Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible

Bible and History --- > Historicity of the bible, addressing biblical historicity

I've proposed the move described above and would like comments. Likewise, it looks lie there are several important articles within that overall topic that need a top to bottom restructuring. I think Historicity and the Bible should be a top level survey covering what the topic is, the general course of public opinion on it, scholarly developments, and then some nuts and bolts on methodology. A summation of the major narratives of the Bible might also be useful. Beneath Historicity of the Bible should be the major book families, such as Historicity of the Hebrew Bible, which can be further subdivided into the component parts (Torah, Prophets, Writings, Later prophets, the Twelve) as necessary. Any thoughts and/or volunteers to help?--Tznkai (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Just as a matter of terminology, I think your use of historicity is unclear. That the Bible (in some form, under various titles) appeared, existed, and was developed in history (the meaning of (historicity) is unquestioned, but that makes discussion of its historicity a matter of its historical composition, collection, and the development of canon (and may involve interpretation of human history). That's not the meaning I get out of a title like "Bible and History", which includes the connections between human history and events presented in the Bible (and may involve interpretation of the Bible itself). There may be some gray areas and overlap between the two, but the two are not one and the same subject. Of course, I may have misconstrued your meaning also. Historicity of the Bible is the narrower subject; did you wish in this way to restrict the content that is placed under this heading? If so, where would material falling outside that subject go? Evensteven (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand "historicity of the Bible" to mean "did the events described in the Bible narratives occur in history or not?" Perhaps that is better understood as "is the Bible historically reliable?" but I feel like that question is an examination of credibility of the Bible as a witness without actual interrogation into the underlying subject matter. (Whether a witness is an honest man or a liar is separate from discussing whether what he saw happened). Maybe it is better titled "historicity of Biblical narratives" but that is ugly. My goal is to cover the answers given the question "Did the events and persons described in the Bible occur in history?" and the immediate background knowledge (the difference between narratives and non-narratives, for example, and whether the recieved text is reliable enough to draw conclusions from) necessary to understand those answers.--Tznkai (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I think I see what your target subject is now. But I would say that is indeed "Historicity of Biblical narratives" (or some such), and definitely not "Historicity of the Bible". I'm sorry that you feel the first is "ugly", but the two titles imply two different subjects, and the second one is not yours. Moreover, the current article Bible and history includes both subjects within its bounds, and then some. I'm afraid that it appears to me that the re-titling that you propose does not match the material you propose to re-organize.

I have the additional concern that the real topic is not so much about historicity as it is about Biblical interpretation and doctrine, or perhaps I should say doctrine as applied to historicity and interpretation. It strikes me that that material is less about the Bible and more about the divisions within "Christianity" (however one cares to define that) and how each division treats the Bible. Hence, I would argue that the place for discussions and articles of this kind would be better placed within the WP structures that describe those divisions rather than in the ones that describe the Bible. Hence, I see it more as work within Project Christianity than within Project Bible. Evensteven (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The historicity of Abraham, for example, has significant implications on two, three or four major world religions, depending on how you count Judaism and the Ba'hai faith. The tale of Noah's Ark, if true, would have major consequences. While my content knowledge revolves around academicly postured literature analysis of the Bible, there are also all of the archealogical digs among others to examine the Bible, and the cross overs with antiquity scholars the closer you get to modern times. The destruction of the second temple, Roman occupation, the Maccabees, relations with the Samaritans, all of these are interesting and notable historical events (probably anyway) of which the Bible has served as a sometimes the, primary source. So, I think the topic, while of obvious interest to Christians, is a general phenomena of general interest and need not be ghettoized as an internal dispute.

My complaint about the ugliness of the title is mostly an aside, along with a hope that someone can come up with a title more elegant. An article title must balance precision with length. How does "Biblical historicity" strike you? My brief perusals of the internet and the reference material I have on hand does not show uniform usage of any of the phrases suggested.--Tznkai (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you make an excellent point about the implications on other religions, which I was simply looking past when I wrote the above. I'm sold on the topic's staying with Project Bible. I also agree with you about avoiding the ghettoizing of useful topics. But I do recognize the existence of disputes that could easily overrun the usefulness of those topics. Project Bible will need to frame the topics carefully, so that the disputes are not themselves the topic.

"Biblical historicity" strikes me as identical in meaning to "Historicity of the Bible", with the advantage (as a title) that it is shorter. I grant that I have been taking a rather literalist approach in interpreting the phrase, based upon general English usage. My question has been, to what is the word "historicity" applied in the phrase: the Bible itself, or its contents? Both are studies of historical interest. But perhaps not everyone is as rigorous as I in making such distinctions. If the general literature is looser in usage, then it would seem that not all others have found it important enough to retain a sharp distinction. But you say you do not find "uniform usage", so perhaps there are some who do find it important. Whatever my own preference as to meanings, my preference here is to ensure that the title conveys to most people, especially those more expert, a meaning that is not readily confused with something else. I tend to think the word "historicity" can be sloppily applied. But you're right that "Bible and history" is not quite right either. What about "Bible and historicity"? Evensteven (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

By not uniform, I mean I see people drawing the distinction you have, and people interpreting the phrase as I do, and some things in between with no clear, at this point of research, consensus. I dislike "and" in titles, but I think you may be right that is the best title. I'll poke around my reference material for a less ambiguous answer.--Tznkai (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Also sometimes ambiguous if an expert level author is being sloppy or using historicity the way I am. Example: "The historicity of the book cannot simply be assumed since it telescopes and simplifies what was a long and complex process of occupation of the land by the Israelite tribes. Some details are lacking ... while other events are narrated ... selectively arranged... the book's presentation of reality does not necessarily reflect the actual course of events." New Oxford Annotated Bible 3d, Ed.: Coogan, M 314 HB.--Tznkai (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed about the "and" in titles (normally), but here it detaches "Bible" from "historicity" in a way that exactly disambiguates the varieties of usage, sloppy or not. That's why it seemed to me the best option I could come up with: it permits sufficient breadth of topic while also sufficiently focusing its scope. Perhaps there's some elegance of communication value there, to compensate for inelegance of language. Anyway, elegance of language is only possible where a truly precise expression can be found, and our language may not give us that luxury in this case. Evensteven (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Articles needed

Hello,

I just created a template for the Nag Hammadi Codices, and there were I think at least five articles that haven't be created or located. It would be nice if someone put their time in creating these articles, so I could have a proper template to post on each article involving the Nag Hammadi Library. I'm just not very good at creating articles on Wikipedia, only editing. Also, if you happen to pass by on a Gnostic article that involves the Nag Hammadi Codices and do not see the temple embedded, please place the template in that article. Here is the template: Template:The Nag Hammadi Codices Please read the "Note" in the template to figure out which articles need to be created or located. — Thank You! — ♣Jerm♣729  —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I've moved the note out of the template itself so that it will only be seen on the template page. – Fayenatic London 22:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Ezra–Nehemiah

The lead says "- the two were originally one, but were divided by Christians in the 3rd century AD, and in Jewish circles in the 15th century." When you read the article itself, you see things such as "composition of the "Ezra memoir" and "Nehemiah memoir"" - the body of the article is saying that this was not created as one composition. Can someone fix the lead please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll change the intro to make it sound better. Undo edit if you feel the edit is not right. — ♣Jerm♣729 19:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I think my point is from reading the article, modern thinking is that these developed as two separate documents which were then combined, rather than as one, which s what the lead still says. Thanks though for helping. Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

BC/BCE in Sirach

Hello,

Just wondering if the article: Sirach can have both BC and BCE. (WP:ERAS) doesn't explain if both are okay in an article. With permission by Admins to change the remaining "BCE" to "BC", or someone move discussion to Talk:Sirach for voting. — ♣Jerm♣729 23:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

No, the article is supposed to be internally consistent one way or the other (not counting in reference titles, appearing on images, etc). The principle is to keep whatever is "established" either by consensus for that article, or by default whatever was used earliest or longest. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

How to find the origin of BC/BCE for the article, or should we discuss changes immediately whether it be: BC/BCE? — ♣Jerm♣729 23:52, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Look into the history of the page. [1] shows BCE changes to this article, but I have not checked whether it was all dates on the page, or just some of them with the aim of consistency. That editor has done other BC -> BCE changes on various pages, although someone asked him to stop in June. – Fayenatic London 00:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I found the first input of BC/BCE, and it was BCE first. However, it was done by an unregistered user back in 2002. Is it possible still to change "BCE" to "BC" since it was done by a user who wasn't registered? If not, do I change all of it to "BCE" — ♣Jerm♣729 01:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd argue that all Jewish topics should use BCE out of respect for their traditions. Are there general guidelines on when to use BC v. BCE in articles on Jewish subjects? Aristophanes68 (talk) 22:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

That argument would be fine for Jewish topics, but Sirach is also Christian, being within the accepted Biblical canon (Catholic and Orthodox). Evensteven (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me. Even as an active church-goer, I respect the beliefs of my Jewish friends and colleagues enough to use BCE for all Hebrew Bible topics. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

We decide on changes article by article. It is all BCE now as is appropriate - the fact that the first use of an era style was an IP is irrelevant. Dougweller (talk) 18:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks -- that's what I thought, but an editor on another page is adamant that all the high-importance biblical articles need to use the same dating pattern, and has reverted several BC --> BCE changes as being a violation of the MOS. Aristophanes68 (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. My comment was only aimed at the reason that it should be BCE because it was a Jewish topic. That's not the reason. Evensteven (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

China minorities' languages Bible translation

article blanked but restored. Could possibly do with expansion. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:54, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Page move request for Sirach

I've been asked to move two articles so that they use 'Book' - I've done this with Jubilees as it had already been requested and that is what is in the lead, but Sirach is a different kettle of fish. It is known by various names - the lead says:"The Book of the All-Virtuous Wisdom of Joshua ben Sira[1] /ˈsaɪræk/, commonly called the Wisdom of Sirach or simply Sirach, and also known as the Book of Ecclesiasticus /ɨˌkliːziˈæstɪkəs/ or Siracides /saɪˈræsɨdiːz/ (abbreviated Ecclus.[2]) or Ben Sira although Richard Coggins writes in his book which uses the short form "Sirach", "The book is commonly referred to by any one of three different names: Ecclesiasticus; the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach; and Ben Sira. These are derived from Latin, Greek and Hebrew respectively. (Grabbe 1992 is usually a reliable guide, and will be referred to again, but here his description of Ecclesiasticus as the ‘Greek title’ of the book is misleading [p. 176].) With regard to the Hebrew, however, we should bear in mind that none of the surviving fragments includes the opening of the book; no Hebrew manuscript offers us anything earlier than 3.6 of the present book. We thus have no means ot knowing whether there was an original Hebrew title, and what it may have been. Outside the area of scholarly discussion, the name by which the book is most commonly known is probably Ecclesiasticus."pp14-15[2][

Thus it isn't obvious that we should use 'Book' as part of the title or if the current title is correct - or indeed the lead. Comments? Dougweller (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Hmm, not straightforward. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - If you want to go by the Hebrew name it should really be called 'Ben Sira', as the Sirach pronunciation is really a Greek addtition that is not part of the Hebrew original name. But probably the most common name in English is really the Latin "Ecclesiasticus," no? warshy ^(¥¥) 16:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

We want to go by the most common English name. You're probably right, but I hope we get more input. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 18:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree that Ecclesiasticus would probably be the most common name among English-speaking Christians, although I am less sure about English-speaking Jews, partially because I am myself a Christian, not a Jew, and I tend to use Christian Bibles on that basis. I would assume the name is recognizable to English-speaking Jews as well however, and the evidence of the page indicates that most Jews today would know it by its most common name as used by Christians, who hold the book canonical whereas most modern Jewish groups don't. John Carter (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Book of Ben Sira would not seem right because Jews do not recognize the book as scripture. The Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) or the Book of Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) would be the appropriate title since it is scripture for Catholic, Orthodox, and Angelical churches. -- ♣Jerm♣729 19:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• Suggestion - I see now your original request for moving/changing names and I undertand what you're looking for. My suggestion would then be Book of Ecclesiasticus (Ben Sira). warshy ^(¥¥) 20:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Disagree, warshy. "Book of" adds nothing to the meaning, and is not included in the title whenever Ecclesiasticus is used. I tend to agree the commonest form to be found in English is the one of RC origin, from the Latin: Ecclesiasticus. That should be the article title, I think. The lead should put forth that, plus the Greek and Hebrew forms/titles in the first sentences. (plural. Let's not get stuck with another of those terribly unwieldy first sentences.) I expect that should cover most of the ground. And there are always redirects for the rest. Make "Book of" a redirect if it is so desperately needed, but article titles should be article titles first, and not convoluted to match a consistency scheme. Evensteven (talk) 22:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the Greek abbreviated to "Wisdom of Sirach" (Orthodox Study Bible) or even just "Wisdom" also. No opposition to a Greek form if others want. The idea of who treats the book as scripture is a good point, and worthy of consideration in deciding what is the most prominent name. Evensteven (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, I doubt "Wisdom of Sirach" is necessarily an abbreviation. The Orthodox Study Bible uses that in its lists of contents and in all page headings within the books text. It then lists as author "Jesus ben Sirach". I tend to think that the longer appellations tend to be expansions rather than the short ones being contractions. So my vote for a Greek form goes to "Wisdom of Sirach", nothing more, no "Book of", at least not in the article title. Evensteven (talk) 22:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I would be inclined to use Wisdom of Sirach, as a better fit with others in Category:Deuterocanonical books, even though the ostensible author is actually Ben Sira (son of Sirach); so perhaps Wisdom of Ben Sirach or Wisdom of Ben Sira. To the untrained eye, the name Ecclesiasticus is too similar to Ecclesiastes. – Fayenatic London 22:40, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
• Note - I would not use Ben Sira alone considering it might be a conflicting title to the author's article: Shimon ben Yeshua ben Eliezer ben Sira. "Book of" does have a purpose when using Ben Sira. The title should be Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) at best choice. -- ♣Jerm♣729 23:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • We don't put alternative names in parentheses, but qualifiers in case of ambiguity such as (book) or (prophet). Alternative names get redirects instead. – Fayenatic London 22:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
  • They don't have to start with "Book of" wherever possible. The category already has "Letter of" and "The prayer of... Song of...". As for the Book of Wisdom, that is such a generic name that I would suggest Wisdom of Solomon; and then Wisdom of Sirach / Wisdom of Ben Sira would sit well alongside it. – Fayenatic London 04:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Agree. Evensteven (talk) 06:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
      • I oppose using Ben Sira. Even though Ben Sira is the original Hebrew name, no one verbally says "Ben Sira" or uses the name in the indexes of Bibles. Besides, Sirach's talk page shows that the article was moved from Ben Sira to Sirach in 2008. Jews don't consider the book scripture, so no support of "Ben Sira" by the Jewish sect. I would only except the Book of Sirach because it is a book. The Sirach article explains the alternative titles mostly using the "Book of" in the alternative names except for Wisdom of Sirach and Siracides. Sirach is a wisdom book, but verbally few would say Wisdom of Sirach. "Book of" is the most likely verbal saying or Sirach by itself. Ecclesiasticus is mostly in the indexes of Bibles, but Sirach is easier to web search and mostly said verbally. -- ♣Jerm♣729 09:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
        • I see no reason for Ben Sira either, but make no opposition in case of other opinion. I think your point about it not being Jewish scripture truly weakens any need for it, though. But as for "Wisdom of Sirach", as I have pointed out already, that title is already in official use in the Orthodox communion, which would undoubtedly be a prime user of a Greek form. It think it's immaterial what people say verbally, because it's very common in speech to use shortened forms for convenience, but a longer formal form still remains a gold standard for "real name/title" in most cases. I would use "Sirach" alone in speech often enough, and I would expect an Internet search engine to find the single word within the title online and point me to the real thing, but I would expect to see "Wisdom of Sirach" or some formal title to come up when it does. Since it is a wisdom book, "Wisdom of Sirach" is also a more meaningful and specific title than "Book of Sirach", which may be why the Orthodox use it. We must be very careful on WP not to assume too much about things like "most likely verbal saying" from experience with religion in the United States, since that is weighted so heavily in favor of Protestantism in its many forms, while the world itself is proportioned quite differently. So I say again here what I have said so many other places on WP, that English is the most international language that has ever been in history, and that we must treat it here in terms of the world community, not even so much restricted to "English-speaking" nations. There are plenty of English speakers all over. And many in highly Orthodox countries as well, for what that's worth. Finally, I grant that "Ecclesiasticus" is easily mistaken for "Ecclesiastes". Though a Latin form, I simply don't know what Catholics use most, but I'm not hearing very much here about it. In my opinion, actual Catholic use ought to weigh heavily in the decision about naming the article itself, per WP:COMMONNAME. But I am firm in supporting "Wisdom of Sirach" as the preferred Greek-based name, for reasons above. If the Catholics use it too, then I think it's clear what the article title ought to be. Catholic and Orthodox are the two principal communions that treat the book as full scripture. Evensteven (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
          • Ok, I now see that the Catholic Old Testament uses the name "Ecclesiasticus". And they deal with both that and "Ecclesiastes" in the same Bible, so I don't see why we can't. My vote for the title of this book therefore goes to "Ecclesiasticus", with "Wisdom of Sirach" being an acceptable alternative. The lead sentences in articles can sort out alternative names, which can also be provided for in redirects. Evensteven (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
            • No! As Fayenatic explained that it is too similar to Ecclesiastes. -- ♣Jerm♣729 22:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
              • Yes, he did. But it's in common use anyway. This is what is. It's not up to us to change it. Evensteven (talk) 22:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Page move request for Book of Wisdom

I propose that the "Book of Wisdom" article be renamed to "Wisdom of Solomon". My reasons parallel the similar discussions in reference to the page move request for Sirach. The current title is in contra-convention to both the Catholic and Orthodox Bibles, who both use "Wisdom of Solomon", and who are again the two communions that treat the book as full scripture, not apocrypha. In addition, "Wisdom of Solomon" is definitely proper in terms of WP:COMMONNAME because of this joint use. Perceptions to the contrary may arise because of locales where Protestantism is more prevalent, but that does not reflect the worldwide community of English WP. Evensteven (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support, as proposer. "Wisdom of Solomon" qualifies for common name; "Book of Wisdom" does not. Evensteven (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Just in case there is a suspicion that I am pushing a POV, especially one that is sectarian in origin, I will wait 24 hours for a second support for this proposal (because I still think it has merit), but if there is none then, I will withdraw it, and my comments about Sirach above. It is my firm belief that there is nothing sectarian at all in these particular article-naming issues. It is also my firm view that neutrality on WP in general is essential, and especially in topics relating to Christianity, where the community has historically suffered so much from the blight of POV pushing, vandalism, bad faith, and incivility. I won't further such behavior here or anywhere. But I won't walk on eggshells for the sake of appearances. I'd rather walk away if I cannot be heard. But I'd rather ask to be heard than to walk away. My comments above, full of "Catholic" and "Orthodox" are there because these are two large communions, largest in the world, whose contributions to scholarship are not only 2000 years long but enormous in size. It is impossible that they can have anything but a wide pervasive impact on how things are "commonly" viewed and described by WP:RS. I have not cited "Protestant" in the same way because Protestantism is diverse, and often does not bring a common impact to bear, as is witnessed in the varieties of names for these books. So, if there is a count of RS sources or references to be made, the volume is too much for us to cover here except according to our own predispositions. But the size of each contributing factor is bound to affect the totals that are out there. We each "commonly" find what is present in the areas where we're looking most often. And I think there is commonly a lot of diversity in these names. I would not argue for exclusionism, but in the end, there is one article, and it needs one name. The others must be mentions in the first sentences of the article, and redirects so that anyone can find the article they are looking for on the first try, without having to go through disambiguation. I don't abandon the claim that I have good reason for my proposal. But I will abandon the proposal if necessary to keep the peace here. And I truly think it's time to hear from someone else, or just let it go. Evensteven (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support, to avoid ambiguity; the current name is too generic, and other cultures may use it for different texts, e.g. a Google search finds this term used for the maxims of Ibn Ata Allah, or of Atisha. However, the Deuterocanonical book is the primary meaning, so Book of Wisdom should be kept as a redirect. – Fayenatic London 09:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Both Google books and Google "Scholar" (badly misnamed I think) show "Wisdom of Solomon" used far more often, even taken the vagaries of such sources into account. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

NPOV violation

The partial title "Wisdom of" is a POV issue. Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon are not considered scripture by Jews and Protestants. They would consider them false or unauthoritative. Putting "Wisdom of" violates WP:NPOV as stated: "Descriptive titles should be worded neutrally, so as not to suggest a viewpoint for or against a topic, or to confine the content of the article to views on a particular side of an issue." Yes, Wisodm of Solomon is Solomon's wisdom, but that's why it was placed in the Writing section of Bibles. It's obvious that it is a wisdom book and Sirach also. However, they are "Books" none the less. "Neutral titles encourage multiple viewpoints and responsible article writing." -- ♣Jerm♣729 07:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What then should we rename the Letter of Jeremiah, if not all accept it as authentic? Book of the Letter of Jeremiah? Is "Book of" any less POV? I don't see how "Wisdom of" is any more POV; in fact it seems more neutral. – Fayenatic London 09:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What you think seems more neutral is your opinion, but the rules say otherwise. That is an epistle that is a segment of the Book of Baruch. Besides, the title for Jeremiah qualifies WP:NPOV stating "Some article titles are descriptive, rather than being a name." W:NC states that "a title must be consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles." Therefore, "Book of" is more consistent than "Wisdom of" like the Book of Wisdom that you will make it non-consistent with the other biblical books that have "Book of". Your options that don't deviate from WP:AT are only the Book of Ecclesiasticus and the Book of Sirach. -- ♣Jerm♣729 10:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't think NPOV applies here. WP:COMMONNAME does. See my post above. I don't understand the bit about consistency - that isn't in our guidelines or policy. Dougweller (talk) 12:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried to defend my position on this. Three against two in favor for Wisdom of Solomon & Wisdom of Sirach new name. I expected more people for comment though. -- Cheers -- ♣Jerm♣729 18:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Is your sense of POV really centered on the book titles, or on the book content? There's no question that their canonicity is a subject of viewpoint, but is that not more a content issue? And is it not a view that the book does not actually contain "wisdom" that makes for an issue with the title? All these matters can and should be made clear in the articles themselves, where viewpoints can be treated in more detail, descriptively, NPOV-style. But I must agree with Dougweller and Fayenatic as to neutrality and common name. An article title must be designed to get a reader to the subject being looked for, and the policy is designed with the idea of making that as straightforward as possible. But even though I don't think it applies here, we may not always get the luxury of avoiding a POV article name if that is the name that is so prominent in the public eye that it is the standard point of referral, like it or not. Consistency of article names is really no issue at all. If the common names are consistent in style, then they are, and if not, they aren't, but common names is what we use. But redirects permit automated paths to the same articles, and can provide some relief for those who find one name or another objectionable.

I will also put in a plug against "three against two". Don't count me as against anyone. And most of all, I would not consider "3 in favor, 2 opposed" to be a good outcome in a discussion at all. WP is not a democracy. A 3/2 split is not a consensus in my opinion; it's a mere majority, and not a strong one. Sometimes we have to live with thin margins, but I for one don't prefer it. It only tends to lead to trouble later. That's also why I am with you in wishing for yet more input here. Evensteven (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

For a matter of this type, I think the best and most neutral way to proceed would be to consult the top reference sources on the topic, like the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford (or Cambridge) Companion to the Bible, and other similar sources which do not have clear ties to any particular denominations or groupings, and see what title(s) they give their articles on the topic. There is, admittedly, the possibility that some other title might be most common in the non-English speaking world, but they would be good indicators for the most-common name in English. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

For the most part I agree. However, all those sources do originate in the west, which has distinct sectarian influences. And the "non-English speaking world" is shrinking. On WP in particular, we need to remember how the language is so often used worldwide as a common link for communication, even when not used natively. So we just need to be careful to weigh even these neutral sources against commonalities that are simply based in geography and culture, which is not a full measure of English usage. Evensteven (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Biblical texts on wikisource

I have becoming rather generally annoying lately about the lack of material we have available at wikisource, and am going to continue in that grand tradition here today. ;)

I did look at the Biblical canon article a bit earlier, and was both more than a little surprised at the number of texts held as significant by the Ethiopian Jews and the Ethiopian Christians, and the lack of articles related them. I was even more surprised that it seems some of the books held in the canons of other groups not so geographically limited, as well as several books included in some of the older Biblical collections, can't be found there either. Getting together articles on each of the documents might, I suppose, be hard in some cases, but having the texts themselves available demands only that we have a .djvu copy of the work itself from a public domain source, or of a public domain source which contains the text of the work, available. Then, we would only require having two editors go over the individual pages of that .djvu file and proofreading it for errors. Given the comparatively short length of most of those works, that probably wouldn't be particularly time-consuming.

So, is there anyone out there willing to check for files and/or proofread the texts from the files? I would be willing to volunteer to be one of the two required editors for some, to either "proofread" or "validate" the pages. I suppose, if anyone wanted, we could add any older, public domain, texts about the various works of the Bible, individually or collectively, as well. If anyone would be interested in doing so, I think maybe the best thing to do is to list the work you would be willing to work on below, with your name, and, whether you can or cannot find or generate the required .djvu file. For those who can't find the required files, many of which might be available on archive.org in some work, I can check to see if I can ind any elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Archive.org does, for instance, have English versions of the Septuagint text available for use. Granted, some of those books are already here in other versions, but others apparently are not. Would anyone be interested in helping proofread the text of some of the books for inclusion in wikisource, which we could then link to in our articles here? John Carter (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Bible At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 15:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Map deletions

There's a discussion at Tuqu' talk, and Halhul talk, and Dura talk that may interest some of you.

In short, the 3 articles discuss the history of the locations from Biblical times.

But when a map reflecting the text was added, the map was deleted (e.g., here) on the basis that the map was: a) not related to archeological evidence; b) undue; and c) "probably" a "myth".

Views of the community might be helpful. --Epeefleche (talk) 18:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Book of Isaiah era consensus

Hello, A discussion is taking place for era-style consensus for article Book of Isaiah so see the article's talk page. Era-style is inconsistent, and ignore the recent era changes done in the article because there was no consensus approved yet. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ezra–Nehemiah era consensus

Hello, A discussion is taking place for era-style consensus for article Ezra–Nehemiah so see the article's talk page. The era-style is inconsistent. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to have more input from other users who have not been involved the this discussion yet, so please see article's talk page. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Lotus tree

There is a strange article at Lotus tree. It is built on the assumption that the Lotus in Odyssey and that of the Book of Job are the same. In Job the translation Lotus trees is newer even than KJV, and it isn't clear you decided on it. Not from septuagint, which has

• all kinds of trees (pantodap¢a de¢ndra)...flowering rush (bou¢tomon)...chaste tree (¢agnou) (Apostolic Bible Polyglot)

OR

• Under trees of every kind it lies down, by the papyrus and reed and sedge.

22 And tall trees find themselves in its shade, with limbs, as do the chaste-tree’s branches. (NETS)

Anyway at Lotus-eaters you can see the plant from Odyssey is also unidentified, and only one option is common to the two sources: Ziziphus lotus (per eg BDB lexicon).

So I don't think an article should discuss the two at once. What divorce arrangement do you propose? Should there remain an article Lotus tree? If not, where should the Job info go? trespassers william (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep the article, give first place to the references in Homer, and include a brief note that the New American Bible translation (specify any others) used this English name to translate a rare Hebrew word in the book of Job. – Fayenatic London 20:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Took the advice. trespassers william (talk) 18:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Johnny's little phrase

I was wondering if we could get some more eyes on Comma Johanneum? In particular, the grammar section. AirCombat placed a {{helpme}} tag since they seem to be struggling with this, and while I don't know much about the Bible, I know people here know it a lot better. Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the entire Comma page really needs some attention. As far as I can tell, it's a very hotly debated subject in theological circles, and as with any debate, there is much room for bias and edit wars. A user by the name of 7Jim7 has put a lot of effort into writing the Grammar section of the page, but his edits have been repeatedly labelled as non-encyclopedic and against WP:MOS. It also seems to contain WP:OR, though they have since cut down the section a bit. He does seem to have some bias, as reflected in quotes on the talk page. What I would love to see is someone with knowledge of BOTH sides of the debate look at the section as written to determine its veracity and accuracy. I understand and support 7Jim7's passion for the article, but also have tried to remind him that the Manual of Style is extremely important in an encyclopedia, and that it's much more important to take your time and write well than to try and get the facts up quickly to try and convince people of your side of the argument. Anyway, I'll keep an eye here and over at the talk page, perhaps this can all be sorted out constructively. Either that, or large sections of the page will end up RfD. /-\urelius ♠ |)ecimus _What's^{up, dog?} 05:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Numbers

There is an ongoing discussion as to whether the unique primary meaning of "numbers" is the plural of "number", or whether one of the primary meanings is the name of the fourth book of the Bible, as well. You can vote at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_4#Numbers at the bottom of the section. Tkuvho (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Etiological narratives -- any unifying article?

Before creating a new article, let me ask: Are there any articles devoted to etiological stories or passages in the Hebrew Bible? Etiology is a distinct category of analysis in Biblical studies. I see Etiology and Myth of origin but these say little or nothing about Biblical etiologies. Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 04:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Articles on NT chapters that quote the entire chapter

Hi. I was just over on John 21 and I noticed a somewhat redundant section taking up about 50% of the article text, right above a much more appropriate link to Wikisource. I'm also a bit worried about quoting a very old translation verbatim, since our article on the WEB implies it was dependent on an earlier (1901) translation, meaning that if every article did this (if every chapter had an article) we'd be quoting some dated/mistaken translations. John 20 is even worse, quoting the KJV. I was considering deleting it, especially since we have a whole other project for that stuff, but I figured I might be missing something so I came here (decind against using the article talk page since it touches on at least one, probably many, other articles).

Any thoughts?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Good question! (Funny that a question about the 聖書 comes from someone who calls themself "聖".) This is part of a larger question, not just about the NT. There doesn't seem to be a standard about how to refer to texts from the Bible. An alternative solution, which suggests itself, is to refer to the corresponding Wikipedia article, as is currently the case at Philosopher's stone#History, which links to Psalm 118. However, that's a misleading practice, since that article doesn't contain the text. It doesn't even link to it, so the reader has no alternative but look for the text elsewhere on the internet. That seems absurd to me; how can one write entire articles about Bible texts without referring to the scripture?

I surmise that the reluctance to add links to scripture may be because there are so many versions and translations. If that's the reason, then why not use a template that creates the links to the various applicable locations on Project Gutenberg and Project Sourceberg? That way, articles such as John 21 and Psalm 118 could become hubs for the information many readers expect behind these links. — Sebastian 12:27, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you guys have any use for these timelines?

I made some timelines graphically depicting the ages of the biblical patriarchs from the creation to Abraham. Abyssal (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

All sources

All sources

MT

MT

SP

SP

LXX

LXX

Bibleref/bibleverse templates

Are templates such as {{bibleref}}, {{bibleref2}}, {{bibleverse}}, etc. still acceptable for use in articles? These templates create embedded links within articles: a style which may have been OK at one time, but now appears to be no longer acceptable per WP:CS#Avoid embedded links. I think it would be best for the embedded links to be converted to either inline citations (perhaps using citation templates) or wikilinks and the use of the templates deprecated? WP:CS is a community-wide guideline and, therefore, I believe it should take precedence over any local consensus.

I noticed these links while looking at Adam and Eve and Noah, but I'd imagine such links can be found in other similar articles as well. FWIW, I'm not trying to create problems and I was just going to go ahead and convert the embedded links in those articles to inline citations myself, but decided it would be better to ask here first after I noticed that they were using special templates. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 06:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Category structure for Old Testament and Hebrew Bible

Please see Category talk:Hebrew Bible. – Fayenatic London 10:19, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Serpent (Bible) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Serpent (Bible) to be moved to Serpents in the Bible. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Edwin R. Thiele and The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings need attention

The latter has some material copied from[3], both need a rewrite, Doug Weller (talk) 08:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Need more editors in discussion of Religious views of masturbation

Question: How much due weight is appropriate for promoting a view, that mention of seminal emissions in Leviticus (Hebrew Bible) includes intercourse and wet dreams only, while "remaining silent" specifically on masturbation?

That is the question I would like editors especially knowledgeable about the Torah to respond to at Talk:Religious views on masturbation as there is an editor I feel may be giving undue weight to such a rationale. I am unable to participate as fully as I would like as I am doing so by a phone. Thanks, 172.56.34.60 (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Bible quote template

Is there a bible quote template like template:cite quran? I need one for History_of_male_circumcision#Ancient_world (I am sure it would be useful elsewhere).Scientus (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I like the template:bibleref2 template best for that purpose. Evensteven (talk) 08:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Need more editors to discuss gender-neutral issues

Gender-neutral Bible and New International Version are having an important discussion on gender-neutral language. Please visit and join in the discussion. Below is my point of view opposed by another editor. We really need your thoughts.

Basileias, I am a bit confused about your recent editing of my work. You seem more interested in hiding documentation and driving an agenda rather than helping wiki readers learn about various subjects. For example, this is a quote from the NIV page.

However, the Southern Baptist Convention rejected the 2011 update because of gender-related issues.

This sentence has no sourcing. I bring in a source and you remove it. The source is the resolution that Southern Baptists passed against the 2011 NIV. Why would you not want this linked? It is obviously a good source for the sentence. Here is the link: http://www.sbc.net/resolutions/1218/on-the-genderneutral-2011-new-international-version . Please do not remove this source until you have worked through the NIV Bible discussion page. Your refusal to allow such common sense sources shows you to have an agenda beside informing wiki readers. Linking the gender-neutral Bible page under criticism is also helpful to wiki readers. CBMW is made up of many conservative theologians, including Wayne Grudem who is the editor of the ESV Bible. Please leave these changes alone until other editors speak to the matter.

My next problem with your edits involves removing my work from the gender-neutral Bible page. I added examples that readers will find very helpful. You required sources for this information. I sourced an article. It is important to note that the information I posted are verbatim examples of the 1984 NIV being compared to the 2011 NIV. I did not post the CBMW article to source critical opinions, but to source the NIV comparison quotes. The quotes are undisputable facts. I am disappointed that you will not allow a simple comparison between the two NIV versions. Please do not remove these edits until others have had a chance to respond on the talk page. Toverton28 (talk) 22:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)