "Bible" though it's certainly bible adjacent. Bible links to New Testament apocrypha and has some content on it, that seems WP:PROPORTIONate for this article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It's incredible that nothing has been done about it, this section keeps large proportions of the main article "New Testament apocrypha", almost half of this article is here.Rafaelosornio (talk) 03:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was waiting on additional people to reply, and haven’t had enough time to edit it back out. You are welcome to. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023
this entire paragraph is a lie and should be deleted. "New Testament books already had considerable authority in the late first and early second centuries.[164] Even in its formative period, most of the books of the NT that were seen as scripture were already agreed upon. Linguistics scholar Stanley E. Porter says "evidence from the apocryphal non-Gospel literature is the same as that for the apocryphal Gospels – in other words, that the text of the Greek New Testament was relatively well established and fixed by the time of the second and third centuries".[165] By the time the fourth century Fathers were approving the "canon", they were doing little more than codifying what was already universally accepted.[166]" Jeffohms (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)


 * According to ref given in the article, Stanley E. Porter did say that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. M.Bitton (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Page views
reduced drastically in April 2022, d does anyone have any idea what happened? https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/langviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&start=2022-08-25&end=2023-08-23&page=Bible&sort=views&direction=1&view=chart&page=Bible fgnievinski (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Nothing drastic seems to have happened to the article near those dates, my guess would be that Google stopped offering Wikipedia as the top result. As to why Google stopped doing so only Google would know. the drop actually happened in November, you can see this if narrow the date range. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:48, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This might be related: https://theconversation.com/2022-wasnt-the-year-of-cleopatra-so-why-was-she-the-most-viewed-page-on-wikipedia-197350 fgnievinski (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)