Talk:Bible/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Caption for photo at top?

Shouldn't there be a caption for the photo at the top? Palefire 18:59, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)

bibleserver.com

An anon recently add this site. This site response time is slow and seems to be duplicative of other resources already listed. On the good side I didn't see any ads and they claim to have advanced features for registering. However, I think it should be removed. Trödel|talk 14:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Christian Bible

A glance at the edit history confirms that User:Jcbos wants to delete reference to a Christian Bible, as this is a pleonasm. After all, the Bibles of all other people are actually called differently (e.g. the Hebrew Bible is called Tanakh).

User:Jayjg, User:SlimVirgin and myself contend that as these books are still called Bible (especially Tanakh), it would be POV to maintain that the word Bible without modifiers is to be taken as the Christian version.

Jcbos and I have agreed to solicit community opinion through WP:RFC. Your comments, please. JFW | T@lk 06:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The definition in dictionary gives the definition as:
  1. The sacred book of Christianity, a collection of ancient writings including the books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament.
  2. The Hebrew Scriptures, the sacred book of Judaism.
  3. A particular copy of a Bible: the old family Bible.
  4. A book or collection of writings constituting the sacred text of a religion.
The usage for sacred scriptures for religions other than Christianity is also given in Merriam Webster Online, yourdictionary.com, and Cambridge Dictionary Online. I think this shows that use of Bible to reflect religious books other than the Christian Bible is recognised in English (and in my own opinion widespread), so to limit the meaning would be non-NPOV, and in some contexts lead to confusion. -- Chris Q 07:17, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems awkward to use Christian Bible throughout the article, at least when I read through a version with that wording. Could a compromise be to explain the different uses of the term bible, with links to the appropriate articles, and conclude with "Bible as used in this rest of this article means Christian Bible" Trödel|talk 15:09, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes this seems sensible. I would also put it explicitly where the main subject of a section is some other religious text, as in the Reincarnation#Judaism_and_kabbalah entry that started this off. -- Chris Q 15:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A solution might be to use 'Christian Bible' in articles about other religions like Islam and Hinduism and in the introduction of the Bible-article, as suggested by Trödel and use 'Bible' in christianity-related articles and in articles the have no relations with a specific religion. Would that be an idea? Jcbos 15:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the suggested use of 'Christian Bible' in articles about other religions, and 'Bible' in christianity-related articles. I think that the other uses of Bible are so prevalent in English that "Christian Bible" should be used (at least the first time) in articles the have no relations with a specific religion, especially where the specific section of an article is discussing a non-Christian religion. -- Chris Q 16:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What to do in article like Kongo language? In this article religion doesn't play a roll, and the use of just 'Bible' wouldn't lead to misunderstanding. Anyway, we are coming to consensus now. When most people like this solution, I can make a list of articles with 'Christian Bible'(using google) and we can split it in a list of articles where 'Christian' can be omited, a list of articles where we keep 'Christian' and a list of articles where more work is needed (the Bible article and maybe some others). Jcbos 16:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
For the sake of clarity I would use "Christian Bible" where there is any doubt, as it is better to have an unnecessary qualifier than possible confusion. For Kongo language, I would tend to leave "Christian" in, as some people might have cultural assumptions about the area that could lead to misunderstanding. For example, if "Bible" were used in the "Hebrew Language" or "Arabic Language" section, I would think that clarification would be essential. I know little about the Kongo, so I probably would assume Bible to mean "Christian Bible" without qualification, but I couldn't say for certain that other people would make the same assumption. -- Chris Q 16:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, then we might better keep 'Christian' in the Kongo language article and place a note at the talkpage, waiting for someone who knows more about it to change it or not. Jcbos 16:54, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Christian" Bible serves as a good disambiguation in almost all articles; the additional word is hardly a burden in any way, and the commonly used modifier helps clarify any article. Jayjg (talk) 18:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The problem goes farther than that, though. User:Jcbos wants to remove the phrase "Christian Bible" from all articles on Wikipedia, as his edit history shows, insisting that it is a pleonasm. Other editors have pointed out that the phrase is actually quite common in English (262,000 Google hits, for example), and that it is often used as a disambiguation precisely because the specific Bible being referred to is not clear. Rather than just discuss the usage in this particular article, I'd like to get a feel for how people feel about the problem in general. Jayjg (talk) 15:15, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We discussed this cause at the Dutch wikipedia and we came to a consensus as follows:
Only one Bible exists. Jews have the 'tenach', Musulmans have the 'Quran', Christians have the 'Bible'.
'Hebrew Bible' has sometimes been used to indicate the Hebrew part of the Bible. This term does not mean that the 'Hebrwe Bible' is a Bible itself.
Whilst the Dutch usage is interesting, it does not really affect the usage on the English Wikipedia. The fact that English does use it in other ways, as shown by the dictionary definitions, means that it should be clarified where necessary. -- Chris Q 15:33, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Remark that user Jayjg last night changed the definition of Bible in the Bible-article to help him win this discussion. Jcbos 15:25, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a pointless discussion. There are definitely cases where Christian Bible is appropriate. Bible is a seriously overused word these days (Home Decorators Bible, Pet Care Bible etc.). We cannot assume that everyone will always know what Bible means. Let's at the very least use Christian Bible if there is any doubt about what we mean, and Bible when there is no danger of misunderstanding. DJ Clayworth 15:41, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My two cents worth use: I agree with Chris Q. One should use "Christian Bible" once in the article and throughout the rest of the article one can use just the word "Bible". bible needs to be disambiguated. In linking one can do this, [[Christian Bible|bible]] . and it will show up just [bible] in blue.WHEELER 17:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In case it helps, the Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to the Christian Bible or Jewish Bible throughout. Below is from the introduction to their article on Bible:

the sacred scriptures of Judaism and Christianity. The Christian Bible consists of the Old Testament and the New Testament . . . The Jewish Bible includes only the books known to Christians as the Old Testament. The arrangements of the Jewish and Christian canons differ considerably. The Protestant and Roman Catholic arrangements more nearly match one another.

SlimVirgin 17:29, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph does need some clarification as to which Bible is being spoken about. The article begins with a sentence about all Bibles and then moves without transition into talking about the Christian Bible. At the very least, a clarification is needed after the first sentence, declaring that although the word "Bible" can describe multiple texts, this particular article is only talking about the Christian bible starting with the third (or second?) sentence. For that matter which is the second sentence ( "These scriptures are groups of what were originally separate books, written over a long period of history, but sharing the same overall God-view.") talking about? the Christian bible, or all bibles? Charles 19:11, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please sign your posts so we can follow your comments. Although I respect those who are suggesting a compromise position (calling it the Christian or Hebrew Bible at the beginning, and then using the term "Bible" thereafter, I do not think this is a good idea. There are many religious people who believe that their Bible is the only Bible. I believe that both our NPOV policy and the need for clarity and precision means we should consistently use "Christian Bible" or "Hebrew Bible" as the case may be. I do not see how using the term "Christian Bible" consistenly is "redundant" -- if this were the case, then in any article where the term "the White House" appears, we would have to change it so that after the first instance of "White House," all other references to this building/office should be changed to just "House." Although "White House" is two words, together they constitute a single semantic term. Ditto for the Christian Bible. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I very much disagree. Within context, both groups use just Bible - no one ever just says the House. if they did they most likely mean the House of Representatives not the White House (in the context of politics). In many articles it is clear that one is refering to the Christian Bible or the Hebrew Bible, thus NPOV (use of Christian Bible and Hebrew Bible througout an article on Christianity or Judaism would not be the proper use of sympathetic tone) suggest in my mind to clarify in the first instance (the one with the wikilink) and then use Bible throughout the article. If there is confusion - such as compare and contrasting viewpoints then obviously you have to be clear to use Christian Bible or Hebrew Bible. I have never heard the term Christian Bible or Hebrew Bible in a conversation only bible - the meaning was easy to discern from context. We should do the same. Trödel|talk 18:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
But I have heard both terms used many times in conversation. And as I point out, the phrases themselves are common as well; for example, "Christian Bible" gets 262,000 Google hits, typically in contexts where no other Bible is being mentioned. "Jewish Bible" gets almost 100,000 hits, and "Hebrew Bible" over 300,000. Jayjg (talk) 19:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Google is not a good indicator - Bible without jewish, hebrew or christian gets 23,100,000 hits, If we were to take Google as the arbiter of NPOV, the term by itself is much more frequently used. And judging from the first 200 hits which I just scanned - nearly always means the Christian Bible not the Hebrew Bible. This, obviously, is not acceptable here. Additionally, the term "Christian Bible" in the search you point to above was most often used as an adjective to modify college or study in the sense of "christian Bible study" "Christian Bible College" - out of the first 20 hits there was 5 that actually referred to the "Christian Bible". I stand by my contention that it can be clear out of the context - but that we should make sure the first reference references the correct book - the "Christian Bible" or "Hebrew Bible". Trödel|talk 19:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ah, but your search includes all sorts of other "qualified" Bibles, including "Greek Bible (New Testament)", "Poisonwood Bible (novel)", "JavaScript Bible", "XML Bible", etc. It even produces links in which "Bible" is used to signify the Torah [1]. The qualifiers are clearly needed in many cases. Jayjg (talk) 20:02, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What I still don't understand is why in the context of a Christian or Jewish article, you oppose the shortened term. Google can tell us nothing in this area - other than both terms are used very frequently. Trödel|talk 22:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You assume that a reader of a Christian or Jewish article will know which Bible is meant; but, in fact, they may be ignorant of the faith, and have no idea. Alterinatively, a Christian reader may easily assume that the "Bible" referred to in a Jewish article is the Christian Bible, and vice versa. Jayjg (talk) 23:04, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see where the cognative dissonance is, I do not support only the term bible, but after a suitable explanation on first use, additional use could be just Bible. I.e. a disambugation type explanation as part of the intro on this page. Similarly on other articles use "the Hebrew Bible (see Bible for other uses of Bible) and then use just Bible throughout the rest of the article. If the context does not indicate one or the other, then use the adjective to describe which Bible is meant. Trödel|talk 23:12, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Hebrew Bible" can mean the Bible read in Judaism, the Christian Old Testament, the Hebrew text of the Christian Old Testament, or even a Hebrew translation of the Christian bible. Shimmin 19:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
The qualified terms are useful where the potential for confusion may exist. However, in contexts where this potential does not reasonably exist, for example in articles about particular topics in Christian / Jewish thought, the additional qualifier is unnecessary. And since the Christian and Jewish bibles share much of their material, although different sects often prefer different translations thereof, there are circumstances where adding a qualifier adds POV where none existed before: it is NPOV to call Abraham a Biblical figure. It adds POV to limit him to appearing in only one Bible. Shimmin 19:13, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Agree Trödel|talk 19:32, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think your example of Abraham as a Biblical figure is a good one (but isn't he a figure in the Koran too?) -- anyway, in this example I would not object to using "Biblical" without qualification. However, I strongly disagree with your claim that ""Hebrew Bible" can mean the Bible read in Judaism, the Christian Old Testament, the Hebrew text of the Christian Old Testament, or even a Hebrew translation of the Christian bible." You say "can be;" does this mean you are just speculating? I think we should avoid relying on our own imagination, and stick to the facts. In fact, I have never heard anyone use "Hebrew Bible" to refer to the OT (whether in English or in Hebrew) or to the Hebrew translation of the Christian Bible. Every time I have heard and read "Hebrew Bible," it was as an English translation of Tanach. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The use of "Hebrew Bible" depends on the context. Every time at the university when someone spoke about "Hebrew Bible" it was clear that they meant the Hebrew Old Testament, but one of my friend has a "Hebrew Bible", that's to say the complete Bible in Hebrew. Apart from Wikipedia I've never heard anyone calling the Tenach "Bible". Jcbos 21:45, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Clearly the experience of native English speakers is different. Jayjg (talk) 23:16, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
At least Shimmin and Trödel have the same experiences, so what's your point, apart from stalking me? Jcbos 23:24, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Are they native English speakers? Jayjg (talk) 23:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't know, but native or non-native can't be an argument in this discussion. Jcbos 23:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Of course it can, if we're talking about how English speakers use and understand the word. Jayjg (talk) 00:19, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
EN.wikipedia is for everyone, native or non-native. But what would a native speaker call a complete Bible in the Hebrew language, according to you? Jcbos 00:47, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
In this case I would say "A copy of the Christian Bible in the Hebrew language". It is an unusual enough occurrence to warrant being completely specific and unambiguous. -- Chris Q 10:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
EN.Wikipedia is for everyone, but its English usage policies reflect common English usage. What do you mean by a "complete Bible"? Jayjg (talk) 18:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
By "complete Bible in the Hebrew language" I mean: a Hebrew Old Testament and a Hebrew translating of the New Testament. I added "complete", because "Hebrew Bible" is used to indicate the Hebrew part of the Bible as well. Jcbos 19:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see. Jews, Protestants, Catholics, etc. all consider their Bibles to be "complete", yet they all have different contents. In that case, I would call it a "Hebrew translation of the Christian Bible". Jayjg (talk) 19:26, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And what would you call it, apart from Wikipedia, when it's at your bookshelf? Jcbos 12:09, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • As I understand it, the primary point of discussion at this point is whether to include the disambiguation once at the top, or throughout the article, rather than whether to disambiguate at all. It's a good thing, I think, that we've largely agreed that some disambiguation is necessary, as my life experiences have made it quite clear that the use of the term "Bible" is not exclusively tied to the book that's the foundation of Christianity. As for the first (finer) point, I personally don't see it as being necessarily POV to prefer one usage over the other. Given that each community is also accustomed to simply calling their work "the bible", it does seem to be an unusual reminder for each community, looking on wikipedia, that other bibles exist. On the other hand, we're not really aiming to provide a "home" for communities here, so I'm not sure if that should bear any weight. I don't really have strong feelings on the two styles of disambig. --Improv 19:53, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Exactly Trödel|talk 22:58, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is POV to prefer one useage over another, as each usage reflects the views of a different community. We should not prefer any one usage, but acknowledge each of them, and use each one appropriately and consistently. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:12, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


By the way, could people please refrain from calling it "the Hebrew Old Testament," which is POV and offensive to Jews? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:14, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the problem? What do I have to call my Old Testament in Hebrew to be NPOV, according to you? Jcbos 20:52, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You say, "Here is my Hebrew translation of the Old Testament." This is still quite different from "the Hebrew Bible." My objection was only to the possibility that you were combining the two. If I misunderstood, I apologize, Slrubenstein | Talk 21:06, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Hebrew tekst of the Old Testament is not a translation. It's the original. I've been thinking about a very neutral name. "Masoretic text", is that neutral? The disadvantage of "masoretic text" is however that most people will not understand that name. At the university we mostly call it: "BHS", which means: "Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia", this is the official name of the edition that we use at the university. Jcbos 21:49, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Masoretic Text is a technical designation which doesn't mean quite the same thing, and which in any event is not commonly known. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The "original" text of the Tanach is no longer extant; the oldest complete copy of the Masoretic Text we still have is I believe dated to around the 8th or 10th century, although we also have older fragments. I personally object to calling the Christian Old Testament the Hebrew Bible, as the Old Testament first widely used by Christians was not in Hebrew but Greek, namely the Septuagint. The Orthodox Church continues to name the Septuagint as its Old Testament, and favors translations based on it rather than the Masoretic Text. For this reason it makes the most sense to use "Hebrew Bible" when talking about a Bible in the Hebrew language, which I would assume to be the Tanach unless specified otherwise. Say "Old Testament" or "Christian Bible" or "New Testament" or "Tanach" if referring to those texts. See the related discussion at the Hebrew Bible article. Wesley 06:02, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that there is no one christian bible. The RC bible contains some different books(Book of Judith) to the Anglican. The RC bible is also derived from different ancient sources to the anglican one. also there are gorunp such as the mormons etc who have different books + the appocrapha(sp}. Using the term christian bible will lead people to beleiving christians are far more unified than they are. Not sure how much the other bibles vary.--Jirate 23:51, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

These variations are shown and described in Books of the Bible. That's a different problem than what we're discussing here. Wesley 03:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No it isn't what you are doing here is trying to produce pro christian PR, by trying to present the various textx as being the same when they are not. I think everyone talking here should declare there religious affliations and the strength with which they hold them. It'll clearly demonstrate the POV nature of the debate/vote here.--Jirate 13:54, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Certainly in articles about other religions, if the Christian Bible is specifically meant we should say "Christian Bible". In some contexts it is irrelevant: Moses, or Esther, are "biblical figures" regardless of which Bible we mean. It's all going to depend on context, though, and I think it would be ridiculous to say we always say "Christian Bible": it would seem ridiculously redundant to say that "Billy Graham did a reading from the Christian Bible." None of the choices in the poll seem to accommodate my view. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:58, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)

Opinion poll --> Bible vs Christian Bible

Now is the time to make an inventory of the opinions, please place your vote. Arguments pro and contra can be found above. Jcbos 21:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC).

One of the alternatives discussed extensively above, is missing from the list to vote for. It is actually getting support below by added comments. Therefore I have added it as an alternative and request the earlier voters to move their vote if they wish.

The polling process has halted already several days ago. However, i do believe this poll should remain open, for another one hour and 23 minutes or so. By that time a full week has passed since the poll was opened by Jcbos 21:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC). Gebruiker:Dedalus 20:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
After closing of the poll the outcome is counted as {1, 0, 3, 12, 1} favoring the option 'Refering to the book of Christianity we should use "Christian Bible"' with an 2/3 qualified majority, to the effect that the article New Testament should keep the word 'Christian' right before the word 'Bible' in the first sentence of that article. I would like to call the assistance of adminastrators or sysops to confirm the outcome of this poll and act accordingly. Happy Eastern. Gebruiker:Dedalus 07:45, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bible

Refering to the book of Christianity we should use "Bible".

  1. Jcbos 21:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Christian Bible only in article about other religions

Refering to the book of Christianity we should use "Christian Bible" in articles that handle mainly about another religion, e.g. Islam. In all other articles we should use "Bible".

  1. ...

Christian Bible once, Bible thereafter

Refering to the book of Christianity we should use "Christian Bible" at least once per article for disambiguation, "Bible" thereafter.

  1. Woodstone 13:56, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC) Having "Christian Bible" throughout would feel unnatural, but a disambiguation at the beginning is useful.
  2. Omegatron But it's ok to abbreviate to "Bible" as long as it's painfully clear from context or has been disambiguated recently in the article. - 00:07, Mar 16, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Smoddy (tgec) 23:46, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC) Seems logical to me. Let's not overcomplicate matters.

Christian Bible

Refering to the book of Christianity we should use "Christian Bible"

  1. Improv With the note that when disambiguated once in an article, it's acceptable to later refer to it by the non-disambiguated term.
  2. Jayjg (talk) 23:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. Wesley 03:36, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) Agree with Improv that after disambiguating once, it can be referred to simply as "Bible." Also when referring to books or figures found in both the Tanach and Christian Bible, references should note the book, story, person etc. is found in both.
  4. JFW | T@lk 06:34, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) Johan, I thought we'd achieved consensus after a request for comment. I suggest you stop wasting everyone's time. As there are numerous combinations of Biblical books known as the "Bible", it should be disambiguated every time, apart from in paragraphs dealing specifically with the Christian Bible, in which the first instance should be disambiguated and the rest can stay as it is.
    1. This poll is meant to close the discussion, not to start a new one. Jcbos 12:39, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. Chris Q 07:35, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC) It never harms to be unambiguous.
  6. In the article New Testament the first sentence is "The New Testament, sometimes called the Greek Testament or Greek Scriptures is the name given to the part of the Christian Bible that was written after the birth of Jesus." and that should remain so. The New Testament is definitely not part of the Tanakh. Tanakh being a Hebrew word, it's proper equivalent in englisch is Hebrew Bible. In the article on Hebrew Bible the use of term is explained as follows. "Its use is favored by most academic Biblical scholars as a bias-free term that is preferred to both Tanakh and Old Testament when discussing the text in academic writing. See e.g. section 4.3 of the Style Manual for the Society of Biblical Literature." A Wikipedia article should not assume anything on the part of the reader. Omitting "Christian" before "Bible" in the first sentence of the article New Testament would presume the reader to be knowing the New Testament to be Christian. I am happy to see the direction of casting the ballots in the direction of remaining Christian before Bible in the proper places. Gebruiker:Dedalus 09:14, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. A good proposal. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:00, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:29, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. This would be an encyclopedic thing to do. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. Etimbo | Talk 12:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. In the original Greek, the word that has come to us in English as "Bible" referred to the Jewish Bible. (Hebrew Bible is a misnomer, and I would like to see it removed from the article: it is the Jewish Bible. As parts of it are written in Aramaic, calling it the Hebrew Bible is inaccurate and Christian missionaries who have translated their "New Testament" into Hebrew call their Christian Bible in Hebrew, the Hebrew Christian Bible, not because it's meant for "Hebrew Christians", one of their misnomers for Jews who have converted to Christianity, but because it is in Hebrew...all of which potentially muddies the issue even more, especially if things are not made clear from the outset. I can only conclude, from the above discussion, that the attempts to eliminate the word "Christian" when the reference is to the Christian Bible are the result of a belief, on the part of some contributors, that everyone who speaks English (or learns it as a second language), exists within the same social and religious context, which is neither accurate nor NPOV. This is not the place for writing jargonned articles, so I vote to retain the word "Christian" when necessary to clarify that the reference is to the Christian Bible, just as I would vote to retain the word "Jewish" when necessary to clarify that the reference is to the Jewish Bible. TShilo12 22:54, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. SlimVirgin 20:34, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Various Christian texts

The term bible should not be used as it has several meanings, instead the phrase christian texts should be used.

  1. --Jirate 15:04, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Cannot change categories in existing poll

Woodstone, you cannot "split" a category and put user in different categories nbased on comments - they may have voted differently given the options. In particular JFW could be putb in either group -- Chris Q 11:04, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Jcbos - it is not reasoable. Gebruiker:Dedalus or Jfdwolff do not explicitly say "in the first occurance", so could be put in either category. "Omegatron" also says RECENTLY in the aticle. The only way to do it is to add the new category and let people move their votes if they wish. -- Chris Q 12:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Trying to redefine peoples' votes after they have already made them is unsavory at best; if you want people to move their votes around, ask them to do it themselves. Jayjg (talk) 15:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You could put them back together into "Christian Bible" and somehow highlight the ones that say "but only for disambiguation" like me instead. - Omegatron 22:29, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

So are we ready to move on? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Distribution of the Bible

"It is estimated that approximately 60 million copies of the entire Bible or significant portions are distributed."

1. Shouldn't that read "have been distributed" and 2. 60 million? That ain't much when we're talking about the Bible. Somebody that cares about this issue want to update that? SchmuckyTheCat 19:34, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's probably more than that in the US alone. Most families, even only vaguely religious ones have a copy of the Bible, and devout Christians usually have several. DJ Clayworth 15:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whether you want to believe it or not, the books of the Bible are a product of a pre-scientific people in the ancient world. Really!

Read: Galens-On Jews and Christians in its ENTIRETY; NOT just the SELECTIVE passages on early Christian writings, for a view from a contemporary ancient physician. Charlie 11 Apr 2005

Obviously. What's your point? - Omegatron 18:23, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
Ditto Tomer TALK 19:56, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "Charlie's" edits really rise to "vandalism". I would say that inserting his "pre-scientific" statement is not relevant to the article, and should be removed. It certainly has no place in the opening paragraph. That it can be argued to be "factual" does not mean that it must be included anywhere in an article--and certainly not in the opening paragraph.

Perhaps Charlie would be able to contribute to The supernatural in monotheistic religions, where such a concept is more appropriate.

-Rholton 19:15, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)
I deleted it because, as I said on this anonymous user's talk page, it adds absolutely nothing of worth to the article. Tomer TALK 19:56, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

It adds proper perspective. The psychological mind set of the ancient pre-scientific authors is not something to be overlooked. It is very important. To support "It adds absolutely nothing of worth to the article"; or just because it is factual does not mean it should be included here. That is psychological and historical dishonesty. That's hiding things. That is propaganda. There is nothing wrong with being an ancient pre-scientific person. It should be included right at the beginning of the Bible article. 11 Apr 2005 Charlie

I find nothing convincing in your argument. Until you can show what "pre-scientific" means, and define exactly what "an ancient pre-scientific person" is, and how there's any relevance to such a description, which, as far as I can determine, you invented, I will resist including such verbiage in this article. To call not including it "propaganda" indicates that you feel the article is POV without its inclusion. So I ask, "how so?" Tomer TALK 03:21, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Agree. We could arguably add "pre scientific" to the articles on Shakespeare, Chaucer, Homer and probably half of Wikipedia but it would not add any value. -- Chris Q 06:22, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Exactly. - Omegatron 13:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
See: Lynn Thorndike's classic study The History of Magic and Experimental Science and Andrew D. White's classic work History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom I'm outta here. 12 Apr 2005 Charlie
Why don't you tell us what they have to say that is relevant instead? - Omegatron 13:03, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

There are many factual statements that can be made, but which should not be included in the opening paragraph of the article, or even in the main article itself. For example, "all of the authors of the New Testament were male" is a statement of fact (at least I've not heard any claim to the contrary). It is a fact that "is not to be overlooked" in some contexts. However, to include it in the main article is to bring a particular agenda to that main article. To decide to place that sort of discussion in an article on Sexism in the Bible or Biblical hermeneutics (or some such) is not "psychological and historical dishonesty" or "hiding information". It's organizing information and maintaining NPOV.

For what it's worth, I agree that the "psychological mind set" of the Biblical authors is important, perhaps even vital to a full understanding of what is written. Please lend your expertise to help create an appropriate NPOV article on that topic. However, don't assume that your particular area of interest/expertise must be inserted into articles which do not deal directly with that topic. It would be impractical, and just plain bad editing, to put everything that has to do with the Bible in one article.

Rholton 13:53, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

What's the Bible?

Here's what I say when someone asks me what is the Bible. The Bible is a collection of books written by pre-scientific people in the ancient world. When we read them we interprete, from the present, the ancient world as seen through their eyes. At best, we can only imagine their world. It is wise to be cautious. 13 April 2005 Charlie

Point taken, but hardly of relevance to the article huh? JFW | T@lk 21:55, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article is about the Bible. Not everyone I've met knows what the Bible is, or where it came from. The "Bible" article's opening lines ommit this. I found it lacking in definition. From what I understand the information in the Wikipedia is global and its audience is ageless. This is what I would say to my grand daughter, if she ever asks me about it. I don't think she'll have too much trouble with "pre-scientific people". Young chidren are very smart. They learn about science very early. Thanks for caring enough to share. 13 Apr 05 Charlie

Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). JFW | T@lk 00:40, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article is a mess!

Whatever your perspective, this page is a mess. Duplications, factual errors and irrelevancies beyond number. I've tried to sort out the first 2 or 3 sections - I hope others find this an improvement.--Doc Glasgow 22:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I have thought of it as a "disaster" ever since I began editing here in earnest...but I haven't had time to improve this article specifically—there are so many others that require attention...:-p Tomer TALK 06:41, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
I see that it has improved since April, but the article is still hard to read. I'm still trying to think of a better way to organize it, but so far this is what I propose:
  • Definition
  • History
  • Protestant version
  • Catholic version

--Vizcarra 00:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Reworded passage about history of canon

I dropped a bit of the history from the What parts of the Bible are canon? section.

Here is the part I cut:

St. Jerome, who created the Vulgate translation of the Christian Bible, recommended that of the Old Testament only the original Jewish canon be regarded as authoritative, and called the ones added by western Christians Apocrypha. This distinction was largely ignored until the 16th century when the churches who were part of the Reformation (Protestants and Anabaptists) took as definitive St. Jerome's definition. The Roman Catholic Church at the Council of Trent in 1546 declared that seven books of the Apocryphal writings should also be canon. The Eastern Orthodox Church includes those seven plus a few others in its canon, but has never taken a formal decision on this matter as of yet.

My reasons:

1. There is already a much longer article on the history of the canon that this section points to.

2. The part I cut violates NPOV and is historically inaccurate. Jerome made no "definition" (which is a theological term for a definitive statement, as opposed to a comment in a personal letter). When the Bishop of Rome and the Council of Carthage chose the longer canon, Jerome did not object. It is speculation -- even though reasonable speculation -- to say that Jerome still preferred the shorter canon after this point in time. There is no historical evidence that the Reformers revised the canon because of Jerome's views, and given the Reformer's rejection of Jerome's views on the sacraments and Mary, and the Anabaptist's disdain for all non-Biblical sources, this is very unlikely. Finally, the passage above seems to imply that Jerome invented the name "appocrypha" for these books, which is false. This material could be clarified and expanded into an accurate passage, but since there are long articles about this already, this is not necessary.

Lawrence King 08:50, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason that a correct concise version of this can't be included. At the very least a link to the word apocrapha should be included. My most concise version.
St. Jerome, who created the Vulgate translation of the Christian Bible, did not object to the use of the original Jewish canon as the Old Testament. At the Council of Trent in 1546, the Roman Catholic Church declared that seven additional books also be canon. The Eastern Orthodox Church includes those seven plus a few others in its canon. Some churches call these writings Apocrypha.
I think this resolves your POV issues and still includes links to relevent issues: council of trent, apocrypha and clarifies that RC church ads different numbers than eastern orthodox. Trödel|talk 12:52, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
it is best left as it is. Trent just repeated earlier councils. Jeromes Vulgate was a complete Bible. Just say they are different. Neither Jerome nor Trent need be mentioned. --ClemMcGann 20:00, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Clem here. But Trödel does have a point that some mention of Apocrypha and different versions could be useful. What about an addition such as the following?

.... The Christian canons diverged from the Jewish canon and developed as an extension to that canon. Since the end of the 4th century, all Christian churches have agreed on the 27-book canon of the New Testament, but disagreements on the canon of the Old Testament divide the Christian churches. Protestants use an Old Testament consisting of 39 books; Roman Catholics use an Old Testament that includes 46 books; many Eastern churches use still larger versions of the Old Testament. Protestants use the term Apocrypha for those Old Testament books accepted only by non-Protestant Christians. For full details, see Books of the Bible. For a history of the canon, see Biblical Canon.

This moves the three "See Also" links into the main text. Does this seem right to the two of you? Lawrence King 23:04, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

To my eyes, those words seem suitable. We will never get a formula of words with which all agree. Therefore, it is, difficult to find a suitable paragraph. However that paragraph would suit.
Some reformed churches, such as Anglican and German Lutheran do use the longer cannon. Perhaps “Protestants” should be changed to “most Protestants”? Remember the 1611 KJAV did include the Apocrypha and the preface “The Translators to the Reader” claims that they were the scriptures used by the Apostles.
Different topic: Perhaps the article should have something on the different order of books. The KJAV and its successors have the Apocrypha in a separate section. (In obedience to Ezra), while Catholic Bibles integrate these books?
Again, I agree with your wording. --ClemMcGann 23:46, 1 May 2005 (UTC)
I like this wording as well. It is concise without being confusing. I agree that "many protestants" or "most protestants" would be better than "Protestants" since that implies "All protestants". It also places the see also links in context of what they describe. Trödel|talk 01:18, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I submitted this wording. I used "most", since I the Lutherans include the apocrypha as extra books without considering them actually canon. Anglicans are indecisive about the canon, but they're also indecisive about whether they consider themselves Protestants.... *grin*

Regarding the order of the books: I would think this belongs in Books of the Bible, but oddly it's not there at present. If you put it here, or there, it's up to you. (Wikipedia's limit on page length annoys me; in a real encyclopedia "Books of the Bible" would not be a separate article, IMO.) Lawrence King 07:46, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not a hard limit these days, it's more of a common-sense suggestion. Jayjg (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
re the oder of books, I have added it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible
perhaps we should pay more attention to the project, as it may well replace the existing page? - --ClemMcGann 10:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Massoretic? Masoretic?

Before coming across this article, I never saw “Massoretic”written with only one “s”. Am I old-fashioned? The few books I have at my immediate disposal are not recent: one is Brown, Driver and Briggs: A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. They all have “Massoretic Text”, not “Masoretic Text”.

If I am wrong in using the perhaps old-fashioned spelling, someone can very easily change all to “Masoretic” at a single stroke.

Lima 15:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Both are used, but "Masoretic" is by far the more common usage. For example, "Masoretic" gets 51,400 Google hits, whereas "Massoretic" gets only 7,140. Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
By the way, please be extremely cautious about changing spellings within links; that typically breaks the link (as it did in this case). Jayjg (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

The close of the Hebrew Canon -- Explaining my change

I changed the date for the close of the Hebrew canon from 100 CE to 200 CE. I was sloppy leading to a technical error. I thank Clem McGann for spotting it, and Silversmith for fixing it. As to why I made the change: remember, dating is difficult. In Daniel and the Mishnah there is reference to "the books" to refer to Jewish literature but many scholars think this was an inclusive term i.e. not designating a specific canon. The word Jewish scholars use for "canon" — "holy books" doesn't appear in the Mishna or even the Talmud. Zunz argues that the close of the canon was 110 CE, in the second century but damn close to the end of the first. Other scholars explicitly argue for a second century dating (e.g. G. Wildeboer). Bear in mind that there is the possibility of ideological bias; traditional Jews would prefer the earliest close of the canon possible. One reason scholars give is that the Hebrew language of Koheleth is more like the language of the Talmud than is that of the Chronicler or Daniel or even Esther (although this is not considered conclusive by some). But the sacredness of certain parts of the Ketuvim (Esther, Koheleth, Shir Ha Shirim) was disputed by some rabbis as late as the second century of the Common Era (Mishna, Yadaim, III, 5; Babylonian Talmud, Megilla, fol. 7). I admit that dating the close at the second century is a conservative taks. But if we say that the books were canonized "between 200 BCE and 200 CE" that is certainly an accurate statement, whereas "Between 200 BCE and 100 CE" may very well not be accurate, and certainly is not agreed to by all scholars. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

The canonicity of none of these scriptures was debated; whether or not certain scrolls made the hands impure, or whether certain books should be considered esoteric knowledge, was. In the 19th and early 20th centuries various scholars put forward the hypothesis (worded as fact) that these discussions were actually debates about canonical makeup. Regardless, these discussions did not take place towards the end of the second century, but rather towards the end of the first and into the early part of second. The wording "around 100 CE" covers that. Jayjg (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to quibble over the word "around." But when Graetz proposed the idea of a Jamnia Synod towards the end of the first century, he was speculating. From the 1960s onwards, based on the work of J.P. Lewis, S.Z. Leiman, and others, Graetz's view came increasingly into question. In particular, later scholars noted that none of the sources cites actually mention books that had been withdrawn from a canon, and questioned the whole premise that the discussions were about canonicity at all, asserting that they were actually dealing with other concerns entirely. This is precisely the argument you are making about whether Koheleth made the hands impure — that used to be interpreted to reflect the debate over how holy it was i.e. does it belong in the canon. Your suggestion that the discussion means someting else is entirely plausable and shared by other scholars, but the same kind of thinking calls into question other texts used as evidence for dating the closing of the canon. Today there really is no scholarly consensus as to when the Jewish canon was set. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:33, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement, then. Jayjg (talk) 02:10, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

explaining my revert

Up until three days ago, this article used BCE and CE which I must remind people is prerfectly permissible in Wikipedia. It seems that this article has now been targeted by Jguk in his crusade to purge Wikipedia of BCE/CE, even though it is considered by our Style Manual to be legitimate. Since Jews are not Christians, I do not think it is appropriate to use BC and AD when discussing their history. It is certainly offensive to Jews in this specific context, since Jews feel that Christians have appropriated the sacred literature of the Jews to legitimize Christian claims. Of course, I have no objection to using BC/AD when discussing the New Testament.Slrubenstein | Talk 21:43, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I myself would just like to add that my only reverting on this article was due to the presence of a very obvious sock puppet, who was clearly trying to act for someone else. I would have done the same for either side. Smoddy (Rabbit and pork) 21:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for making this clear; I certainly appreciate your intentions and in principle agree with what you did. It is just that this particular page, and several pages related, have a history that complicates matters. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:28, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Jguk's Crusade? Tell me about it. He has extended this crusade of his to include all Iran-related articles as well. I also agree that it is most appropriate and just plain common sense to use BCE/CE when discussing the Torah/Tanakh and Jewish scripture and history in general. BCE/CE terminology itself is a result of Jewish-Christian efforts towards ecumenicalism and mutual respect for each others' beliefs and histories. To impose BC/AD upon Jewish scripture and history (and upon any non-Christian religion and history) is to reject this completely and to furthermore promote a dogmatic POV line. Folks, we live in modern times and things have been changing in regards to this issue for quite awhile now precisely for these reasons. SouthernComfort 11:16, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. As a serious Catholic Christian, I consider Jesus to be Lord. But it would be absurd for me to assume that everyone else considers him Lord. Many people use BC/AD without thinking of what they mean, but when someone deliberately tries to force others to use them, that's annoying. And since Wikipedia is a communal project, it represents all of us. That's why the articles are not signed. Thus I would prefer to use BCE/CE everywhere, even in Christian-related articles, because the audience of such articles includes people of all faiths and beliefs. Lawrence King 06:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
This article used BC/AD from its inception until User:Jayjg sneaked in a change to BCE/CE on or about 14 April [2005]. I've not checked the edit history since then but I guess there have been lots reverts and counter reverts. The fact is, as pointed out above, both are acceptable in Wikipedia. The first major contributors to this article used BC/AD, so like it or not, that's what it should be here. Arcturus 11:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
It should be a way because that's what the first authors used? I don't mean to be offensive but that sentiment seems on it's surface to run against everything that wikipedia stands for! Without taking a side, can't we at the least agree to form a consensus based on the merits of each rather than on the notion of deferring to the original authors (on wikipedia!?) Charles (Kznf) 13:53, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
And furthermore, how precisely does one "sneak in a change" on wikipedia? I looked at the entries from the dates you specified and he didn't leave intentionally misleading change summaries as your post implies. In the place where he changed BC to BCE he didn't specify that change in the summary, but that was not the only change he made either. It would be helpful in this debate if you would give people the benefit of the doubt. Charles (Kznf) 14:05, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
In a debate such as this you can't give people the benefit of the doubt. A change from BC to BCE in an article like this is obviously controversial. Not to mention it in the edit summary is clearly "sneaking it in" in my book. Wikipedia articles do evolve, but in issues like American vs. British spelling and date formats there is a policy about the style used by the first major contributor. Incidentally, BCE/CE - most people haven't a clue what it means. Arcturus 14:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

No Link for Hebrew

Quite ironically, there is no link here for the Hebrew version of this page. I would just add a link, but there is a problem - the Hebrew term for "bible", as far as I know, is "תנ"ך", Tanakh. But there is a different article in the English Wikipedia for it... can two different English articles correspond one Hebrew article? --Daniel 11:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Order of sections

Looking at the article for the first time (and it is a very good article), I did notice that in every section, it's 'Jewish and Christian Bibles', as opposed to 'Christian and Jewish Bibles'. I know those distribution figures near the top relate to the Christian bible.

I know that there is a Hebrew Bible, and it certainly should be as much a part of an article entitled Bible. I just find it quite forced that the Tanakh appears first, contrary to both alphabetical order, as well as the size of the (I don't know how to put it better) userbase?

I've been bold and swapped them around. Proto t c 28 June 2005 12:30 (UTC)

It was ordered both by chronological creation/usage, and from smaller collection to larger collections. The Tanakh was first, followed by various incarnations of the Christian Bible. I'm restoring the original order. Jayjg (talk) 28 June 2005 19:02 (UTC)
Chronological order of developement makes the most sense for the focus of this article, so I suggest keeping the order as is. Paradiso 29 June 2005 04:27 (UTC)


Only avaliable in the language of 90%

In the beginning of the article it says, The complete Bible, or portions of it, have been translated into more than 2,100 languages. It is available, in whole or in part, in the language of 90% of the world's population. What languages do the remaing 10% of the world's population speak?

bgoldnyxnet adds:

Perhaps the entry should say "the language of over 90% of..

We can't be precise because we don't know exactly how many languages are involved and how many people speak the remaining languages. But I would guess that it hasn't been translated into (for example) every single tribal language in India. Or all the tribal languages in Africa and the eastern part of the former USSR.

Anybody have more precise figures?

removed passage

I removed this:

Since scientific discoveries contradicting the traditional Biblical interpretations (especially evolution) have become more and more accepted by the general public, mainstream interpretations have been changed. For instance, a traditional interpretation of the first few chapters of the Bible would state that God created the universe in six 24-hour days. However, the Hebrew word normally translated as "day" can occasionally mean "period of time", and this latter translation is now favored by many Christians.

Because it sounds like original research. What are the sources for the claim that before the 19th century people interpreted Genesis 1 literall? And what are the sources that people did not interpret the word "day" as meaning some unknowable amount of time, prior to the 19th century? Slrubenstein | Talk 00:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

In fact, non-literal interpretations go back to ancient times, and have been espoused by some very notable people, e.g. Augustine. However, I'm sure it is true that before the rise of evolution, literal interpretations were far more common than non-literal interpretations (non-literal interpretations were largely restricted to the educated elite; most people believed it literally), whereas since evolution they have become as common, probably more common, than literal ones. -- SamuelKatinsky
Fine, but you still need a source. --causa sui|causa sui talk 23:21, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

'60 million' gone

The statistic about '60 million copies distributed every year' seemed to be obviously wrong, as discussed elsewhere on this talk page. I have replaced it with the total number of Bibles sold since 1815 (obtained from the Guinness Book of World Records); if someone can find a reasonable source for how many Bibles are sold or distributed each year, feel free to use that instead. Drseudo 22:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


Which Bible?

After explaining that The Bible can in fact refer to the holy texts of various religions, and so can be one of many possibilities, the introduction explains that it is sometimes referred to as 'The Good Book'. The next paragraph then gives some figures on the Bible's distribution. Neither of these actually include any clarification of which Bible is being referred to, but (to me at least), suggest a specific Bible.. Thomas Purnell 13:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

BC, AD

This article appears to use some peculiar form of dating that uses BCE and CE instead of BC and AD. Given that the entire English-speaking world (give or take) uses BC/AD, why is this article any different? --Matt Yeager 06:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Many scholarly articles use BCE and CE, and according to our manual of style both systems are equally acceptable. Exapand your mind, and you won't find BCE and CE peculiar at all,Slrubenstein | Talk 16:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
What Slr means is that there has been much protracted debate about this very issue, with the end result being that either system is acceptable. Editors of this article have chosen to use the common era system. Slr's rude response was unnecessary. [[smoddy]] 16:59, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
If I was rude, it was unintentional, and I apologize. Smoddy is wrong about what I meant. It is true that there has been protracted debate, but I do not think that is relevant to Matt's question. What Slr does' mean is: our manual of style allows both systems (and allowed both systems prior to any debate, so the debate had no "end result" whatsoever), and many scholarly articles do use BCE and CE, and using these terms is not peculiar. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the MoS does allow both systems, and I think I've read somewhere that in dealing with contentious issues such as these (US vs UK spelling is another) the preference of the first major contributor should be used. Yet again we have in this article an example of where that doesn't apply. This started off using the familiar BC/AD notation and at some point it was changed. Yes, many scholarly articles do use BCE/CE, but Wikipedia is not a scholarly publication, nor is it aimed at scholars in particular. If it's aimed at anyone it's aimed at the common man - so ask him about BCE/CE. His response will like as not be something along the lines of what the hell are you talking about: He has never heard of BCE/CE, but he probably knows what BC/AD means. Therefore, to use articles such as this one as a vehicle to take the common man down the BCE/CE route is barefaced POV pushing. So, to get back to Matt's question, this article is by no means unique. There are many such articles in Wikipedia where editors try to promote a particular opinion by the use of words. The BCE/CE issue is one of the more obvious examples. Matt - when you come across such articles that have non-mainstream terminology it's a good idea to look at the edit history; see if someone has sneaked in a change. If so, you might like to revert the language usage to that of the first major contributor - unless, of course, he's POV pushing to start with. And therein lies the difficulty with BCE/CE. If the first major contributor uses it, is he POV pushing? My personal view is Yes, but that's just me. However, anyone who makes an edit that removes mainstream terminology in favour of some other exotic type is clearly POV pushing. He should be reverted. Arcturus 19:09, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Matt, it is up to you whether you decide to involve yourself in an encyclopedia project hoping to expand your mind, or not. I have learned many new things since I came to Wikipedia. Now you are learning that many scholars use BCE and CE. Personally, I hope that you consider adding something to your knowledge to be something good, rather than bad. Arcturus, unfortunately, reflects the opposite: someone who cannot stand the fact that there exist in this world people who do not share his views. As a matter of fact, he is wrong. The earliest version of this article did not use BC/AD or BCE/AD as abbreviations but it did use "Common Ero" which is what CE stands for ([2]). The issue is not "mainstream" versus "exotic" terminology, as Arcturus puts it — should we purge all physics articles of "exotic" terms? It is true that some people do not know what BCE means, but thoughtful people, like yourself, ask. Now you know what it means, and when anyone asks, you can tell them! This is called "spreading knowledge" which most (alas, not all) people here care about a good deal. I sure hope you do as well.
Now, I think you deserve a fuller explanation. People have used the words "Common Era" as an alternative to "AD" (In the Year of our Lord) since the 1800s. However, many Jews, and many non-Jews who study the Bible, have over the past twenty or more years systematically shifted away from using BC (Before Christ) and AD to avoid the religious connotations. "Common Era" and "Before the Common Era" acknowledges that the worlds of commerce and scholarship today share the Christian's Gregorian calendar, without using words like "Christ" or "Lord" that are explicitly Christian. Whether you chose to do this in your own life or not is of course up to you. But since part of this article is about the Hebrew Bible, people who contribute — at least to those parts dealing with the Hebrew Bible — use CE and BCE to provide a point of reference for non-Jews. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Slrubenstein - I don't think the term Common Era is in dispute (or is it?). I use it myself; it's a reasonable description of the period from AD 1 to the present day. The controversy revolves around the abbreviations adjoined to year references. Arcturus 20:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There's already been a huge debate over the use of these abbreviations, and a vote proposing the mandatory use of BCE/CE in which hundreds of people participated, was more or less evenly split. The MOS allows for use of BCE/CE and BC/AD. Let's not repeat that debate here, please. Jayjg (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Matt Yeager is right. Almost the entire world uses and has no problem with using BC/AD notation. However, some scholars (and in some fields almost all scholars) use BCE/CE notation. BCE/CE notation has, however, no or very little currency amongst the general population (and this is particularly true outside the United States). Not only that, wherever it has been introduced to the general population outside the United States (which has only happened on a very limited basis) it has tended to create controversy, for example:
  • In 2002 the Royal Ontario Museum held up to ridicule in the Canadian press because it chose to change from BC to BCE notation
  • When in 2002 the main curriculum-setting body in England and Wales introduced teaching what BCE/CE notation meant (and no more) into the history curriculum, it gave rise to angry and confused letters in the English press
  • When one exam question in one paper changed BC to BCE at one (and only one point), it caused so much offence in New South Wales that questions were raised in both chambers of parliament and the Education Minister had to accept that the change should not have happened.
Now, as good communicators adapt their language to suit their audience, and our audience is the general public, there seems little doubt that WP should use BC/AD notation throughout - and this is particularly true given the offence, confusion and derision that has resulted from relatively minor attempts to introduce BCE/CE noation to a wider audience. Also, WP should not aim its articles at scholars (where, depending on the particular field, BCE/CE notation may be appropriate), but rather at as wide an audience as possible.
Unfortunately, however, a vocal minority of WPs do not agree with this. This is a crying shame - particularly as the evidence is that it alienates a wide section of the potential audience of any article, and the article never recovers (if you read articles with BCE/CE notation you'll see that even if you replaced the notation the language used in those articles is still not easy to understand).
I wish it would change - but it seems that it will not. As in most areas, those who are expert in them find it difficult to write for audiences they are not used to writing for (and even then - this assumes that those writers desire to write for a wide audience rather than fellow experts). It is more difficult too to accept constructive criticism and to work to explain technical areas to a layman. There will always be large chunks of WP that are unintelligible except to someone not already an expert in that field. Have a look at "chromosome" for example - I'm not alone in not being able to make head nor tail of it, but surely it should be written in a way that a layman gets an idea of what a chromosome is and why it is important? jguk 19:36, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
  • This seems to be a particularily sensitive issue. However, from a purely practical standpoint, I would think that an encyclopedia should be readable. I definitely understand that there is a group of people who may be offended by BC/AD; however, I would advise these people to curl up in a little ball and never go outside if they want to avoid that dating system. For better or for worse, the world at large is our audience at Wikipedia. (It CERTAINLY is our audience at such a universal topic as the Bible!) I would guarantee that 99% of all people interested in the Bible use predominantly BC/AD, and at least 80% have never even heard of any other dating system. I certainly hadn't before coming to Wikipedia. I think that the politically correct have taken over something they have no right taking over. An article should be tailored to one of two groups: either the general public, or the people who are likely to be reading it. (READING it, not EDITING it!) In most cases, neither of those two groups would have any idea whatsoever what BCE or CE means. If the goal is to be "appropriate" to the subject, one might as well write the whole thing in Hebrew (or at least the first 2/3 or so, finishing the article in Greek =P).

(Oh, and Slrubenstein... I should say that I wasn't even remotely offended by what you said. I do believe that you are grossly understating the problem when you say that "some" don't know what it means. Virtually NOBODY knows what it means. My view is that an article on a ridiculously common topic like the Bible shouldn't have advanced, scholarly terms in it. That said, I'd hate to go against the consensus of Wikipedia's userbase. Feel free to respond; I'd like to know what your justification is for keeping it in.) --Matt Yeager 05:40, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Matt, I think you've pretty much hit the nail on the head, jguk 06:05, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I, personally, use CE and BCE in my writing. However, AD and BC are more widely understood by the public. To what degree, I have not discovered (Matt's statistics are wholly spurious). I did find this: "And, just for the record, students DO get confused about dating systems. Most of my students have never heard of BCE/CE until they arrive in my 9th grade class. Some students struggle with the concept of counting backward and forward from year one. They don't understand why dates in the fifth century are in the 400s. Why add more confusion to this mix? I believe my job as a teacher involves a responsibility to reduce confusion as much as possible. This is what one college student - a pre-service teacher - wrote to studentsfriend.com about the CE approach: 'I'm taking an Astronomy class and couldn't figure out the CE business in the textbook that the professor wrote. I searched the Web tonight and found your site...Now that I know what's going on I will be able to address this issue in my classroom next year.'" A small advantage to a web platform is that the first use of any notation (BC, BCE, AD, CE) can (and most certainly should) be linked to the Wikipedia page on it, which a person who is unaware of the meaning can read. Still, a general-purpose encyclopedia should strive to be easy to understand, and that counts in favor of AD/BC. At the same time, there has been a history of discussion about this, with no consensus--apart from, perhaps, the general rule to use a style appropriate to the subject. So, for example, a page on French history would write "1 October" instead of "October 1," because that is the dating style used in France (it would not, of course, be written in French unless on fr.wikipedia.org, in reply to Matt's humorous suggestion). Thus, a compromise has been suggested in the past at Wikipedia that subjects on Jewish history use CE/BCE, as that is probably preferred among Jews, while subjects on Christian history use AD/BC. Unless there is a manual of style guideline (which there is not, except to say that both AD and CE are used), or of course a truly universal guideline of English (such as writing the instead of teh for spelling reasons), I think it is discouraged to go about making stylistic changes. So I would accept you writing new material with AD/BC (or CE/BCE), but I question going about and changing the thousands of occurences of CE/BCE to AD/BC (or vice-versa) on Wikipedia. That is, unless, we can build a consensus. If you would propose that AD/BC be standardized on Wikipedia, I would vote in your favor. Without a consensus, I question the validity of making such stylistic changes, especially to material concerning Judaism or the Tanakh. So, please attempt to build consensus first, and I am behind you. --Peter Kirby 06:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Matt, I appreciate your letting me know you didn't take offense. As for BCE/CE in general — well, people are going to learn these terms sooner or later. Encyclopedias are meant to be education. I see no reason for backing away from broadening people's education. In any event, as Jayjg pointed out, this is something that has been argued and argued. Jguk is on his own little peevish crusade to ompose his will on anyone who thinks differently. As I said before, according to our style policy, both systems are allowable. Most Wikipedians defer to whichever system was first used in an article, and the very first version of this articuel used "common era" of which CE is an abbreviation. frankly, I do not see why anyone would object to BC/BCE -- any moderately intelligent human being will figure it out in a short time, or by asking (as Matt did) thus ending all confusion. Isn't this what encyclopedias are all about? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Matt is still right that we should be using terminology that readers understand and are familiar with (and I'm somewhat surprised by your extreme view that arguing this principle is a little peevish crusade to impose...will on anyone who thinks differently). It's about being a good communicator, and picking your language to suit your audience. Different audiences prefer different language. Now, I may be wrong, but I note that, if I remember it correctly, you are an associate professor specialising in Jewish history. My guess would be that in your professional life you mostly deal with other academic historians and pupils. The former will already be familiar with the language used by academics in your chosen field, the latter will be endeavouring to join that group - and there's nothing wrong in encouraging your juniors, as it were, to learn the trade. Given that background, I imagine you are used only to using the style and language adopted by the professional community in which you work.
I work in a different sphere - I am a professional corporate tax advisor specialising in a particular complicated area of UK tax law. I work in a service industry, selling my advice. And I have lots of different types of client. Some are also specialists, some are learning the industry, some don't care about the details of tax, but just care about what they should do. I also have a wide variety of colleagues, with different areas of knowledge and different experience and ambitions in the particular field of UK corporate tax law in which I work. The one thing you learn quickly in my job is the importance of using the language my client wants - based on whether they are a specialist, slow at learning, wanting to learn, not interested at all in learning about tax but wanting to know what to do, or whatever. That is the background I have, and I think it's a useful background - at £410 an hour I have to strive to be a good communicator, and that mean using the style of language the person I'm communicating with prefers.
My guess, and this is a preconception that may prove to be wrong, is that in your professional life, you are unused to this, which I appreciate is a very difficult thing to learn. Yet this is very important when writing to a general audience. My best guess is that the people who consult Wikipedia are from the general public, and are comprised of people of differing levels of knowledge, and with differing needs for knowledge. Our articles should be accurate and encyclopaedic, but should also appeal to the lowest common denominator (at least as far as possible, and certainly so as to give the general reader the general gist of what is going on, even if technical details are brought into an article later). This, to me, means that as writers we should work hard so that as many people as possible understand us - and that the reader does as little work as possible to understand us (and no work at all, if possible) - and certainly we do not expect our reader to want to become expert in the field they are reading about.
Another aspect is that the reader of an article presumably wants to know about that subject. It's also interesting for that reader to be presented with some links (not all necessarily directly pertaining to the subject) to either learn more about that subject, or just to browse. But that is not an excuse not to explain terms or to introduce terms that have little to do with a subject. And so it seems here that someone wanting about the Bible is unlikely to want to read about date notation, or at least to expect that if they want to learn about date notation they should search somewhere else entirely (just as those interested in the price of bread would search elsewhere too).
Turning back to the point in hand, this means we should use BC/AD, which is the only generally understood term worldwide, throughout Wikipedia - and we should also have articles on date notation for those who want to learn more about it too. But the underlying point goes further. You have a lot to add to WP, Steven, but you'd have a far wider audience if you adapted your language for the general public (the hoi polloi even?). I think it's a great shame that you don't - as it is much of what you write is unintelligible to the layman. It would take a lot longer to transcribe your thoughts for the general public, but would, I think, be a lot more satisfying for you if you succeeded. Hawking and Einstein both wrote for the general public, and enjoyed it immensely. It's tough, but I strongly recommend it, jguk 19:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, there was actually a vote on usage of BCE/CE vs. BC/CE, with around 200 editors voting, and the result was more or less a tie. Since then the consensus has been to follow the Manual of Style on this, and allow either, and not to convert existing usages, notwithstanding jguk's continuted campaign against BCE/CE (having removed it from well over 1000 articles, and still counting). Let's not use this Talk: page to repeat old debates. Jayjg (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Most Wikipedians defer to whichever system was first used in an article, and the very first version of this articuel used "common era" of which CE is an abbreviation. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
I just checked. The first usage was on September 2, 2002, and it was for a date given as AD. Pollinator 07:02, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
I don't think there's a problem with continuing the debate here. This one is not going to go away. I'd like to draw a distinction between the phrase common era, which is not particularly controversial, and the associated abbreviations, which are. The phase common era can be useful: During the first five hundred years of the common era... would be quite an economic phrase, though a lot of people wouldn't know what it meant. When it's claimed that CE/BCE have been in use for over a hundred years (or whatever), I wonder whether actually it's the phrase common era that's been in use - or should I say, around - for that length of time. I suspect the use of the abbreviations is much more recent; perhaps someone could advise. This particular article did use common era at the outset. However, the first use of any abbreviations was as noted above by Pollinator. Accordingly, we should revert to BC/AD in this article. Any objections? One more thing: We can go some way to solving the problem by limiting our use of AD and/or CE. Most of the time an abbreviation is not needed, and certainly to say something like 1st century AD is incorrect; 1st century will suffice. There's no need for CE or AD in many cases. The same can't be said for BC vs. BCE though. Arcturus 10:57, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, of course there are objections. To begin with, we can't re-write policy here, and arguing about general policy on this Talk: page is a waste of time. For another, people distinguish between the first usage in the article in any form, and the usage since the article has existed in a substantive form. Most importantly, since the great BC/AD - BCE/CE wars, a de facto truce has been declared, with the agreement that existing articles will not be switched from one form to another. Jayjg (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

TOO BIG!

This monstrosity of a page (monstrous in terms of size) was just trimmed by me. I removed most of the external links to text editions (already found at the Bible translations article, which is linked here) and reduced the "See also" to "just the essentials". Heck, we can't list EVERYTHING and still be concise, clear, and NPOV. Hope the edits help make a better article. KHM03 19:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Spoiler Warning

My enjoyment of this facinating book was dampened by seeing several spoilers in the article. Would a spoiler tag be prudent? - 69.251.98.253 09:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Not really. The Bible is not simply literature, you know. JFW | T@lk 19:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely hilarious request, however. --Matt Yeager 23:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree! My reason for thinking that spoiler warnings are not necessary is that even if someone reads the last chapter, they "still" don't know how it ends! Ask 10 people who have read "Revelation" and you will get 12 diferent interpretations. :-) Just silly me... capitalist 06:27, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I nominate this for inclusion in BJAODN --Tydaj 23:50, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, a spoiler warning actually was inserted into the Bible article once... I removed it and put it in BJAODN. I don't know if throwing this in BJAODN really improves things. --Matt Yeager 05:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I didn't know that Stewie Griffin visited Wikipedia ("My, my. What a thumping good read! Lions eatting Christians, people nailing each other to two-by-fours. I say, you won't find that in Winnie the Pooh.") --Shawnc 08:19, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Melchizedek Bible

Why exclude the link to the Melchizedek Bible

  • [3] under section for online bibles? The Melchizedek Bible translation online is side by side with the King James Version. There may or may not be a dark side to the Melchizedek Bible, i.e. Dominion of Melchizedek but don't see how that would impact on this online bible link.
No one answered so it seems no objection, so will reference it again.
Removed it. It is a highly disputed (to be polite) project that has no place here. Its inclusion is POV. KHM03 12:16, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
DOM may be highly disputed eccesiastical sovereignty, but how is an online translation of the bible POV? That would mean that every other online translation of the bible is also POV. Please don't confuse the dispute over the sovereignty of Melchizedek with a Bible translation that that soverignty is based on. Johnski 21:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
This online translation is non-notable in addition to being POV, and yes, it is very easy to produce a POV version of the Bible. Anyone can "translate" a Bible to say whatever they want. The fact that YOU call it a "Bible translation" does not make it so, and certainly does not make it notable, especially to the Bible article. Jdavidb 23:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
And the translations linked (KJV, RSV, NIV, etc.) are well known and generally accepted (to varying degrees) by the academic community and the Christian community. If we list the Melchizedek "translation", we'll have to list possibly hundreds of..."unique" works. Yes, every translation is POV to a certain extent, but not quite to the degree of the Melchizedek version. KHM03 23:20, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
In addition, the "Melchizadek Bible" appears to consist of only four books: Genesis, Exodus, Matthew, and Revelation. Its preface begins, "The Melchizedek Bible combines an interpretation of metaphor with the King James Version, guiding students to the hidden treasures of Holy Writ. While not all the books of the Bible are included in this work, the ones that are can serve as a guide to the interpretation of metaphor in the others." It does not even pretend to be a complete Bible, nor a translation, nor a paraphrase. Instead it is a sort of interpretive work combined with a known Bible text, covering a very small portion of what most would call the Bible. It has no place here. Wesley 01:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

KHMO3 just beat me to it, I was about to revert the Melchizadek Bible link myself. It is not the Bible, it is not a translation of the Bible, it is one small group of people/religion's appropriation and interpretation of the Bible. I am not saying we should ban the link from Wikipedia, but put it on a page about the Church of Christ, Scientist, or The Melchizadeks, or whatever is appropriate. The link illustrates a particular religion, it does not in any way illustrate an article on "the Bible." Slrubenstein | Talk 20:40, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Amen. Preach it. KHM03 20:42, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Bible & Qu'ran

Did there used to be an article comparing the Bible and Qu'ran? I've tried finding it in vain. So was it deleted or did I just imagine it up? --Tydaj 23:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing at wikisource

(There is currently no text in this page) --Error 23:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bible/Archive_2&oldid=1087407053"