Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of major textual variants in the New Testament


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Textual variants in the New Testament. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  17:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

List of major textual variants in the New Testament

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The article has ben without any source for 10 years. There was a previous merge proposal, but it was rejected. No one has come to add any source in 10 years, so I think it is time we get rid of this totally unsourced OR. Veverve (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Veverve (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep The sources being compared (the King James Version and New American Standard Bible, 1995 edition) are the references. They are all freely available online and so WP:CALC applies. If nom demands references, something like https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+5%3A44&version=KJV,AKJV,NASB1995,NASB,THGNT could be added as a reference for each verse listed. The main difference between this article and textual variants in the New Testament is that the latter compares various passes in Greek and this compares commonly used English-language translations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How are we to know which bible the user used and for what? And how does the user know that each times the Majority text is the same as the TR? How does he/she know the KJV always follows the TR, and that the recent bibles he/she presents always follow the Nestle-Aland (apparently, some do not)? Veverve (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure what you're asking. The article clearly states "The following list contains texts where the Majority Text is in agreement with the Textus Receptus, against the critical text.
 * "MT = Majority Text. (English text from New King James Version ) CT = Critical text (English text from New American Standard Bible )". That's a good point. Biblical scholars know that the KJV used Texus Receptus, which is an unreliable source document. That should be detailed in the article.
 * However, you did not address the question. A side-by-side comparison of the two could be added as sources and lack of sources was your major argument for deletion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * how does the user know when the TR and the MT are in agreement everytimes he/she quotes from the "MT/TR", and that moreover the KJV is strictly following the TR and is not paraphrasing, nor relying on the Vulgate nor on manuscripts which were not used in the TR? And that is assuming that it is the 5th editions of Erasmus's text by which the user meant the TR. As for what "modern critical text" refers to, nobody knows (Wescort-Hort or N-A, or a synthesis of both? something else?).
 * There would be no point in simply manually comparing two bibles on Wikipedia, as some softwares can do it. Besides, the choice of whether or not to consider differences in a passage as "major" is subjective (i.e. it needs to be considered so by a RS). To me, this article reads more like a blog post than a WP article. Veverve (talk) 07:16, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Some softwares? That is an odd grammatical construct. Your argument has now changed, but yes, there would be a value because the different translations would make a comparison like this virtually impossible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:26, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge into Textual variants in the New Testament which seems to be same topic done better. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per Andrew. We do not need two articles covering the same person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - the Textual variants in the New Testament is from Greek manuscripts, List of major textual variants in the New Testament is English translations - merging would make the article too long - perhaps the titles need to be changed to reflect the sources, such as "Textual variants in Greek New Testament manuscripts" (too long?) and "Textual variants in New Testament English translations" - Epinoia (talk) 16:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are many translations of the Bible in English – see List of English Bible translations. The point here is differences in text in the original Greek and so that's the more sensible approach.  Of course, we should also give English translations of those Greek texts for readers who don't understand Greek but they are best presented alongside the Greek so that the details of the translation can be verified.  What we should avoid is giving the impression that the Bible was written in English when it wasn't. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per Walter Görlitz and Epinoia. StAnselm (talk) 16:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * you say that determining whether a variant is "major" is a routine WP:CALC but the article lead does not explain the formula for determining whether a variant is major or minor. Can you add an explanation of how "major" variants are distinguished to the article lead? Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not been the primary maintainer and only watch for vandalism and correcting formatting. From what I see, it is when a passage in a TR-based translation lists much more or less content than a translation based on more scholarly sources (Novum Testamentum Graece) do or relegate the additions to footnotes. A simple reading of the passages shows the variations, and the extent of them, well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per above discussion, and in addition: whole college humanities courses are based on literature of the Bible, which lacks an exact article, and this list will be of much use to our core readership, students. Bearian (talk) 22:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep as a notable subject for theology, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep both this and Textual variants in the New Testament. The variations between the various texts used is a very important topic.
 * The latter is technically the better, but will be incomprehensible to most readers as it requires a working knowledge of NT Greek, which I happen to have, but most readers will not. The present article is tagged as lacking references.  This is almost certainly WRONG.  The references are no doubt what is labelled as "Further Reading", but it would be better if sources were given for editions of CT, TR and MT.  This is a case where it is highly undesirable for every line to have an in-line reference, which would clutter the article appallingly.  The references are actually present, in citing the three texts compared.  It would be useful if the article stated which translated text was in fact quoted, but that is a minor issue since the versions are mentioned in the article.   Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comments and notes: Consensus to ingore all the "rules" can pass with local !votes but the requirements of sourcing to provide evidence that there is actually not original research or synthesis has failed to materialize since 2017. Being "a very important topic" means there should be sources. Needing or being required to have a "working knowledge of NT Greek" is a reason we don't have "incomprehensible" content on an encyclopedia. Wording like "comparison like this virtually impossible" is equaling troublesome.
 * Textual criticism of the New Testament certainly seems to be an important subject and articles like Textual variants in the Gospel of Luke at least provide sources to show the information is covered not just on Wikipedia. If this is not a creation of imagination then some of the great minds attached to this subject should be able to provide sources and inline citations that allows the reader to associate a given bit of material with specific reliable source(s) that support it. Even if a closer should agree that there is valuable information and the above "voting", that currently flies in the in the face of policies and guidelines, a "keep" closing would be against the more broadly accepted community consensus.
 * At present none of the "keep" !votes provide evidence to justify allowing the article to remain per the deletion "policy" #6, #7, or #8. Since Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought|undefined or a Bibical guidebook and "IF" this is "a notable subject for theology" then where are the sources? Please note: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports a given piece of material if the information is directly present in the source, so that using this source to support the material is not a violation of No original research. Otr500 (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The discussion so far largely ignores the WP:OR issues with this content, such as who gets to decide what counts as a "major" variant.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge I hate these well-written but unsourced articles. Can we move this to a subsection in a New Testament article? Oaktree b (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge - The two topics are fairly related. Most of the differences that are more than just minor word choice stem from textual variants in the Greek itself.  So since the English variants generally stem from the Greek, it's probably best to house both topic in the same place, possibly as a table. Hog Farm Talk 16:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a number of sources discussing the major variants in the Greek; I've got a Bruce M. Metzger book at home that lists some of these. From what I've seen, the sources that focus on the variants focus on the Greek end of it, so "major" variants will have to be determined on the Greek end. Hog Farm Talk 16:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * could you tackle the OR of the article? Also, where do you want this fully unsourced article to be merged? Veverve (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say it's not wholly unsourced, but it is a mess of WP:OR (who defines major in the English translations, and there's even some where there's not a difference [ei both omit the verse]). The translations themselves should be consistent against the NKJY or NASB, if you can figure out which revision of the NASB and NKJV was used. I'd like to see this best as a table, with the Greek translations provided in one column, with the English translations and a source. Bibleverse would be useful in working on this.  I'm not good enough with tables to pull that off, though.  I don't have the time to do the transfer over work to the Textual variants in the New Testament article, but  I'd be willing to help sort out OR and help actually cite it after the transfer.  I currently attend a Baptist university, so I've got access to some sources in addition to the handful I personally own. And you don't have to worry about OR from me, as I don't read Koine Greek! Hog Farm Talk 16:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge well written but still WP:OR to its core. I hope that there is a way to WP:PRESERVE this because the WP:OR is somewhat plain and obvious with minimal interpretation. Maybe there is hope of salvaging this as part of a bigger and better article. Textual variants in the New Testament is on a better track. It still needs work though. Archrogue (talk) 01:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge per Andrew. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Draftify There's really no good policy-based option so I'm suggesting draftifying as he least bad policy-based option. The Keep and Merge opinions are both partly correct: this is a notable topic and there is scholarly work on the topic but this article is hopelessly WP:OR and therefore fails to follow the core content policies. If it is moved to Draft space, there is at least a chance that an article on a notable topic can be reworked.  Eggishorn  (talk) (contrib) 17:01, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge into Textual variants in the Gospel of Matthew, Textual variants in the Gospel of Mark, etc. Textual variants in the New Testament is too large and messy; a lot of that article's content needs to be trimmed because it's covered in these per-book articles. ~EdGl talk 18:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge into Textual variants in the New Testament per above.  // Timothy :: talk  12:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I stand by my Keep vote above. The fact that there are significant variations is apparent from the footnotes in many Bibles.  Those Bible translations are cited as Further Reading.  This is therefore NOT original research.  The differences are the result of differing textual transitions in surviving manuscripts and are given in full in critical editions of the Greek New Testament.  I do know enough Greek to understand the text in Greek and have occasionally consulted such a critical edition, though I do not own one.  This is quite different from a comparison of how different translators have turned the Greek into English.  We have two articles: one has a lot of Greek in it and will only be comprehensible to those who know the language.  The other is in English.  The test is NOT whether an article has full in-line references (verified), but whether it is verifiable, which I believe this to be.  There are many much worse articles in WP.  In relisting criteria #6, #7 and #8 are cited, but none of these is any more relevant than that of whether BLP arises.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.