Talk:Oxford Annotated Bible
|WikiProject Books||(Rated Start-class)|
The third edition is not the only one to include the Apocrypha (I have an older edition with the Apocrypha included) and I believe a third edition exist without the Apocrypha, and I have seen older editions without it. Those without are titled The Oxford Annotated Bible and those with are The Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha. Made the changes in the article.
I also previously made changes regarding a statement that the Oxford Annotated Bible questions the authorship of all the books of the Bible. This is not true and the implication from the statement seemed (at least to me) that the OAB questioned the complete validity of the entire Bible, therefore making the statement POV. Many books of the Bible have had their authorship questioned for centuries (some concern if the same "John" wrote the Gospel, the three Epistles, and the Revelation (John is not an uncommon name), many early church fathers did not want Hebrews in the New Testament because they belived Paul did not write it -- it is unsigned). What I am getting at is, the OAB does not question the authorship of any of the books anymore than has been around for a while, and the original wording of the article seemed to imply that these statements were new with the OAB.Rt66lt 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I agree; well done. KHM03 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Good changes. I've modified a garbled sentence; if I've gotten it wrong, please correct. John Broughton 19:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- That the OAB doubts traditional author attributions in the Bible, such as Moses' authorship of the Torah and Paul's authorship of some letters traditionally attributed to him, should be included in the article, even if those positions are held by other Bible editors or frequent among biblical scholars. It will help readers understand the nature of the OAB.
- I put the section about questioning authorships into the article. I didn't object to it being there in the first place, but my problem with it was that the way it was written seemed to imply that the OAB was some sort of anti-Bible translation (which it isn't, I've used it for years in religion classes in college). I may modify it a bit more later, it still doesn't seem quite right to me.Rt66lt 18:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- I tried to clarify it & touch it up a bit. KHM03 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The editions of the New Oxford Annotated Bible have generated enormous controversy throughout their publishing history-- especially the third (2000) edition, and this fact should be included in the wiki article. As these controversies are common knowledge for users of the NOAB, their exclusion from the wiki article feels like either a gross oversight or censorship. Web-based documentation on them is numerous and freely obtainable. —October 2013.
Myself, I am not sure I can follow the fifth paragraph so was unable to add clearer language. Another editor should consider putting their hand to it. -Acjelen 21:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
"This may not be your grandmother's Bible, but it is one that should be read by every student of the Bible interested in reconciling faith and reason". This either needs a citation of someone else saying it, or should probably be deleted Poolshark2468 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Does the (extremely long) quotation need to be in the article? It seems to clutter up the article, and an article, I would argue, is not a place to put this many quotations, especially to simply show its scholarship.
File:NOAB3-Nrsvcover.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
An image used in this article, File:NOAB3-Nrsvcover.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 3 December 2011
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.