Template talk:Psalms

Psalms of Solomon
The template extends beyond the usual 150 psalms of the mainstream western canons to include Psalm 151 and Psalms 152–155 (from some Peshitta manuscripts). So should it not also include Psalms of Solomon? If there are no objections, I'll add it. Feline Hymnic (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm unsure, they're in no way part of the Book of Psalms - User:Epson291 02:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

There are two issues here: These aspects are linked, of course. So I should probably reformulate my question into two, to account for canonicity:
 * 1) Canonicity: Indeed, none of those items is part of the Western canon of scripture. But I understand that Ps.151 is in the Septuagint, one of the foundation stones of the Western canon, and that it is accepted as canonical by churches in the East. (Analogously, Psalms 152-155 are found in some ancient translations of the O.T. scrolls.)
 * 2) Consistency of the template: My original question was solely about consistency of those items in (and not in) the template, not about varying canonicity of the items. In that sense, my earlier question was deficient.
 * 1) Consistency: Given that the template includes Psalms beyond the western-traditional 150, shouldn't it also include Psalms of Solomon?  (Note: consistency.)
 * 2) Canonicity: Given that the 150 have universal canonicity, whereas the other items don't, should we re-structure the template to reflect this?  (See, for example, the 'Deuterocanon & Apocrypha' section of Template:Books of the Bible?

Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Following the WP:BB principle, I've made the adjustment. Feline Hymnic (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks good what you've done. - Epson291 (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)