|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 90 days may be archived by.|
There far too many good books which would qualify for "further reading". Are there any rules which we can apply to keep this list manageable? I would not include some of the books on the present list, not because they are not excellent books, but they are too specialized, or just because there are different points of view (even ones which I do not personally like) which are deserving of mention. Or should I just consider this an impossible task, one which only is bait for edit wars? TomS TDotO (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- One of these is clearly a blog, and the other two advertise books. Blogs and advertisements are not really valid, so go ahead and delete them, and allow individual discussion of reversions. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't know what you mean by the blog and the advertisements. There is one which is an article in the Biblical Archeology Review which doesn't give enough description & the url doesn't work. Most of the references seem to have been taken from the PBS reference. But the hard cases for me are the perfectly fine books which don't seem to belong in a short list of references for the Hebrew Bible.
On the other hand, there are so many important books on the Hebrew Bible which are not mentioned. So many that I wouldn't know how to start. ISTM that a long list, say thirty or more books, is just worthless to the reader of Wikipedia. And I am not so bold as to suggest a dozen of the must-read books on the Hebrew Bible. I'm going to tip-toe into this, and hope that I make a positive contribution. TomS TDotO (talk) 12:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Varies - as such - significantly
Excuse my stupidity, but I don't understand this: "but varies—as such—significantly from the original Jewish Bible (Tanakh)." I am not contesting what is said, and I understand that there are sometimes controversies about the differences. I just don't understand this particular phrase. Maybe there is a better way of saying it? TomS TDotO (talk) 01:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The 72 Jewish scribes who are said to have come up with the Septuagint -- the version of Tanakh written by Jews and used by Jews at the time of Christ -- translated a version of Tanakh that included the accepted-by-all Tanakh Books and also included the deuterocanonical Books. The deuteros were accepted and used by Hellenistic Jews, were referenced by Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples, and included as canonical by the early Church. Those books were removed later from the canon by rabbis because that version of the Bible was used to buttress arguments supporting Christians' claims, and Protestants followed their lead. The way things are written is a slur against the canon accepted by Catholics and almost all of the Orthodox Christians. I call foul. Schoemann (talk) 05:14, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The sentence "In terms of theology, Christianity has struggled with the relationship between "Old" and "New" Testaments from its very beginnings." does not reflect the cited sources. The first reference is to the article on Marcion an old copy of Encyclopedia Britannica. This doesn't support the sentence for two reasons: first, he wasn't around at the "very beginning" of Christianity. The earliest Christian writings are characterised by the way they draw heavily on the Old Testament, seeing in it the foretelling of the Christ story. Second, even in his generation, Marcion was out on a limb and rejected by the mainstream church as a heretic. So early Christianity did not struggle with the relationship between Old and New Testament at all. If it had, it mightn't have taken off, coming as it did from Jewish origins and people like Paul who knew the Scriptures backwards. The second reference is not a reference but a footnote to other Wikipedia articles. I therefore propose a more accurate sentence would be something like "In terms of theology, Christianity has recognised the close relationship between the Old and New Testaments from its very beginnings, although there have sometimes been movements like Marcionism (viewed as heretical by the early church), that have struggled with it." That is also more in tune with the two references used. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Since there has been no objection, I'll insert the text as proposed. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hebrew Bible. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314095848/http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/searching-for-better-text.asp to http://www.bib-arch.org/e-features/searching-for-better-text.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.