Talk:Intertestamental period

This Article is So Bad it Should be Deleted
It barely stays focused on its topic, and the info one can find on the Apocrypha or Deuterocanonical pages is much more complete. 75.70.99.101 (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, OR we can put up something that is more academically-oriented. The "Intertestamental period" is a mental construct. I've heard evangelical Christians cite a prophecy, but never seen evidence of that prophecy nor writings of scholars pertaining to it. If someone would like to post academic evidence from a theologian or credible scholar, that would be helpful and justify the existence of this article.

Likewise, I've heard orthodox and Catholic scholars (especially in Eastern Christianity) dispute that there was ever such a period of 400 years when God was silent. Essentially they call the Intertestamental period an anachronism from the Reformation, which rejected what they called apocrypha, but which Western Catholics call the deuterocanonicals and Eastern Christians have never rejected as canonical books (ie, 3 and 4 Esdras). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Girzirz (talk • contribs) 17:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time at the moment, but am reading two books about this subject: The New Testament, Its background and message by Thomas D. Lea and David Allan Black; Jewish Backgrounds of the New Testament by J. Julius Scott Jr. The first one (and I believe the second) talk about the intertestamental peroid. These are good sources and would justify the existence of the article. If I get time I may add to the article from these sources. Krosstown86 (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Complaints about this article have existed for years, as well as regular support for deletion. It's badly written, poorly sourced, inaccurate, etc I don't think it's salvagable, because it's so bad, so support deletion at time certain, say December 31st. Activist (talk) 07:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Deletion doesn't work that way. And there is almost never an article on a topic that is notable that is so bad it must be deleted; we almost always opt to keep and improve it. So, instead of venting, try working to improve the article.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

POV problem
One problem with this article is that it has as its premise the notion that no books of the Bible were written during this time. In point of fact, those books that were written during this time were only removed from the Bible by Protestants well after the Reformation; the King James Version of 1611 had them up until sometime in the 1700s. So whether there was a long 'intertestamental period' depends on whether one accepts the deuterocanonical books. I'm surprised that this didn't seem to come up during the original debate over its deletion.

Related to this, some believe that the entire Bible was divinely inspired, some that only the Old Testament was inspired, some that most of the Bible (except the "Apocrypha") was inspired, and many believe that none of it was inspired. Some of the remarks regarding inspiration ought to reflect this diversity of beliefs. Wesley 17:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is based on the Protestant view that the Intertestamental period was a time of prophetic silence; therefore, the only way to amend the point of view of the article would be to delete it. As to your statement that the Apocryphal books were removed after the Reformation, I think you might find it interesting to note that they were not accepted into the Jewish Scriptures, nor would they have been accepted into the Christian canon had the Council of Cathage in 397 not insisted that Jerome include them into the Latin Vulgate.  While I don't think your argument has much merit, I do agree that this article is severely lacking and that someone should edit it to reflect the fact that this is only one view of that period of 400 years. Eloise872 (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wesley, if Protestants use the term "Intertestamental" and Protestants don't have any Biblical books written within that period of time, I see no reason to argue against the term. However if you have some scholarly source that argues against the use of this term, I see no problem in citing it as a side note to the article. Krosstown86 (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The content of the article is not adequately limited: Is the "intertestamental period" the period during which no accepted (by protestants) books were written or is it the period which the protestant bible does not cover. If the first, then the period is harder to acceptably pin down because of the literary source-critical theories out there. If it is the second (more acceptable in my assumptions), then why are the "Events Immediately Preceding Jesus" listed with New Testament citations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.85.66 (talk) 03:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Intertestamental period. 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/20140222135532/http://www.whyisrael.org/2010/12/09/400-silent-years-anything-but-silent-part-1/ to http://www.whyisrael.org/2010/12/09/400-silent-years-anything-but-silent-part-1/

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 08:36, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Intertestamental period. 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/20150807064757/http://gbcwoodstock.com:80/eBooks/pdf/Carroll-Between.pdf to http://gbcwoodstock.com/eBooks/pdf/Carroll-Between.pdf

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 02:38, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"Interbiblical"
I've repeatedly encountered the term "interbiblical", occasionally capitalized as "Interbiblical", and variants "inter-biblical" and "inter-Biblical" probably also exist. This term appears to refer to the same time period, and if so should be included here. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:44, 10 June 2024 (UTC)