Talk:Development of the Old Testament canon
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
The case against the Apocrypha is overstated
I have been working Michael Barber's blog entry into this article. However, I am concerned that Barber's position is only one POV and is a minority viewpoint. I wanted to ask others for their opinion regarding this material and how best to present it in an NPOV way. Among other questions, I'm wondering if this material should be presented in this article or in the Deuterocanonical books article.
--Richard 08:39, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the quote "ascertain whether or not Jesus quoted from the MT or the LXX" should be accompanied by a definition of "MT" and "LXX"
--Acaudel 011:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Who is Michael Barber?
Who is Michael Barber and why is he considered a relevant authority on this subject? The whole section titled "Jesus" reads as if it's out of place in this article and assumes the reader knows who Michael Barber is.
Timing of changes to printed Bibles
"However, Anglican and Lutheran Bibles usually still contained these books until the 20th century, while Calvinist Bibles did not."
Did Calvinist Bibles ever contain the deuterocanonical books? If so, when were they first commonly omitted?
When exactly did Anglican and Lutheran Bibles start to omit the deuterocanonicals? Which editions or publishers? When did the practice become commonplace?
This article is being evaluated as part of clean up from Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20100114, an investigation that was started when it was discovered that a contributor had repeatedly copy-pasted content into Wikipedia.
I had hoped to easily extricate copied content from this article, but I'm afraid that's not going to be easy, as it seems to be liberally scattered throughout. The material was copied from: http://infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap31.html. It has been modified, but much remains.
Copied or closely paraphrased material needs to be completely rewritten or removed; it cannot be restored unless it is verifiably public domain or duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases.
If the material is rewritten, it can't infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
- Are you sure it wasn't the other way around, that the website you cite copied the material from this wikipedia article? This has been a long standing wikipedia article, it's a shame that it now has two rather large and significant sections that have been just section deleted. There's little incentive for editors to add content to wikipedia when a new editor can just come in without reaching consensus and just delete whole sections of content. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)