User:Jpacobb/Citing the Bible(Essay)

[Note: This essay is still under construction]

Having spent a great deal of time trying to work out how best to cite the Bible in religious articles, I decided to gather together on one page most, if not all, of the material which is scattered around Wikipedia's myriads of pages and to add a few suggestions of my own in the hope of moving nearer to a reasonable degree of consensus since the discussion of this problem seems to have ground to a halt. I assume that the reader understands the basic dynamic of Wikipedia which might be condensed as follows: "editors should only include in an article what may be found in an opinion about that particular subject expressed in a verifiable source by someone who qualifies as being an expert and that when the experts differ due weight must be given to significant groups among them."

When and how to cite
Citations from the Bible are intended to present to the reader in a convenient way key raw material on which the article depends. Editors should never supply a passage unless its inclusion is justified by a secondary source, nor should they interpret the passage themselves or combine passages to draw a conclusion from the two. There are basically three methods:
 * 1) Simply to give a reference such as (John 1:1) in the text (or as a note) leaving readers to look it up in whatever way they can.


 * 1) To go further and turn the above into a link to an external site.


 * 1) To quote the text in the article, probably as a note.

What version to cite
As indicated in the next section, copyright is a serious complication whenever one wants to quote the text as distinct from linking to an external site; but two preliminary points can be dealt with briefly.

First, translations range from an extremely literal word-for-word following of the original (sometimes characterised as formal equivalence) to what used to be called a 'paraphrase' (technically dynamic or functional equivalence) in which the meaning of each sentence or paragraph is communicated in truly idiomatic English but at the price of the original structures and vocabulary being lost from view. While in many cases this may not matter, when dealing with an academic theme a translation close to 'formal equivalence' may be the better option since the reader gets a clearer impression of the original documents which form the basis of any serious study. For example, justification is a key theme in theology and, while the Revised Version uses the term consistently, Weymouth translates the same Greek verb to justify with different phrases in Luke 18:14; 2 Corinthians 6:11, and Romans 5:1.

Secondly, one should cite from what is by Wikipedia's standards a reliable source. This requirement probably excludes the King James/Authorized Version and the Douai-Rheims (Challoner) since they are based on what are now known to be inadequate knowledge of the original Greek and Hebrew texts. It also puts a question-mark against some individual translations which are seen as influenced by the doctrinal point-of-view of the individual translator. While there is no simple rule, the following considerations favour the reliability of a given translation:
 * 1) It is the work of a consortium of experts drawn from different ecclesiastical traditions.
 * 2) It is authorised by several major denominations for use during divine worship.
 * 3) It is used extensively by reputable academics as a main resource when working with an English text.

Copyright
[Note: Information given in this section is E&OE (Errors and Omissions Excepted)]

Copyright becomes a major consideration as soon as an editor goes beyond simply including in the article the appropriate reference such as (John 1:1). Bible translations fall into three groups as so far as copyright is concerned.

Public domain
Anything in public domain may be cited in the text or notes of an article even though referencing is usually done by linking to an external website. The standard translations in this group are:
 * American Standard Version; Douai-Rheims (Challoner); King James/Authorized Version; Revised Version.

There are a number of translations by individual authors in this group, including those by Darby, Webster and Young.

The whole group uses old–fashioned language and depends on inferior versions of the text in original languages since many ancient manuscripts have since come to light. There is one modern version which has been made explicitly "public domain", the World English Bible. However this update of the ASV appears to be a piece of self-publishing by an author who has no specific qualifications in Hebrew or Greek.

Copyright with restricted general license clause
Some translations which are copyright carry a generalised clause waiving the need to obtain prior permission for some classes of non-commercial use. The details vary with each publisher and it is clear that in some cases use on Wikipedia is not covered. When any of the versions listed below is available on an authorised external website, linking to that site is legal and permissible; storing a quotation from them on Wikipedia might be justifiable in some cases under the the restricted general license. If this is done, the version must be identified by its "trademark" initials (for example, "RSV") and it is highly probable that fuller details of the license should be linked in some way to this immediate identification.


 * New Living Translation; New International Version (personal use only!); English Standard version; Revised Standard Version (probably usable!)

Copyright of other versions
As with the previous group there is no problem if an editor includes an external link to a website which is authorised to carry the text, but direct citation is illegal unless prior permission is obtained in writing from the publisher. Versions in this group include:
 * New American Standard Bible; New King James Version;

"Fair Use"
In some situations, the use of copyright material can be justified on the grounds of fair use. This is a legal concept with a specialised range of meaning which reduces its applicability beyond what many people might feel intuitively to be fair. In the case of Bible versions, the availability in the public domain of alternatives might in itself be deemed sufficient to defeat this line of defence.

Suggested guideline on copyright
The general policy of Wikipedia is clear: Only quote a source and store the text on Wikipedia servers if it is clearly legal to do so. Almost all the versions which give a restricted general licence set a limit on the number of verses which may be quoted without express written permission. Since there is no effective way for Wikipedia to keep count of the number of verses used, licences with this condition cannot be considered usable. Therefore the only safe policy is to link to a legally authorised site unless the version is in the public domain in which case it may be quoted and stored on Wikipedia's servers.

Templates and linking
The following 'standard templates' are available:template:bibleref and template:bibleref2. However, a new type of template belonging to the {{Silr}} family is being developed in the hope of providing a more satisfactory method and is described in the documentation of {{Silrnt}}.

Style of references
If references are given in full, they tend to clutter the screen and make reading the article more difficult; for example, (Ecclesiasticus 10:11; 2 Chronicles 14:15). On the other hand, (Sir 10:11; 2 Ch 14:15) may leave some readers guessing. The {{Silr}} family have been provided with a "hover function" which allows the reference itself to be kept very short while making it easy for the reader to identify it by placing the the cursor over it.

Ways forward
(pending)

Notes & references

 * Notes
 * Web