|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bible article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17|
|Bible has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|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.
|This is not a forum for general discussion about Bible. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Bible at the Reference desk, discuss relevant Wikipedia policy at the Village pump, or ask for help at the Help desk.|
|This article is written in British English with Oxford spelling (colour, realize, organization, analyse; note that -ize is used instead of -ise). Some terms used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|Bible is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.|
|Current status: Former featured article candidate|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Since millions of people base their lives around this book I think it is inherently wrong to say that this book is definitively fictitious in the opening sentence describing it. The Quran and Torah both have "is the central religious text of" but the bible, the basis of the biggest religion in the world gets "is a collection of fictional sacred texts" this doesn't seem like we are treating all religion's equal. please update either Quran and Torah's page or give the Bible the credit it deserves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:39, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- It was a recent addition that has now been reverted. StAnselm (talk) 07:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
- People can always learn things from books, but that doesn't mean it isn't fiction. The whole book is just ridiculous. So many names are mentioned, but only few characters are really described. The writing style is just terrible like mentioning a bunch of people begetting further irrelevant names. And you really want to tell us humans used to have a life expectancy of centuries? The dates don't add up. Historical novels are classified as fiction, there is no doubt in that. --188.8.131.52 (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
"So many names are mentioned, but only few characters are really described."
- In response to the IP, the Old Testament is considered one of the finest works of literature, at least according to Nietzsche, so no, the writing style is not terrible.Music314812813478 (talk) 18:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- The focus shouldn't be on the writing style and a famous person's opinion doesn't become holy. Moreover, using literature and the concept of characterization contradict your views. Existent or nonexistent characterization is part of the narrator's bias. You can't deny that facts have been altered and misinterpreted throughout the years. Proving non-existence is impossible. Religions always started out as small sects. If your book today has enough followers, you can start something as well and believe in an entity like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. People will deem you crazy because your book was published in the wrong era, where major beliefs have already been established. The Bible was just lucky, but no one will admit that since it contains God's words, which are sacrosanct. No one believes that a certain Chinese man lived for 300 years, but the longevity described in the Bible must be true. --184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
"First book ever printed using movable type"
The article has the claim that the Bible is the "first book ever printed using movable type", which is not true, it even links to the Movable type article. Can somebody edit or remove this erroneous claim? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Done That statement wasn't supported by any source on this page. The article on movable type says Jikji is the oldest extant movable metal type book.
It may however, be of note that “The Whole Booke of Psalmes,” or the Bay Psalm Book, was the first book printed in American.````
- Tybomb124, are you looking for something like List of biblical names? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
- I don´t think that´s a good idea. If you go to the bottom of the Bible article, you find an expandable section called "Bible lists", where you find List of biblical names and much else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2017
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
There are a couple linguistic oddities in the article. "The Bible (from Koine Greek τὰ βιβλία, tà biblía, "the books") is a collection of sacred texts or scriptures..."
Scriptures means "sacred writings/texts" so it really sounds like the sentence reads "The Bible is a collection of sacred texts or sacred texts." It would make more sense to just write "is a collection of sacred texts or writings" since "scriptura" is technically just the latin word for "writings." And the use of the term by the NT authors is in this context as well.
- - - "Many different authors contributed to the Bible."
The word "contributed" seems to be completely misused here. The implication is a foreknowledge by the writers to help with a future endeavor, just like I were to "contribute" an article to a magazine, I have foreknowledge of its final purpose/use. But this is incorrect. None of the writers expected their work to be part of a later compilation. The writer of Psalms never expected his work to be paired or grouped with Maccabees, Esther, Chronicles, Ephesians, the Gospels, etc. And I think this is an important distinction to make somewhere in the article. It is the later editors/compilers who decide, without the author's consent, to group the works together into an authoritative text. This is true of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible. A more accurate statement would be to acknowledge this historical fact, that the works individually had different authors who wrote in different periods for different purposes and to different audiences, each group (hebrew and christian) separately decided what was holy to them.
- - -
"Attitudes towards the Bible also differ amongst Christian groups."
After stating that there is both a Hebrew Bible and a Christian Bible in the paragraph immediately preceding, it is confusing as to which "bible" the statement is referring. The placement of "also" is confusing as well. It makes more sense to say "Attitudes towards the Christian Bible differ amongst the various Christian groups." Or "Within Christianity, there are differing attitudes towards the Christian Bible."
Actually there becomes a problem with the entirety of the Wikipedia "Bible" page once there is the mention of a "Hebrew Bible" and a "Christian Bible." Everything that follows, which is not specifically denoted, implies that the term "Bible" could refer to either text/compilation of books.
- - - Under "Etymology > Textual history," it states: "By the 2nd century BCE, Jewish groups began calling the books of the Bible the "scriptures" and they referred to them as "holy,"....."
Since there was no "bible" (either Hebrew or Christian) in the 2nd century bc, it is a very odd sentence to state anyone "began calling the books of the Bible the "scriptures." No one would ever say "at the beginning of time, they first started calling the parts of the car the "wheel."" It is better to say "By the 2nd century BCE, Jewish groups began referring to their holy books as the "scriptures" or "the writings.""
The second part of the sentence is equally awkward/incorrect where it states "....and they referred to them as "holy"..." implying that it was the first time they were considered holy. But the internal evidence in Deuteronomy notes that right from the beginning Moses directed the Israelites to give them priority as a law of God. [Deut 31:9-13, and again Deut 31:24-26] The very next author, Joshua, reinforces this in Josh 8:32-35, and later on in Josh 24:26, and again in Neh 8:1-8. The written words of the prophet Samuel were considered holy as attested to in 1 Kings 10:25. In 2 Chronicles 29:30 it attests to "the words of David" being used in praise of God. Later on in 2 Maccabees 2:13-15, it becomes even broader, including "the books about the kings and the prophets, and the writings of David, and the letters of kings." The point of all this is that though they collectively may have first started to be called "the writings" in the 2nd century bc, they were "referred to as holy" far far earlier, and sometimes almost immediately (as with Moses).
- - - "The books which make up the Christian Old Testament differ between the Catholic (see Catholic Bible), Orthodox, and Protestant (see Protestant Bible) churches, with the Protestant movement accepting only those books contained in the Hebrew Bible, while Catholics and Orthodox have wider canons. A few groups consider particular translations to be divinely inspired, notably the Greek Septuagint and the Aramaic Peshitta."
The presentation is oddly un-chronological (presenting Protestants first) and lacking historical context. It makes more sense to rewrite it as following: "The books which make up the Christian Old Testament differ between the Catholic (see Catholic Bible), Orthodox, and Protestant (see Protestant Bible) churches. The original Christian Bible followed the Septuagint. While Catholics and Orthodox continued its use, the Protestant movement initially accepted them but separated the Apocrypha before later removing them all together in favor of only those contained in the Hebrew Bible. " This better represents historical facts and order of events. (Prior to 1827 ALL Bibles, Catholic, Protestant, etc., which can be attested to by opening any Protestant Bible prior to that time. While the 7 Apocrypha were in dispute, no one dared remove them from the Canon. It wasn't until the British and Foreign Bible Society decided in 1827 to remove these books from further publications, thus ending the dispute among Protestants as to their legitimacy.) I could find no reference to any christian faith that relied upon the "Aramaic Peshitta," which is probably why a citation would be needed.
- - - "In Eastern Christianity, translations based on the Septuagint still prevail." Not true. We know from history that the Early Church canonize the books of the Septuagint in 397 at the Council of Carthage. We also know that while they used the books, they did not use the text. Jerome (who translated it) relied on the Hebrew originals as the basis for his translation, which became the Latin Vulgate. (FYI, both of these statements are verified on your own website.) One could say that the NT writers relied heavily on the Septuagint, since their quoted material is almost identical to the Greek and not the Hebrew, but not that the translation was based on the Septuagint text. The Catholic Encyclopedia of 1908 also attests to this.
"The Septuagint was generally abandoned in favour of the 10th-century Masoretic Text as the basis for translations of the Old Testament into Western languages." The reason a citation is needed or missing is because the statement is false. The Latin translation was the basis for other translations into western languages until the Protestants came along. Once the Catholic Church translated the Old Testament into Latin, they continued to reproduce and use only the Latin Vulgate because it was the declared, authoritative text. And again, the Septuagint was never the primary source for the translated "text." It is possible that it may have been the original source for Jerome. But that still would make the statement "The Septuagint was generally abandoned in favour of..." logically false.
- - - "Modern Protestant traditions do not accept the deuterocanonical books as canonical, although Protestant Bibles included them in Apocrypha sections until the 1820s. However, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches include these books as part of their Old Testament."
"However, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches include these books as part of their Old Testament." should be rewritten to say "Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches never excluded these books as part of their Old Testament." Since from the beginning of the Bible in 397, the disputed books were always included in the Bible, the Protestant question/dispute was regarding whether the books should be removed or excluded.
- - - "The Old Testament canon entered into Christian use in the Greek Septuagint translations and original books, and their differing lists of texts. In addition to the Septuagint, Christianity[vague] subsequently added various writings that would become the New Testament."
Both sentences make little sense. Writing "The Old Testament canon entered into Christian use in the Greek Septuagint translations and original books..." is like saying "The car entered into Ford's use of the Taurus...." The OT is the general term for Hebrew scriptures and the Septuagint is the specific term for the same thing. Thus the sentence makes no sense. The quotes of the NT writers with respect to the OT is most closely represented in the Greek Septuagint, which is why the Early Church also relied on the Septuagint. If it was the main source document for the quotes in the letters they revered, it was hard to dispute its importance.
The second is inaccurate. The early Christian congregations relied heavily on the letters of Paul, Peter, Matthew, Luke, and other letters which would ultimately form the NT. So they did not "add" to the Septuagint, but the Septuagint was later "added" to the letters. And the reason the Septuagint was important to them was because the writers of the letters were using it for quotes. And to reinforce this view, one only needs to look at 2 major Catholic Church Councils: the Council of Carthage and the Council of Trent. The Council of Carthage only listed the books of the OT but did not define them as canonical... which is why Luther would be able to dispute them later. It is the Council of Trent, in response to Luther's dispute, that they finally canonize the 46 of the OT from their original list at the Council of Trent. Again, this is another thing that is reinforced on your own website.
- - - "Somewhat different lists of accepted works continued to develop in antiquity. In the 4th century a series of synods produced a list of texts equal to the 39, 46/51, 54, or 57-book canon of the Old Testament and to the 27-book canon of the New Testament that would be subsequently used to today, most notably the Synod of Hippo in 393 CE."
This too is very odd phrasing. After stating that things "continued to develop in antiquity," it is followed by a run-on sentence that really adds no clarification. On first reading it appears that it is focusing more on the OT... until the NT is added... and then the inclusion of a Synod which had no doctrinal authority (thus the Council of Carthage in 397, which did). The "continued development" of the OT and the NT should be separated so it is not confusing. This would then allow for the inclusion of the different Jewish canons in antiquity, which seems oddly absent from this discourse. Both Josephus (in "Antiquities 18.16") and Origen (Against Celsus 1.49) write about the Sadducees only respecting the 5 books of Moses as holy, the Pharisees having 22 books (Josephus, "Against Apion," 1.37-43, LCL), and the Essenes seeming to have 94 (4 Ezra 14:23-48). Additionally your own site notes that the Tanakh declared the number of books to be 24. Thus there was no established Jewish canon at the time of NT writers, which is why Jesus and the NT writers just refer to holy texts as "the writings" or "scriptures." That came (as your site does mention) later around the 900's, well after the Christians had already chosen their 46 based on the Septuagint.
- Not done: Thanks for sharing your thoughts about the article. Unfortunately, the preceding is what's known around here as a wall of text; few, if any, of the volunteer editors here will read it carefully in its entirety. Edit requests should be relatively succinct and phrased in the form, "change x to y"; reliable sources should be included for any substantive changes. If you'd like to see multiple changes, it's usually best to request one at a time. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC)