Talk:Eliot Indian Bible

Alphabet question
Very interesting. It says he developed an Algonquin alphabet but the photos show the Algonquin Bible uses the Roman alphabet like we do. Can you explain this? Pumpkin Sky  talk  11:38, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting question. I notice also that the 1663 edition shows "1663" in English for the time printed. The 1685 has for the date printed in Roman numerals. The other letters are of the Algonquin alphabet. So, my guess is that it was the printer's choice to show how the printed date would be shown. I think in 1685 it was a common practice for the printers to show the printed date in Roman numerals to confuse their customers so they wouldn't know later on it was an older edition. Keep in mind most people couldn't read or write English, let along Roman letters. It would be a way to disguise the printed date.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see now what's confusing to me. I was expecting something with its own script, like Arabic or Thai. But it uses the Roman alphabet but with accent marks, like French or Spanish.  Pumpkin Sky   talk  13:29, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct!!! Eliot created a phonetically based written language based on the Roman alphabet. The reference does not tell me this exactly as the Roman alphabet. It says, Eliot became the first missionary... ...to translate the Scriptures into an unwritten language and then teach the people how to read it. He must have spoken the words (with the accent marks) and it sounded pretty much like their verbal language and they could recognize it then. English on the other hand must have been so far off that the Indians could not recognize it (as something similar to their language).--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Eliot Indian Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130526165750/http://www.myloc.gov/Exhibitions/Bibles/OtherBibles/ExhibitObjects/TheEliotIndianBibleFirstBiblePrintedinAmerica.aspx?ImageId=886c5b91-a9b5-4fbf-a7e2-776c45f18484:8275982c-7354-4f46-af30-5948c4102449:321 to http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/Bibles/OtherBibles/ExhibitObjects/TheEliotIndianBibleFirstBiblePrintedinAmerica.aspx?ImageId=886c5b91-a9b5-4fbf-a7e2-776c45f18484:8275982c-7354-4f46-af30-5948c4102449:321
 * Added tag to http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k18801&pageid=icb.page93847
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130430163434/http://www.myloc.gov/Exhibitions/Bibles/OtherBibles/ExhibitObjects/TheEliotIndianBibleFirstBiblePrintedinAmerica.aspx?Enlarge=true&ImageId=886c5b91-a9b5-4fbf-a7e2-776c45f18484%3a8275982c-7354-4f46-af30-5948c4102449%3a321&PersistentId=1%3a886c5b91-a9b5-4fbf-a7e2-776c45f18484%3a12&ReturnUrl=%2fExhibitions%2fBibles%2fOtherBibles%2fExhibitObjects%2fTheEliotIndianBibleFirstBiblePrintedinAmerica.aspx to http://myloc.gov/Exhibitions/Bibles/OtherBibles/ExhibitObjects/TheEliotIndianBibleFirstBiblePrintedinAmerica.aspx?Enlarge=true&ImageId=886c5b91-a9b5-4fbf-a7e2-776c45f18484%3a8275982c-7354-4f46-af30-5948c4102449%3a321&PersistentId=1%3a886c5b91-a9b5-4fbf-a7e2-776c45f18484%3a12&ReturnUrl=%2fExhibitions%2fBibles%2fOtherBibles%2fExhibitObjects%2fTheEliotIndianBibleFirstBiblePrintedinAmerica.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:57, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Translation Source of the Original Edition
The introduction states (with good evidence) that Eliot and his Wampanoag assistants translated from the Geneva Bible. However, the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph in the Legacy section states that the 1709 edition is based on the King James Bible "just like 'Eliot's Indian Bible' (aka: 'Mamusse Wunneetupanatamwe Up Biblum God')." It seems that the 1709 edition does seek to render the King James, i.e. Authorized Version, given that the link from footnote 36 gives as Other Titles "Bible. O.T. Psalms. English. Authorized. 1709" and "Bible. N.T. John. English. Authorized. 1709" along with the Note quoting Trumbull that "every verse underwent revision and scarcely one remains without some alteration", as would be the case if a Geneva Bible translation is being brought into alignment with the Authorized Version. Please delete the comment beginning "just like 'Eliot's Indian Bible..." Curmudgeonly Pedant (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
This article is part of Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 and the Good article (GA) drive to reassess and potentially delist over 200 GAs that might contain copyright and other problems. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of articles en masse, unless a reviewer opens an independent review and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information about the GA status of this article, the timeline and process for delisting, and suggestions for improvements. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Algonquin v. Massachusett
The beginning of this article originally stated that the title of the book was in Algonquin. I changed it to Massachusett.

Algonquin is a different language spoken outside of New England, and was likely conflated with the Algonquian language family that Massachusett is also a part of. CarpinchoCamayuc (talk) 06:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)