The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Please supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing unciteable information.
Please be neutral when editing this highly sensitive article. It discusses a topic about which people have diverse opinions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Divine inspiration section: "the Bible" vs "their Bible"
This section says "Christians believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God", given that Christians do not share a common biblical canon for the old testament the use of the singular "the" is incorrect (it implicitly assumes there is only one such Bible). Even changing it to "their Bible" would still be odd, perhaps "their denomination's Bible"? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
My proposal to use the Westminster confession of Faith as a secondary source to verify this point was rejected by an editor. Are there any other creeds that can be added as an acceptable resource to fill the citation needed void? Possible choices are: the Nicene Creed and the London Baptist confession of faith. We can also use a combination of creeds to represent a larger cross-section of Bible believers. Since this article is part of the English Wikipedia, I propose that we only consider supporting English-speaking Christians when choosing citations. None of the 66 books of the Bible can be used as a citations since they are all primary sources. Edwardjones2320 (talk) 13:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Not all Christians believe their particular Bible is the inspired work of God
All the statements that suggest all Christians believe their Bible is the inspired work of God are wrong. See Biblical inspiration. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I see the quote there "A 49% plurality of Americans say the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it should not be taken literally". Do you have any statistics that suggest what percentage of people who identify as Christians reject the idea that the Bible is the inspired word of God (quite apart from questions of literalness)? StAnselm (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The Eastern Orthodox Church would not consider the Bible the 'Word of God' but would consider it inspired by God. The Church also does not, as a matter of dogma, take the Bible literally. The Orthodox Church has nearly always interpreted the Old Testament, metaphorically through typology and the New Testament, literally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Where is your source for this? Wikipedia thrives on verifiability. Without a source, that is just your opinion and not considered valid for WP purposes. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change this line from : Jesus is its central figure. Plz, change this to Jesus of Nazareth is its central figure. There a lot of people named Jesus we want to make sure it is the one from the Bible. Put here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible just under New Testament 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
This seems rather unnecessary, as the name is wikilinked directly to Jesus so there is no risk of ambiguity. Anyone else have an opinion? -- LWGtalk 22:31, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree. (I just transferred it here without closing so that editors who have worked on this article could have a say.) --Stfg (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Not done: we need to close this, and there doesn't seem to be any consensus to change. Most people would understand "Jesus" to refer to J of N unless some other qualifier is present, especially in the context of an article about the Bible. --Stfg (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
I started a section on "Development". It might be better called something else, but it seems needed. It will have to be written carefully to not focus too much on one particular religion (Judaism or Christianity), but a general overview of how the Old and the New Testaments were constructed would seem to be a useful part of an article on the Bible. I don't have time now to expand the section. Other editors can, or I will probably eventually get to it. Airborne84 (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
It is very difficult to find information in this article, or in the connected article Historicity of the Bible, concerning the dates of composition or redaction of the different parts of the Bible. Surely an article of this level of detail should provide that information!Wwallacee (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
See Biblical criticism. The dating of various parts of the Bible, and of the final editing of individual Bible books, especially the Pentateuch (the Books of Moses), the Prophets and the NT gospels, is a scientific field of its own with widely differing asessments and theories on just about any issue. And many confessional scholars who believe in divine inspiration of the word plainly reject the idea that these books were ever really edited or put together from earlier source writings. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Most scholars date the composition of the Old Testament between the 8th century BC and the 2nd century BC, and the composition of the NT between 50 and 130. This should be said somewhere in the article. ChercheTrouve (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
True, especially if we're talking of the final editing of entire books - and in any case, few academically respected Biblical scholars and exegetes after WW2 would have contested that much the larger part of the OT, even a major share of the Pentateuch, is later than 750 BC. There's a sizable (and outspoken) bunch of post-seventies scholars who claim that very little of any part of the OT as we know it was written or composed before 600, not even as oral traditional sources.
The trouble is, if we add a section with general and fairly sweeping statements about when the OT (its books in general) was written, then it could soon become an invitation to edit warring. You'll get on the one hand people who want to add in that the scholars they trust consider most Biblical books as close to the actual events as they can have it (adding citations and quotes from those scholars and no one else), and on the other hand people who have read outspoken recent scholars and who will want the article to say that "it is now recognized by the consensus of science that nearly all of the Old Testament was composed sometime between the 6th and the 2nd century BC by people with little or no knowledge of actual pre-exile Judaic history". That kind of late-dating was certainly not accepted a couple of decades ago and it's still quite controversial.
The vogue of overall downdating of much of the actual writing and editing of the OT until after the Babylonian Exile (van Seters, Lemche and others), or even after 400 BC, is a recent phenomenon and exegetics as a scientific field is populated by scholars who often tend to be guided as much by (or more by) ideological presuppositions and by methods and theory tools that are in fashion within human sciences and archeology in general as by the scientific data they're working on, by looking at those data themselves and putting them in context (and this is true irrespective of what kind of relationship the scholars in question have to any confession, or being linked to no confession at all). It's not like in physics or chemistry where you can often basically take it for granted that "the latest consensus results are best, the most reliable": Old Testament exegetics and Biblical criticism form a heavily politicized and "research fashion"-injected field littered with big and brash egos and careers supported by this or that "new school". Sure, the article could well point out that current scholars most often tend to see the editing and a large part of the writing of the Old Testament as occurring sometime between 800 and 250 (excluding the OT deuterocanonic/"apocryphal" books, which are somewhat later, mostly 4th to late 2nd century BC), and that it's a long-established consensus that almost no single book of the OT as we know it existed in anything like its present form before at least 720 BC - but it should also point out how many books and pre-existing sources and traditions are still controversial in terms of date and origin, and that the whole field is constantly geting racked by conflicts relating both to scientific results and to circumstances outside of science. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)