Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Bible (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


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

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[edit]


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)


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[edit]


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[edit]

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

Popular pages tool update[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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 in some work, I can check to see if I can ind any elsewhere. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC) 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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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


  • 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[edit]

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[edit]

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'sup, dog? 05:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


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 at the bottom of the section. Tkuvho (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Etiological narratives -- any unifying article?[edit]

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![edit]

WikiProject X icon.svg

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[edit]

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 (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?[edit]

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[edit]

All sources







Bibleref/bibleverse templates[edit]

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[edit]

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

Serpent (Bible) listed at Requested moves[edit]


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[edit]

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[edit]

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, (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Bible quote template[edit]

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[edit]

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. I would also request that the Gender-neutral Bible page be added to the WikiProject Bible list.

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: . 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)

Light in Genesis 1:3[edit]

As an electronics systems design engineer, my own understanding of the "light" in Genesis 1:3 is as follows:

1. Light is just one part of the entire electromagnetic spectrum, and when light was created then so were all the other forms- radio waves, heat, x-rays, cosmic rays, etc. [Wikipedia article on Electromagnetic Spectrum]

2. Albert Einstein discovered that Energy and Matter are related by the square of the speed of light (E=Mc^2). [Wikipedia article on Mass Energy Equivalence] Thus, light had to be created before any matter or energy could be created.

Jkaness (talk) 15:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That's fine, but views vary. Much depends on how literally one takes the Bible passage. Most Christians are not as scientifically literal as in your comment, and tend to be content with an interpretation that God did indeed create the universe without giving literal details (including scientific ones) as to how He created it. That approach looks more for the spiritual meaning and implications of God's creative act than for understanding the physical mechanisms. Evensteven (talk) 04:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Bible verse finder links, on Merkabah mysticism[edit]

I and using Chromium and the links using the bible verse finder only show a list of numbers, on the Merkabah mysticism article. For example, the link [4]

The same result happens if I go directly to the bibleversefinder tool and make a search, with source set to '!All sources'. However, selecting a single source works okay..

Are other people experiencing this problem?

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement![edit]

Today's Article For Improvement star.svg

Please note that Parable, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning Monday 03 August 2015. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by North America1000 23:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Identify an apocrypha gospel quote[edit]

Here is a fictionilized book with a quote supposedly, maybe, from the Gospel of Nicodemus. [5] In a search over the online versions of the gospel, I can't really find it. Do you think it's a genuine ancient quote anyway? If so, where might it come from? trespassers william (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@trespassers william: I think a bigger problem is the name "The Secret Apocrypha of Nicodemus" is not a name by which I've seen the Gospel of Nicodemus referred anywhere. It would be a pretty lousy description of the gospel in question, not least because it was never either secret or hidden. The plural "Apocrypha" is also curious. I'm inclined to think that either it's referring to a different (collection of?) text(s?), or it's just made up. Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Minuscule 205[edit]

Page found here:

1. It is noted that 205 was written by John Rhosus: "The manuscript was written by John Rhosus to Cardinal Bessarion († 1472), together with the codices 354 and 357." Does this imply that John Rhosus was the scribe for 205 and 354 and 357? I am confused because 354 and 357 are dated to the 11th century whereas 205 is dated to the 15th. I'm pretty sure John Rhosus lived in the 15th so he couldn't have written something in the 11th. Am I seeing this wrong? Do you have a source for the fact that Rhosus also wrote 354 and 357? Or does the above quote mean that they are kept together in some type of collection at the Marciana in Venice?

2. It is written: "It is currently housed at the Biblioteca Marciana (Gr. Z 6), at Venice,[2] together with the 205abs, which is evidently a copy of 205.[4]" A) (It may be better to refer to 205abs as 2886 since text critics are moving away from Xabs numbers in preference for a dedicated number for each witness.) B) While the history of scholarship has accepted 205abs is a copy of 205 (hence its name), a recent publication has argued that 205 actually copies 205abs.[1][2]

Alan Taylor Farnes (talk) 18:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ Alison Welsby, A Textual Study of Family 1 in the Gospel of John (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), 51n21, 80-85
  2. ^ Alison Sarah Welsby, "A Textual Study of Family 1 in the Gospel of John," (PhD Dissertation, University of Birmingham, 2011), 75n126, 120-27.

Infobox Template[edit]

Hello! I was wondering how the infobox template was decided on for certain articles. More specifically, I have noticed that many biblical figures do not have infoboxes. For example, I was going to add an infobox to Job but was not sure which template to use. I see that the saint template is used in Jonah. However, at least in my experience, I usually hear Jonah referred to as simply a Bible character and not necessarily a saint. I was curious to know if there are specific guidelines for infoboxes in biblical figures' articles. Thanks! Rimmel.Edits Talk 16:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Epistle to the Romans articles[edit]

There is a redirect discussion going on regarding two redirects to Epistle to the Romans articles, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 7#Romans 1:27. I've noticed that the epistle has both its own article Epistle to the Romans as well as separate articles for each of its chapters (Romans 1, Romans 2, and so on) as well as Template:Epistle to the Romans, but they don't seem to be well integrated. The main Epistle article doesn't incorporate or link to any of the chapter articles, for example, and although there is analysis of the letter's contents in the main article, there is very little in the chapters. Does this need to be improved? Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion[edit]

There is currently a discussion for possible deletion: Seventh-day Adventist historicist interpretations of Bible prophecy. Here is the link for the current discussion: Articles_for_deletion/Seventh-day_Adventist_historicist_interpretations_of_Bible_prophecyJudeccaXIII (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed move: Genesis creation narrative-->Genesis creation myth[edit]

For those who are interested, there is a proposal to move Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth. See Talk:Genesis_creation_narrative#Requested_move_22_January_2016. First Light (talk) 15:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Heavenly host

Heavenly host (Hebrew: צבאות‎ sabaoth, "armies") may refer to the army of Canaanite gods in the original, polytheistic religion of Canaan, Israel, and Judea or an army (Luke 2:13) of angels in the monotheistic Jewish religion that developed in the post-exilic period.

Heavenly host

Heavenly host (Hebrew: צבאות‎ sabaoth, "armies") can refer to angelic armies [1] or symbolically to the celestial bodies of the universe [2].

[Comments: That the original religion of "Israel" and "Judea" was polytheistic is an inaccurate formulation and an inaccurate statement. "Canaan" is a geographical location. "Israel" refers to the descendants of Jacob. "Judea" refers to a later geographical location. That monotheistic Jewish religion did not develop until the post-exilic period is contrary to overwhelming evidence.] (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ 1 Kings 22:15-28; Luke 2:13
  2. ^ Genesis 2:1; Deuteronomy 4:19

Proposal of a WikiProject Translation studies[edit]

Good evening to everyone. I have just proposed the creation of a WikiProject Translation studies. Bible translation has long been a subfield of translation with paramount importance, so I think it would be interesting to consider the proposal. If you are interested, please, sign here. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 02:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Looking for a project[edit]

Hey, I was wondering if anyone could help me find a list of articles that are currently of a very low standard but that are "important" enough that a lot of reliable sources I already have access to (the Jewish Study Bible, the Bart Ehrman bibliography -- including the scholarly ones and ones for undergraduate students -- and the like) probably cover in enough to detail for me to write about them. I checked the list of Start- and C-class articles, but most of them seem to be on obscure minutiae that I could research, but...

Given the amount of dubously sourced material I've seen in prominent places like our Peter article('s lead!), I was wondering if anyone could tell me if we keep some kind of list of problem articles on prominent topics?

Or, better yet, some list of things that need to be done, or disputes that could use more input?

Hijiri 88 (やや) 10:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Of Psalm articles, only one (Psalm 23) is B-class, two (Psalm 1, Psalm 45) are C-class, and the rest are Start, or worse. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: I once tried to come up with a standard format for Psalm articles: sandbox. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 08:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Well, yeah, but combined with what you said in the section below the standard format requires quoting out-of-date and potentially problematic translations... Hijiri 88 (やや) 09:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not very knowledgeable in the topic, but KJV comes up often enough. It's also one of the most popular Bible editions even today. I note that WikiProject Bible has no guideline whatsoever on what is the preferred edition to use for quotations. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 10:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
The KJV is "one of the worst study bibles [even if it is] a great classic of English literature" (Ehrman) and "too old" and "contains too many errors" to be allowed for use in a university course on the NT (Martin). That's a Yale professor and the guy who wrote the most widely-used undergrad NT studies textbook in North America. Another Yale professor (Christine Hayes -- more relevant to the current discussion because she is a specialist in the Hebrew Bible) dislikes using even the RSV because the JPS translations are "more accurate". I myself am not a specialist, so I don't know as yet where these problems are most concentrated, or even if the problem is relevant to Psalms at all, but I don't think we should be relying on problematic translations just because they are great classics of English literature or are popular among some Protestant groups (though certainly not Jewish or Roman Catholic groups). Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Everything you say is perfectly reasonable. Which makes what I said above all the more astounding: "WikiProject Bible has no guideline whatsoever on what is the preferred edition". Personally I associate psalms with KJV based on Anglican chant of psalms. Since this is a woefully specific association, I wish there was a guideline to turn to for an unbiased position, but this project has none. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not so much concerned with whether a translation has sectarian associations. They all do, and the one I would prefer to use is very explicitly Jewish. My defense is that I am not and never have been Jewish myself, but I have heard from reliable sources (16:14~16:30) that this is a more accurate translation than the one I grew up with (Douay-Rheims) and the one virtually everyone else in the English-speaking world grew up with (KJV). To be fair, the instance I just linked is the one time in the course where Hayes quotes from the RSV, because it will be more familiar to her (American? Christian?) students than "the more accurate translations of the Jewish Publication Society". (Note that even though the lecture was given with the intention of distributing it for free on YouTube, no concern seems to have been had for the copyright status of individual psalms in a modern translation.) Frankly I find it quite bizarre that the Bible WikiProject explicitly allows use of old, inaccurate translations. I can understand that explicitly requiring or banning the use of one translation or another has the potential to be abused by editors with sectarian views, but this also means that every time we want to remove a quotation from a problematically translated portion of, say, the KJV, we need either 100% talk page agreement or a source that specifically says that material was inaccurately translated, even though we have dozens of sources that say the KJV is not reliable if we want to know what the original text said in general. I think a reader of our article on this psalm or that wants to know what the top scholars are saying about what was meant by the Hebrew original, as well as how it has traditionally been interpreted in Anglican Communion and some other English-speaking Protestant denominations. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
In lieu of a better standard "the one virtually everyone ... in the English-speaking world grew up with (KJV)" sounds like a relevant one. If points are made on other meanings of the text, other translations can be used. The same goes for commenting possible translation errors. But for the purpose of generally introducing and identifying a text, the most identifiable should be used. As already covered in the discussion below, KJV has the additional benefit of eliminating any copyright concerns. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 09:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
The best thing I can think of is to consult the various extant print or now e-book versions of the better reference works, like the Anchor Bible Dictionary, Eerdman's Dictionary, etc., and see what topics they cover, either as stand-alone articles or as separately named subarticles, at basically "significant" length, which I think tends to be 1/2 or 3 paragraphs or longer. The list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Prospectus lists a few works, and there are others I am working on for inclusion there. The ABD unfortunately is going to be a huge one, just with the articles of 2 or more pages and their subarticles, which is all I've done to date, and that only through the first four volumes. But, in general, the longer the article in one of those sources, the more significant it is, regardless of the importance ranking we might have given here. Personally, I would include every article in one of the shorter encyclopedias on the topic as being of "Top" importance, based on their being included as articles in relevant print sources, but that is of course just my opinion. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

For articles on short passages like Psalms, which translation do we quote?[edit]

I think I brought this up before, but for articles like Psalm 12 where we quote the entire text, is there a reason we quote the KJV? Is it because of copyright concerns that we don't quote more modern translations like NRSV or the JSB?

I brought the copyright concern up in my Japanese poetry editing days and was ignored, so I still don't know whether it's okay to quote entire translations of short poems whose original texts are not copyrighted but whose English translations are...

Hijiri 88 (やや) 22:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

More to the point, is there any reason to quote the entire psalm? Wikipedia is not a repository of source material. StAnselm (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
If it's only a few verses long and it's far outweighed by encyclopedic coverage, I don't see the problem. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:40, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
To elaborate, in theory I see these articles as similar to the work I did on the Ariwara no Narihira article, where encyclopedic discussion was the focus but we can't realistically do that without quoting the text. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@Hijiri88: It's not okay to quote an entire translation of a short poem whose translation is copyrighted, contingent on the fact that it's long enough to constitute a work in the copyright sense. Even the shortest of the psalms is certainly a work. In contrast, if there was a "poem" that consisted of only four words, it wouldn't count as a work. All psalms, of course, are longer than that.
@StAnselm: I agree with Hijiri 88; quoting the entire text of a short text makes encyclopedic sense. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 08:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC) (modified by 15:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC))
But in the example given (Psalm 12), it's certainly not "outweighed by encyclopedic coverage". StAnselm (talk) 09:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
@StAnselm: But if it were on any subject other than a biblical psalm it might have been speedied as a poorly-written stub that didn't clearly establish notability. It will contain an overwhelming amount of encyclopedic coverage some day, hopefully sooner rather than later.
@Finnusertop: What do you mean by a "poem" of four words? All of the poems quoted in the above article are complete works regularly treated as such in the literature, but the translations were given as part of a literary and historical analysis in a much larger work. And surely fair use comes into play if we are selectively quoting a portion of text in an article on that text. (I don't actually know. It's just a guess.)
Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Rephrased. On fair use and quotations, see: WP:NFC#Text and WP:NFCC#Policy (the paragraph before the criteria). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 15:06, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
See, I would think that individual psalms from modern translations already are "brief quotations of copyrighted text". The New Jewish Publication Society of America Tanakh has as far as I know never been marketed as anything other than the New Jewish Publication Society of America Tanakh, and was translated by a single committee; individual psalms make up only a tiny portion of this copyrighted text, and they were not translated by entities other than the same committee that translated the entire text. Therefore, while from a textual-critical point of view the psalms are separate texts that were later incorporated into the bible, for copyright purposes I don't think each of them counts as an entire text that cannot be used under fair use. But I don't think we can form a consensus on that point here, unless we all happened to agree and didn't tell anyone. Should I take this point to WP:CQ? Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I think individual psalms constitute works. The Bible is compendium work that holds many individual works. You can ask at WP:CQ, but it's not a terribly active or expert forum (we mostly get "can I use this image I found on a random blog?" type of questions). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 23:42, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
But we are not talking about whether the Bible is a compendium work, or even whether the New Jewish Publication Society of America Tanakh or the original Hebrew Book of Psalms are compendium works. We are talking about whether recent translations of individual psalms, which the translators have never put into publication outside the context of a translation of the entire Bible, count as unique copyrighted works, and then, if the answer is "yes", whether we are not allowed to quote them in their entirety on Wikipedia under fair use. I think a fair test is to see if reliable sources such as universities have distributed, free of charge, material in which these translations are quoted in their entirety and the copyright owners are not thanked for granting permission to do so. Christine Hayes' Introduction to the Old Testament is (or was at some point) the most widely viewed of all of Yale's free online lecture series, so I think if there were serious copyright concerns with one of the videos we could quite easily find out about it. (With Psalms, she quotes the also non-free RSV, but the point works the same.) Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I would vociferously oppose use of modern copyrighted translations. The Bible has plenty of time-honored public domain translations that can be used if we should decide to include psalms verbatim. However, it has been claimed on Talk:Psalms#Psalm texts and Talk:Psalm 23#Drop text that there was consensus (six years ago) to drop the full-text from all articles on individual psalms (e.g. Psalm 23 did not have the text for a long time. Then someone added a horrible and unattributed translation. In my attempt to remove it, I was met with resistance and an alleged consensus against removing it.) So we need to hammer this out. Is there consensus to include or exclude Psalm texts from the individual articles, and if there is not consensus to exclude, which public domain translations will we be using? Elizium23 (talk) 02:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


(non-admin closure)

This intricate RfC spans three separate questions: (1) whether full-text of psalms should be included, (2) whether a specific translation should be used when an inclusion is made, and (3) how to deal in the articles with differences among translations. Notice that even if (1) is conclusively answered by a negative, (2) remains a valid question.

TL;DR: (1) no consensus, (2) no consensus leaning towards "no", (3) follow the sources. Separate copyright and content issues before relisting.

Starting with the easy part: there is consensus on (3) that when significant differences in translation exist that are discussed by RS, the article should mention them including citations of the differing parts. In the hypothetical case where significant differences exist but are not addressed by reliable sources, it basically depends on (2).

There is no consensus on (1) (whether the full-text should be, on a matter of principle, included in an article). Unfortunately, this conflates two questions. One is whether it is editorially desirable to include full-text by default; the other is about copyright issues (whether inclusion of full-text is considered fair use or deemed otherwise acceptable). The latter is not a good topic for an RfC, because lawmakers' and courts' opinions are what matters and Wikipedia consensus is irrelevant. I would recommend to ask advice at a suitable venue such as WT:Copyright problems. Since the bulk of the comments on that part of the RfC have targeted the copyright issue, I recommend to reopen a discussion on the editorial part of the question, something like should psalm articles include the full-text when a technically satisfying version is available (free or fair use, reasonably short, no big translation disputes).

On (2), there is a majority, but not consensus, against using a particular translation on a default basis. However, this also conflates multiple questions. Besides the copyright status, I see comments to the effect that any WP binding decision referring to a particular version (no matter which) could constitute endorsement of that version in readers' eyes, which nobody wants I guess; but there was little discussion on that point.

I personally think (2) is not just about psalms, and it seems the only real candidate for "Wikipedia's default version" would be the KJV, so I recommend to open another RfC which names the KJV but extended to the whole Bible (or maybe only the Old Testament?).

I do realize that (assuming this RfC was not a coatrack about psalm 23) some people want some kind of manual of style for psalm entries and closing the bulk of this RfC as no consensus means another round of wikibureaucracy before it will be achieved. I would even imagine that most editors in that area do not even care a lot about what the rules are as long as they are clear. However, consensus cannot be imagined where there is none (if another uninvolved editor sees it, please do overturn my close), and I would argue that multiple small RfCs stand a better chance to attract comments and generate policy than an enormous one. TigraanClick here to contact me 12:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the full text of Psalms be included or excluded on the articles about individual psalms? If they should be included, then what translations are acceptable, and how shall we prevent edit wars over the translation to be used? Elizium23 (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

  • The text should be quoted in its entirety, since encyclopedic commentary does not make sense without access to the text itself, and the NOTREPOSITORY argument does not make sense because the texts are so short compared to the amount of encyclopedic content that can and should be added to the articles. As for which translation, I would favour modern, scholarly translations rather than old ones that are known to be inaccurate and to contain errors. The COPYVIO argument again doesn't make sense, since these texts are quoted in their entirety under fair use rationales all the time, and if there is anywhere that quoting the JPS translation of Psalm 22 in its entirety can be called fair use it is an encyclopedia article on Psalm 22. Edit wars can be prevented the way they are prevented everywhere else on Wikipedia: page protection, blocks, BRD, etc... Furthermore, the result of this RFC should be archived in such a way that it can be cited as precedent to avoid edit wars. I was frankly quite shocked a few moments ago when I checked and found there is no WP:MOSBIBLE. Hijiri 88 (やや) 05:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, so my NABRE contains 106 pages of Psalms, out of 1937 pages of Scripture. You're suggesting that we potentially quote 5.5% of a copyrighted work, verbatim here, and we can claim "Fair Use" because why? Please see WP:NFCC. Your suggestion fails #1 and #3 flagrantly. Elizium23 (talk) 05:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
@Elizium23: tehcnically the NFCC do not apply to text: "Articles ... may, in accordance with the guideline, use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media [...] Other non-free content ... may be used ... only where all 10 of the [non-free content] criteria are met." That being said, the considerations on replaceability and minimality found elsewhere in the guideline that do apply are largely identical. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Please stick to the topic of the RFC. Reproducing copyrighted works is not on the table at this point. Your attempt to introduce it is only muddying the waters. Elizium23 (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
You commented on copyright immediately above, and in fact the dispute that brought on this RFC is all about copyright. If the RFC wording was wrong, that is not my fault. Anyway, poetry tends to take up significantly more page space per word than prose, so of course your bible devotes a disproportionate number of pages to Psalms: it is not 5.5% of the text. And given how many scholars write about these psalms, some of them giving their own translations, I would say the number of verifiable, scholarly, reliable, accurate and recent (last fifty years) translations of at least one psalm is probably close to 151. No one said we should take all of our quotations from the same book, but my fair use rationale would stand either way. If you don't think this RFC should address the copyright concern, would you be opposed to collapsing your responses to me and my response thereto? "Slightly off-topic CO discussion" seems like a pretty neutral collapse title. Hijiri 88 (やや) 06:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
  • The full text of the psalms should be included, provided that they are short. The preferred translation for the purposes of introducing the text to the reader should be the King James Version, the most popular Bible translation in English. If discussion is done on meanings that are found in other translations, then those translations may be quoted for that purpose, but not in full. For example, if a scholarly source makes an important observation based on another translation and the difference is significant, that translation may be quoted to support writing on the observation. Edit wars shall be prevented by citing this RFC as a community-wide consensus on the matter. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 12:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
I ... actually don't have any problem at all with the above proposal. I have access to two modern scholarly translations (and I assume everyone else editing in this area has similar) that can be used to check if the KJV translation differs significantly from modern critical texts. Where it does (presumably not more than maybe 20-30% of the psalms) the quotations can be switched out, preferably with some research done into why the translations are different. However, I would like it put into writing that we cannot just say "this comes from the KJV". Virtually none of the native English-speaking Christians, and non-Christian interested parties, especially Jews with whom these texts originate, reading and editing Wikipedia in, say, Ireland, are as familiar with the KJV as most American and English Anglicans and mainstream Protestants apparently think all English-speakers are. Material quoted from the KJV should have proper citation standards (full bibliographical information) like everything else in Wikipedia, and modern scholarly, annotated editions of the KJV should be preferred. Hijiri 88 (やや) 00:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Although now that I think about it, saying "the default should be the KJV unless a Wikipedia editor discovers a difference in translation with modern versions, and in those cases the quotation should be switched out" seems like a recipe for disaster. If it seems there is some problem using the KJV, the section should be tagged and a talk page discussion opened with a clear rationale presented, and if after one week there is no controversy, then the quotation should be switched out. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment/QuestionAre we talking about having an independent article on every single psalm? As for the question on translations, I agree with Finn that the KJV should be used unless there is a scholarly publication that makes an important statement about another translation. I'm not convinced that we need an article for every psalm.--Adam in MO Talk 02:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adamfinmo: We already have. I don't think this is a problem and it's not what the RfC is about. In all likelihood they all meet WP:GNG. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 11:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't include Summoned by bot. Should not be included, per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. To quote for those unfamiliar, "Public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording. Complete copies of primary sources may go into Wikisource, but not on Wikipedia." Additionally, using a translation is even less helpful, since it verbatim promotes a certain translation as superior to other ones, which is a form of original research. For example, the King James Version is no more inherently accurate than other sources, including Jewish sources. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
FuriouslySerene - I think you've misread the RFC. It is asking if the special psalms which are already wiki articles should include the text of that psalm. (e.g. Psalm 1, Psalm 23, Psalm 24, Psalm 46, etcetera.) Markbassett (talk) 00:48, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
@Markbassett: How did I misread the RFC? FuriouslySerene (talk) 13:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
FuriouslySerene - you've cited that entire books should not be included, but the RFC was not asking about including the entire book of Psalms, the ~30 pages of ~150 chapters of ~7 sentences each. The RFC is first asking if articles on particular psalms should include the text of that article's psalm. (For example, article Psalm 23 does include it's 6 lines , article Psalm 91 does not include it's 16 lines, article on Psalm 133 does not include 3 lines, article Psalm 150 does include it's 6 lines.) The RFC then goes on to ask which translation to use, and websites such as show there are lots of those. My response below was 'it depends', suggesting just follow the cites and do it if they do. Markbassett (talk) 15:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
If you keep reading from that quote you'll see it doesn't only include entire books: "...such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material" (emphasis added). I'm aware there's a difference between the book of Psalms and individual psalms and was not referring to including the entire book. FuriouslySerene (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral/Question I don't think the text of the Psalm should be included unless it's actually relevant to the article's body text. For really short Psalms, this may not be a problem, but since there are sometimes numbering differences, how would you reconcile this in those articles...? Quoting via Hebrew numbering probably introduces some Protestant/Judaism bias.
  • Include if cites do - I think the inclusion or not should reflect whether the content is given by the cites, not as an independent principle. I think in general any Psalm article would/should have external links include a pointer to bible site or usccb or something so that other info about and including the text is available. Markbassett (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:ENCYCLOPEDIA, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its articles should include material based on what other encyclopedia articles on the same topics do, not based on whether third-party reliable sources in general do. Our "cites" can in theory be from any reliable sources that even mention the topic, and of course the majority of those don't quote the whole psalm. I personally don't like how GNG addresses this issue, as the majority of print encyclopedias do not have independent articles on individual psalms, and so we don't really have a model for this. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Oppose inclusion of full text of psalms as a regular feature of articles. The clear and obvious problem is of course the fact of different translations. Not being an expert on all the psalms, I have to assume that there are at least a few significant variations in modern translations, which would make choosing any full translation including that contended text problematic. Having said that, there is a page at wikisource:Psalms (Bible) which contains some of the variant public domain translations of the Psalms, and it seems to me not unreasonable to include direct links to the specific version of a given psalm there, or elsewhere on the net, if that is deemed appropriate. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment some of these occupy a similar 'literary' standing to WS's Sonnets, especially the KJ versions. We should bear that in mind in addition to any other considerations. Pincrete (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • There is of course a difference between Shakespeare's sonnets, which were written in English, and the KJV, which is one of a number of translations which have been found to have some degree of literary quality, including for example the more recent Knox Bible. We should also take that into account. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Neutral Do we need a ruling on this? When a Psalm is both brief and generally regarded as of outstanding literary merit (Psalm 23 being the obvious example), it would be counter-productive to NOT include the full text, especially the best-known version (Authorised KJ version). In certain cases, the various versions may be at the heart of disagreement about meaning, which would necessarily involve at least quoting from the distinct versions. I do not see the need for a general ruling about which version WP 'endorses' by inclusion.Pincrete (talk) 23:15, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
  • First, I have to question whether the KJV is the best known version. I think it may well be true that the English language Catholic, Orthodox, and some others might not use it, and they may well be a bigger percentage of the English language population than those who do use it. Also, there may well be one or more cases where the KJV might well be found to contain inaccuracies corrected by subsequent editions, and, if that is the case, then I think it would be counterproductive to use a translation which may have subsequently been found to be inaccurate or outdated. Having said that, I think it might make sense to include particular lines or sections of Psalms when the encyclopedic content relates specifically to the specific words therein, perhaps on a line by line basis. But, otherwise, I can't see any particular reason not to use and possible link to wikisource or some other online editions in those circumstances where the encyclopedic content does not directly relate to the specific wording of a given translation.
  • Second, has anyone checked to see how other print and online encyclopedias deal with such matters? Knowing specifically how they deal with such matters would be I think particularly useful. John Carter (talk) 19:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Regarding the last made point above by Pincrete, about "endorsement" of text, I think any reasonable person would say that if we were to include one and only one translation in the text of the article, virtually anyone coming to the encyclopedia here as a reader, not a writer, would assume that that single translation is either the one about which the article is written, which would be a form of tacit endorsement, or the "standard" version, and there has been no demonstration to date that the now very old KJV is the "standard" version. Now, if there were a qualifier to the text added, "This text is included, but there is no assertion that it is necessarily accurate," there is a reasonable question which would occur to readers why it is included if it is not thought to be accurate.
  • Lastly, I get the impression that this RfC might be, basically, about Psalm 23 in particular, and the KJV version of that. If that assumption is even remotely accurate, then it would be more reasonable to start an RfC at Talk:Psalm 23 about inclusion of it there, and notify the Bible, Christianity, and Judaism WikiProjects about that RfC. It might also be relevant to notify the Poetry and Literature WikiProjects, for any input they might have regarding how similar matters may have been dealt with elsewhere.
  • P. P. S. I really hate, hate, hate, to say this, but it might reasonably be the case that in at least some cases an article like Psalm 23 can include material on specific translations or early variant texts, presumably in English or otherwise, which have themselves achieved some particular notability as distinct items, rather than simply as a version of an original text. In some cases, I suppose, although I hate to say this, it might even be the case that a specific translation or variant text of some Biblical quotation or verse or whatever might be notable enough for a separate article and possibly enough reasonable encyclopedic material to really merit a separate article. I very much doubt that is the case often, however. But it might not be unreasonable to try to develop such content in the appropriate article first, and then see if a spinout is reasonable and indicated. John Carter (talk) 15:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
John Carter, apologies if I was not clear, I meant that we should NOT have a ruling as to which version, as this would be a tacit endorsement in the way that you say. I also think that I (and poss others) are using the term KJV, when we actually mean 'what I grew up with', which was probably one of the corrected, spelling-updated reprints of the KJV. Non-specialists (inc. me), tend to use the term loosely. Pincrete (talk) 08:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC) .... John Carter
Your list of 'I hate, to say this's' all sound like extremely interesting suggestions and exactly what WP should be doing. Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
It could potentially be very useful, with the major significant problem I can see being the sheer number of Bibles out there, and the number of groups, past and present, out there which may have very specific and sometimes unique opinions regarding certain passages and the implications of same. The List of English Bible translations is long enough, unfortunately, that the number of variant translations with their implications could be huge. Variations in translated originals could be even bigger. Finding sources for such material, and determining how much weight to give it in the articles on Biblical sections as opposed to articles on the groups or their beliefs, or maybe the individual translations themselves, might well be the biggest hurdle. If anyone knew of any sources which specifically deal with such matters of course I would love to see them. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible Parallel Bible Project[edit]

I have myself a recent edition of the NT which includes six different, copyrighted, versions of the NT in it. I have seen it said here elsewhere that many of the existing copyrights aren't for the purposes of making money, but to prevent misuse of the copyrighted material. In fact, I have reason to believe many of the copyright holders are more than willing to allow use under reasonable circumstances.

It might be possible to somehow get together at least as a starting point several of the out of copyright editions and/or paraphrases on, say, wikisource, preperatory to creating, maybe on wikibooks, a possibly collapsible multi-column parallel Bible for all the PD Bible versions. An individual reader could, presumably, choose which columns to not collapse for parallel study purposes. If the WMF might be interested in maybe creating or helping develop some other site which might include copyrighted material which the foundation is allowed to reproduce, that might be capable of hosting the more current copyrighted ones.

Such a similar arrangement might also be workable for other language editions, and, maybe, depending on whether the texts of ancient manuscripts recently discovered is potentially copyrighted by others, the original texts of some of the older manuscripts on which translations are based. Anyway, any opinions? John Carter (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

For purposes of clarification, I guess I should say that a "parallel" Bible like that I indicated above is one that includes multiple versions of the Bible in one book, with each version being printed in one column of the book in parallel to the others. We do have a page at wikisource:Wikisource:WikiProject Bible indicating all the English versions known of and potentially available for such an effort. If anyone wanted to go through the list there, and make sure that any works listed as available at Internet Archive or elsewhere are maybe available at wikimedia commons, that might help a lot. It might help even more if someone were able to figure out how to create the appropriate "Index" pages at wikisource, something I still have some trouble with, to make completion of the works easier there. I may well prove to be very generous in barnstars for anyone who might do so. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Lord's Prayer[edit]

There's a dispute at Talk:Lord's Prayer about a specific Greek word and its appropriate translation(s). Some additional community input could help. Huon (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


Would someone please look at the latest edits on Lord's Prayer and at the discussion at Talk:Lord's Prayer#"Daily". There is nothing more I can do. Theodoxa (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I see now, too late, that Huon, to whom I am grateful, has already drawn attention to the problem. Theodoxa (talk) 20:54, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The problem persists, also on Matthew 6:11. I hope that in Talk:Matthew 6:11 SimonP has better success than I had. Theodoxa (talk) 19:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Several hundred people have looked at the edits and found them to have merit. That may be because they know what 'original research' (which is the pox that Theodoxa is trying without success to create here, without stating as much) really is. I've used only secondary sources in the good number of cites provided. There is no reasonable correspondence between epiousios and daily...and that is just a fact...but nonetheless I have referenced it time and again, and without disrespect, as being part of tradition. And while SimonP has been drawn in, he states clearly and consistently that he does not have a mastery of the topic. Perhaps much like Theodoxa, he is operating mainly on emotion, which is not a basis for editing. Seek the Truth. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:85D7:3570:8067:DC2F (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

- - -

To conclude this particular topic, Theodoxa was found to be a blocked editor that was employing a sockpuppet to edit Wikipedia. He/she is now indefinitely blocked (again). For clarity's sake, I absolutely take no particular joy from this turn of events, but at the same time I didn't want to leave this topic just hanging. For anyone interested, SimonP's edits to Epiousios, while wildly uninformed and badly constructed in every way (grammatically, syntax, spelling, punctuation, use of vague references, pushing POV, etc.), were backed up by a vandal-seeking robot. This subsequently resulted in a great deal of re-work which has a very dubious outcome in terms of merit. While Wikipedia seems to have gotten this whole vandal thing down, it doesn't really have a recourse for preventing bad editors who are not subject-matter experts but nonetheless cause a great deal of work for other editors. All-in-all...a tremendous waste of time, and entirely Wikipedia's fault for not stopping such nonsense at the outset. --2602:306:BC24:8C00:7C9E:3940:E204:4980 (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Seeking input on possible page move proposal[edit]

See Talk:Antisemitism and the New Testament#Move to Antisemitism in early Christian literature?. Hijiri 88 (やや) 07:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Saint Peter[edit]

There is an edit warrior active on Saint Peter. Please keep an eye on his changes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible (possible source)[edit]

The ANE list received this from Russell Gmirkin

Routledge Press (New York–London) has now officially released my new book for publication, Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible, as part of the Copenhagen International Seminar series. Its abstract reads as follows:

Plato and the Creation of the Hebrew Bible compares the ancient law collections of the Ancient Near East, the Greeks and the Pentateuch to determine the legal antecedents for the biblical laws. Constitutional features in biblical law are shown to contain striking agreement with those found at Athens and described in Plato’s Laws of ca. 350 BCE. Similarly, biblical statutes contain many striking parallels with Athenian laws, and specifically with those found in Plato’s Laws. The literary structure and legal force of biblical law collections are also shown to correspond closely with Greek rather than Ancient Near Eastern law collections. The Pentateuchal presentation of legal content within a narrative context is also found in a variety of Greek literary forms, especially Greek foundation stories, which closely conform in outline to the biblical story of the exodus, wilderness wanderings, and conquest of the Promised land under Moses and Joshua. The legal and narrative content of the Pentateuch thus reflect substantial Greek influences, especially from Plato’s Laws. Finally, this book argues that the creation of the Hebrew Bible took place according to the program for creating a national ethical literature found in Plato's Laws, reinforcing the importance of this specific text to the authors of the Torah and Hebrew Bible in the early Hellenistic Era.

Although the book concludes that the Hebrew Bible is largely a product of Greek legal and literary influences in the early Hellenistic Era, readers on this list may find much of interest that is relevant to Ancient Near Eastern studies, highlighted below.

Chapter 1 (Introduction) argues that, since the first external evidence for the Hebrew Bible appears in the Hellenistic Era, it is appropriate to take both Greek and Ancient Near Eastern laws fully into account in seeking to identify the antecedents for biblical legal materials.

Although Chapter 2 (Athenian and Pentateuchal Legal Institutions) is primarily concerned with extensive parallels between Greek constitutions and Pentateuchal governmental institutions and other sometimes explicitly constitutional content, it has an important discussion on the complete absence of the genre of constitutional law in the Ancient Near East down to the end of the Persian Era.

Chapter 3 (Biblical, Ancient Near Eastern and Greek Laws) contains the first systematic comparison of biblical, Greek and Ancient Near Eastern laws, including laws on homicide, assault, theft, marriage, inheritance, sexual offenses, slavery, economic relief, livestock, property crimes, commerce, the military, magic, treason, religion, and ethics. While a few Pentateuchal laws derive from Old Babylonian and Assyrian collections, many have striking parallels with Greek and Athenian laws, and especially with Plato’s Laws.

Chapter 4 (Greek and Ancient Near Eastern Law Collections) compares Ancient Near Eastern, Greek and biblical law collections as literary forms. It is shown that the biblical law collections correspond to Greek law collections rather than either Ancient Near Eastern law collections or the Vassal Treaty of Esarhaddon with respect to sources, purpose, framing structure, divine promulgation, public recitation, ratification, educational utility and prescriptive force.

Chapter 5 (Greek and Biblical Legal Narratives) discusses the integration of legal content with narrative found in both the Pentateuch and Greek writings, but not in the Ancient Near East.

Chapter 6 (The Creation of the Hebrew Bible) argues that the closest comparison to the Hebrew Bible is the approved ethical national literature proposed in Plato’s Laws of ca. 350 bce, and that both the Torah and the earliest Hebrew Bible were created in ca. 270 bce in accordance with the literary program laid out in Plato’s Laws. The model of literary production by educated elites under governmental sponsorship, direction and authorization as found in Plato’s Laws contrasts with the usual Ancient Near Eastern model of the organic growth of the Hebrew Bible in palace, temple and hypothetical prophetic scribal circles. The upshot is that the Torah and Hebrew Bible are substantially Greek in their conception and major literary influences, a conclusion that is likely to impact Ancient Near Eastern studies in the future vis a vis the biblical text.

A separate abstract for each chapter may be found at, and Chapter 1 may be found either online on the Routledge site or downloadable (with permission from Routledge) at my page on

Doug Weller talk 16:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


Hello! I looked at this article today, and the lead had changed considerably since I last saw it, so I changed it back to an earlier version [6]. The lead stated a lot of things it shouldn´t in WP:s voice, and in my opinion articles like these should generally have leads more like David. If there is someone who knows the subject better than I do (wouldn´t take much), please check the article and see what you think. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings WikiProject Bible Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 17:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


A change to Template:Bibleverse is being proposed. Please comment at Template talk:Bibleverse#Replacing the tool with a Lua module. --JFH (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

RM notice[edit]

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:General epistles#Requested move 24 December 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, JudgeRM (talk to me) 20:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Question and Article Assessments, Battle of Siddim[edit]

On the main page for WikiProject Bible [7], there's a chart of "Article Assessments," which I've been using in order to find articles that need work. Recently, I started working on some stubs, specifically stub articles of "mid" importance. When I click on the relevant part of the chart, I go to this page [8], which contains a list of mid-class importance articles that are (allegedly) stubs. However, "Battle of Siddim," a large article, is still listed as a stub. Am I misunderstanding something here, or is it wrongly on the list? And if it is wrongly on the list of stubs, is there some way I can remove it myself, or do I need to get ahold of an administrator? Alephb (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The bot which generates the list runs regularly, but there can be a lag in the results showing there I think. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, OK. If the bots are handling it, I won't worry about it. There's enough work for us humans to do anyhow. Thanks! Alephb (talk) 00:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


Why doesn't this exist? Anyone up for remedying that? Hijiri 88 (やや) 11:50, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Why should it? What does MOS:BIBLE refer to?Alephb (talk) 11:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
We have hundreds of articles on biblical topics. Probably more than on Muslim topics or LDS topics. Biblical topics also have several characteristic style problems, and Wikipedia has norms for addressing these problems that are not apparently formalized anywhere at present. See the examples I mentioned here (which could actually have been just about any of our articles on biblical topics). And like I mentioned there, it would be nice to have a specific MOS page that could be cited to justify our articles on biblical topics technically all being in violation of other MOS pages that were apparently written without biblical topics in mind. Hijiri 88 (やや) 12:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that making any sort of MOS for this specific a field is probably less than productive. There are a number of other works, many of them religious in a sense, which have many if not most of the same problems of different translations, different historical versions, etc. A broader MOS on all such works, maybe, but maybe not on exclusively the Bible. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@John Carter: Could you give a few examples of other works, many of them religious in a sense that don't already have MOS pages covering them? Of the major religious traditions that were recognized as "world religions" when I first heard the term in the 90s, Islam has its own MOS page, Hinduism and its texts are covered under MOS:INDIA, Buddhism and its texts are covered under MOS:INDIA, MOS:CHINA, MOS:KOREA and MOS:JAPAN. Jainism and Sikhism are also covered under MOS:INDIA, and Confucianism and Taoism are covered under MOS:CHINA (and to a much lesser extent MOS:KOREA and MOS:JAPAN). Judaism and Christianity are the only ones not specifically covered by any current MOS page. I would suggest a Judaism MOS page (since most of the pages that concern me are not related to the NT and there are a lot of articles on Christian topics that don't fall under "bible") but someone would then probably try to claim that articles on Second Temple Jewish texts are not covered under "Judaism" as opposed to "Christianity" because the texts are not canonical for rabbinic Judaism but are canonical for various Christian groups. "MOS:BIBLE" catches all of these (except for the aforementioned NT apocrypha, which probably should be covered by such an MOS anyway and this could be clarified therein). Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:26, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Homer's Odyssey comes to mind almost instantly, along with many other Egyptian, Greco-Roman, maybe Zoroastrian, Norse, and other stories. John Carter (talk) 01:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
So ... you think it would be better to make MOS:Ancient texts? The examples you give don't have an awful lot else in common (although actually Norse would be more "medieval" than "ancient" -- MOS:Pre-modern texts?), and such a page would also have a lot more overlap with the aforementioned MOS pages than would my proposal. Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
First, I think the works I mentioned are possibly/probably all relevant to one or more neopagan groups, which basically puts them at the same, basic, level as the Bible itself, and, if anything, there might be even more problems with some of them than with the various Biblical texts, broadly construed. That being the case, I would think that maybe the better way to go would be to establish MOS of some sort for the various relevant groups in question, including their texts, rather than single out one text for special consideration. This is particularly true given the wide diversity of opinion among even just modern Christian groups about the Bible, about which more is said elsewhere below. John Carter (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
MOS:BIBLE would belong in Category:Wikipedia Manual of Style (religion).
Wavelength (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
We absolutely should not create a topic specific MOS to legitimize styles that are "in violation of other MOS pages". Rather, we should follow those existing MOS pages. (That being said, we could still use a MOS:BIBLE to provide guidance on those things for which existing MOS pages give options, or give no instructions). – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 02:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
One of the great disadvantages of a possibly overspecific MOS as this might be would be the fact that I think it would be unlikely to necessarily take into account all the possible matters with which it would reasonably have to deal. The Mormons, for instance, have broadly approved the King James Version as their "official" text (with some amendments, I guess, from the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible), and the Jehovah's Witnesses have their own New World Translation which is their "official" version, which would, presumably, be important in considering what quotes to use regarding content relating to either of those groups and the Bible. Those are just two such instances I know of - there are very likely several more amid the 20,000 or so Christian denominations that are said to exist. There are also questions regarding texts of the Ethiopian extended Bible, some of which haven't yet necessarily even been translated into readily available English versions yet. I have no doubt that there may well be some smallish Christian groups in the non-English speaking world who use "official" texts which do not particularly closely resemble any English language texts, which would probably increase the problems even more. Personally, I would think any such MOS on the Bible if it were to be functional would have to be subordinate to that of any Christian or Jewish groups, and on that basis I have to wonder at the utility of it at this time. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

New Testament Apocrypha?[edit]

I mentioned this above, but are these supposed to fall within the scope of this project? They are definitely related to the biblical texts and are usually studied alongside them in universities (see for example here). I have noticed that several such pages are currently covered by a variety of WikiProjects but WP:BIBLE is noticeably absent. Talk:Acts of Paul and Thecla is included in the WikiProjects for "Saints", "Religious Texts", "Christianity" and "Women's History"; it seems fairly likely someone thought to add it to WikiProject Bible and decided not to, or did add it and was reverted for some reason. Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:32, 17 January 2017 (UTC) (Edited for clarity that it doesn't matter to me what the this page currently says, and that I am not so incompetent as to ask a question about what the page says rather than just reading the page, because how people have actually dealt with the issue is more important to me. 23:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC))

Acknowledging that there is some degree of question regarding what works should and should not be included in that grouping, I think the content of the main WikiProject page, specifically Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Goals makes it rather clear that such works are to be included. John Carter (talk) 18:04, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but no one really focuses on the Apocrapha. The closest thing I've done to help with this particular subject is create Christian text related to the New Testament Apocrapha. It's not really a true goal. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Part of the problem, of course, is determining what exactly is and is not "apocryphal", given the large number of works accepted by only a few groups. But I agree that articles exclusively about the works which are not counted as canonical by any extant groups are probably in general of less than top importance to this project. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Please note that my question was based on the various articles I have seen in the relevant topic area, not on the theoretical statements included on WP:BIBLE. In the past I have tried making mass changes to articles based on what the theoretical policy was in the relevant WikiProject, and been mass-reverted. Hijiri 88 (やや) 23:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I do note the remarkable changes made after the fact in the opening statement here. I would suggest individuals in the future perhaps not try to make such apparent efforts to engage in conduct which could very easily be seen as an attempt to alter things after the fact. And considering that pretty much all WikiProject standards are purely theoretical, I fail to see the differentiation between those standards and any other standards that you are referring to. Wikipedia:WikiProject indicates that there isn't anything "official" about WikiProjects, and have no particular "rights" to do anything, even, yes, tag articles.
For purposes such as these, probably the best way to go would be to would be to perhaps do what I've done in the past, include in the edit summary something to the effect that the article is being tagged based on substantial coverage in one or more encyclopedias on the Bible, perhaps as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Prospectus. If that doesn't work, then go ahead and tag them for Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious texts, which is much less arguable.
Finally, it would be extremely useful to know more of the relevant data. If you were attempting to tag a volume of clearly Christian apocrypha with the specific Bible banner, it would not be at all unusual for someone of the Jewish faith to object, seeing as they are much less inherently knowledgeable about New Testament apocrypha and could certainly object to having stuff even less credible than the canonical New Testament tagged by a project of importance to them. And it might be particularly useful to know whether you were using the Christianity banner or the separate Bible banner. I can reasonably see several individuals objecting perhaps to the adding of a clearly redundant banner when the Christianity banner has the same functionality. It is worth noting that banner application is not, and never has been, about "marking territory," but indicating that a group can help. Edit summaries indicating that would be very useful. John Carter (talk) 22:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I did suggest WikiProject Gnosticism (2nd nomination) (thnx for your support John Carter), its still open for support. It won't cover all of the New Testament Apocrypha, but it will be focused on other Abrahamic Judeo-Christian texts. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

BHC - Genesis, 2016[edit]

Dear WikiProject Bible, this is the published version of the Genesis from 2016 1 (, first book of the BHC (Biblia Hebraica Quinta) by Avraham Tal from Tel-Aviv. I would like to ask that this is version of the Genesis have accurate translation all Hebrew words? E.g. this is the Genesis from the Leningrad Codex: professional and useful translation. Avraham Tal's Genesis (2016) have this professional translation for the Hebrew words? Doncsecztalk 14:40, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@Doncsecz~enwiki: You're referring to Biblia Hebraica Quinta. It is not a translation, but an edition of the Hebrew text based on multiple manuscripts and up to date scholarship. – Fayenatic London 17:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but this edition just translated the Hebrew words, as this digital edition of the Leningrad codex? Genesis Doncsecztalk 17:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh yeah that's an awful interlinear. The transliteration is, to an incredible degree, just wrong over and over. The translation is also garbled on a regular basis. This is nowhere near what the academic community would consider a reliable source. Whoever made it is a very eccentric person.Alephb (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
@Alephb: And what is the content of the Avraham Tal's Genesis? Doncsecztalk 07:58, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Avraham Tal published a fascicle of the Biblia Hebraica Quinta, which contains a Hebrew text of Genesis plus extensive notes on variant readings. He is an accomplished scholar, and his work should not be confused with the PDF interlinear. His work constitutes scholarship that can be cited in Wikipedia pages on related topics. The PDF interlinear does not.Alephb (talk) 02:26, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

@Alephb: Thank you. This me interested. Doncsecztalk 10:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Separate articles of bibliographies of Bible works?[edit]

Looking at the bibliography at Gospel of John, it seems to me to be longer than might be best for an article. What would the rest of you think of starting separate articles on bibliographies of the various books of the Bible? I am going to assume, at least in the beginning, that maybe we might limit ourselves to starting such pages for those works included one or more of the widely-discussed and -available English canons, although it could be expanded later as warranted. John Carter (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternately, particularly for those works where over the years better texts have been discovered later, maybe articles on "Historiography of (work x)" or "History of study of (work x)" might be useful. John Carter (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
How would you propose stopping this from becoming a "catchall " with everyone adding their favourites? Including books we wouldn't use as sources. Doug Weller talk 06:52, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, any list, and a bibliography is a list, has to have every item sourced, doesn't it? And, ideally, most list items should also have separate articles, or at least the possibility of separate articles based on notability and such. I acknowledge part of my thinking is based on having seen a lot of such books listed in the Who's Who in Religion book I still haven't gotten all the way through, and it may well be that some of them are of the kind we wouldn't use either, even if they might be among the proudest achievements of the individual author. If nothing else, though, requesting at least at the beginning that only those sources listed in bibliographies of reference works' articles relative to the books in question, preferably encyclopedia type articles on the works themselves in question or spinout articles of same, because they tend to have shorter bibliographies. Also, I think that there are out there some general surveys of at least some of the books and their reception, and using those sources to write any "historiography" articles would also I think be reasonable. John Carter (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Holman Christian Standard Bible[edit]

Just found this version being used at Cain and Abel. Is it the best for this? Doug Weller talk 14:29, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Ezekiel 1[edit]

Bringing this here as I'm concerned that there may be original spresearch here. @JohnThorne: I'm also concerned with what seems to be over reliance on very old sources, e.g. 17th and 19th century. Doug Weller talk 20:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it's good the article was created - there should be an article on every chapter in the Bible. But I don't think verse-by-verse exposition is appropriate here. StAnselm (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Among other things, I'm concerned about the copy-pasting of material from John Gill directly into the body of the Wikipedia article. If John Gill were alive today, there's no doubt he'd be categorized as a WP:FRINGE source for his treatment of material involving chronologies of the ancient world, and probably other issues as well. I would assume that the spirit of the wp:fringe policy, or some other policy along the same lines, applies to old writers as well, at least when their material is being copy-pasted directly into the text itself of Wikipedia articles. Alephb (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I agree with both comments. I also reverted him here, was that reasonable? Doug Weller talk 21:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
(With regard to your revert on Book of Ezekiel) For me, the issue with Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, the one non-ancient source cited to "debate" against the Walther Zimmerli, isn't so much the century their work was written in. Its that J-F-B holds to views that are now fringe: like the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. That makes them unciteable, from a Wikipedia standpoint, to establish anything about the authorship of any biblical book.Alephb (talk) 21:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Very appreciate the comments. @Doug Weller:: Each statement is carefully referenced, thus ought not be an original research. The old sources are still respected, although naturally not all parts are up-to-date, but those selected should correspond to the current opinions (many of which cannot be quoted due to copyright issues). Chronological order of reference will be given more attention in the future. Thanks. @StAnselm:: No intention to do verse-by-verse exposition, other than listing the most representative verses for the particular chapter and the much cited ones. @Alephb:: Please provide assistance to add better sources that can be accepted universally. Some materials from the "old sources" are recycled by later authors, but credits should be given to the earlier ones, I presume. For all: Hope to see more positive contributions to the new articles. They are severely lacking due to the inexperience of the starting user. JohnThorne (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the gracious response, User:JohnThorne. When it comes to Ezekiel 1, I've posted relevant information on the Talk Page with respect to the use of John Gill and Jamieson-Fausset-Brown. Unfortunately, neither of those two sources meets Wikipedia's reliability standards, so their content cannot simply be copy-pasted into a Wikipedia page even if they are properly cited. Alephb (talk) 22:01, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The division of the Bible into chapters and verses dates only from the Middle Ages - originally the books were just long slabs of prose. So a discussion of individual chapters and verses is a discussion of an artificial and fairly recent phenomenon.PiCo (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The Middle Ages ended in the 15th century. If by "recent" you mean the last 6 centuries, I would consider it long-established and even traditional. And anything concerning the Bible is "artificial", as it is a disparate collection of texts which has been constantly rewritten, edited, and otherwise modified over a period of millennia. While I would consider most chapters of the Bible to fail the notability criteria, if there are enough secular sources discussing a particular chapter, by all means create an article about it. To mention a fairly inconsequential chapter, Book of Hosea, Chapter 3: Gomer purchases a woman for fifteen pieces of silver, and a homer of barley, and a half-homer of barley. He commands the woman to stop playing the prostitute, and to stop sleeping with other men. He also promises to not sleep with other women. This sounds like a fairly personal transaction, that concerns the sexual preferences of Hosea. It is not exactly a fascinating chapter for analysis, nor does it stand out from any other forgettable chapter. Dimadick (talk) 00:00, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Individual Chapters as Wikipedia Articles[edit]

Recently I've discovered that there's a lot of Wikipedia articles about individual chapters of the Bible. They often need a lot of work, and there's some issues on them with copy-pasting of material from unreliable sources. If anyone is interested in helping with this issue, I've drawn up a list of individual chapter articles here: [9]. Note that a Wikipedia article with a name like, for example, Isaiah 4 will generally be in more pressing need of attention than a Wikipedia article like Hannah (biblical figure) which is still really about the contents of an individual chapter but isn't named after that chapter. These individual-chapter articles are often less significant than the more noteworthy Bible-related articles on Wikipedia, but they are also the ones which tend to be most obviously in need of revision. Alephb (talk) 18:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Request for Input on Samaritan Pentateuch[edit]

Aleksandr Sigalov is requesting that his translation of the Samaritan Pentateuch be treated as a reliable source on Wikipedia. He has requested input from other editors, and started a discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard: here. The first reviewer there stated that they could use some more input from some readers who have a good knowledge of the Bible. I thought maybe we could find some here at this project page. If you're interested in looking into this and providing outside opinions click the link. Alephb (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

My Cup Runneth Over[edit]

I went to My Cup Runneth Over looking for information about the biblical quote, and instead found an article that's almost entirely about songs and popular culture. I also found a comment on Talk:My Cup Runneth Over making the same comment, ten years ago! It would be great if somebody could write an article about the quote. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what more there is than what the lead says. It seems to be an idiom for abundance, like one's cup being filled with some presumably desirable drink so full that it's overflowing. What more is there to say? I can try to flesh out the lead a little bit, but I doubt there's legitimately enough to say beyond a paragraph's worth. Alephb (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report[edit]

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Bible.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

  • The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
  • The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
  • The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Bible, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Greetings, FYI I added a link for "Popular pages" to this WP Project page, "Tasks" section. Regards, JoeHebda • (talk) 04:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Article on Beatitudes[edit]

I have added messages to the talk page on the Beatitudes indicating that it would make sense if this article were in the scope of your wikiproject. Thank you if you could consider this proposal, Vorbee (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


I am having a bit of a problem with our Amalek article. Specifically, multiple editors keep re-inserting claims such as the claim that The Book of numbers (5th century BCE) talks about Adolph Hitler. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

As one of the "multiple editors" (there's just two of us) mentioned here, I think this is a bad mischaracterization of the situation. But I would ask anyone who has the time to drop by Amalek and take a look. Alephb (talk) 04:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

A Call for Interested Editors[edit]

In case anyone's interested, there is a Wikisource partial translation of the Bible, over at Wikisource:WikiProject Wiki Bible.

There's some conversations occurring at Translation talk:Genesis and Translation talk:Exodus where a third opinion from someone knowledgeable (even moderately knowledgeable) about biblical Hebrew would be helpful here. The conversations are between myself an an anonymous IP -- the only two active contributors that I know of to the project. We're talking really basic stuff -- the editor I'm trying to talk to has only a partial knowledge of the vowel-points in the Hebrew Bible, but can apparently speak Modern Israeli Hebrew and thinks that this completely substitutes for any knowledge of biblical Hebrew.

For a sampling of what the new editor is brining to the table, see [10] and much more here [11].

Of course, for anyone who doesn't want to wade into this mess, there's also a number of totally untranslated sections that could use a look from anyone who knows their way around biblical Hebrew, ancient Aramaic, and Koine Greek. Alephb (talk) 04:47, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

New Rewrite Bible and Violence[edit]

I am working on a total rewrite-- in my sandbox-- of an existing article that was flagged as needing it. I am wondering if I can put upon someone to give me a fair and honest assessment of the content before I go any further. I'm still pretty new here and haven't made any friends I can ask yet. The existing article is the Bible and Violence. I think the title needs changing because it is too broad, and it's meaning can be seen as ambiguous. I have gone with Violence in the Bible. That is actually what the article discusses. The article not only lacked sufficient inline references, it needed reorganizing. The entire existing article is subsumed in the rewrite. I left nothing out. I even checked and read up on his references. Everything he said is still there--it's just rearranged and either edited for conciseness or expanded and added to. I would especially like comments on including the section on apologetics--which contains the non-sectarian information--or combining them all into single paragraphs--or deleting it entirely...and whatever your reasoning on that might be. Please help me! I have already run into some vitriol on this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

User talk:Jenhawk777/sandboxJenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello, User:Jenhawk777. I'd be happy to take a look and give you some thoughts, and I'll try to be polite. I'm sorry to hear there's been some vitriol. Discussions of the Bible on Wikipedia (or anywhere) have a way of getting that way. Alephb (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
On second thought, the link to your sandbox doesn't seem to lead to your draft. Has it been moved? Alephb (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
On third thought, I don't see any evidence that you've been editing over at The Bible and violence at all. Are you editing under multiple usernames? I'm confused here. Alephb (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Alephb: Hello! No it hasn't been moved and I won't submit it until I get other opinions. I apparently wrote the link incorrectly--should not have included the 'talk'. It's there in my sandbox. I have not edited any on the original article because I was attempting to Be Bold! and do the whole rewrite suggested in the flag at the top!! I kept everything from the original article within the rewrite--I just relabeled and rearranged and added to it. I would like to change the Title. The Bible and violence is ambiguous; it could refer to using the Bible to address violence and help create peace--which is not what the article is about. Violence in the Bible is more specific and limited in scope. I would like to know if you think the rewrite in my sandbox has a neutral pov, if you think content needs altering in any way--oh just anything you feel like saying! I am genuinely grateful for any and all comments. Thank you up front! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Alephb, the draft is at User:Jenhawk777/sandbox. Jenhawk has mostly been editing (in article-space) Christianity and violence, but you can see her at the The Bible and violence talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: What would I do without you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
When it comes to extremely minor things like typos, do you mind I go change the problem directly in your sandbox rather than talking about them first? Alephb (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: I so far boldy made some improvements, but I acknowledge that this is a user space sandbox, and unlike mainspace or draft space, users can request that editors don't edit their personal sandboxes. I assume that you welcomed these edits starting this thread, but if not, feel free to say so. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate - 04:52, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I do welcome them! I do--this will be a true Wiki project before it evens gets sent up for approval! I am so relieved and grateful I could just about cry! I can't say thank you enough.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
The truth is, I am not only genuinely grateful for what all of you have done to help me--genuinely help me--I am a little in awe of your knowledge and skills! This has been the best part of the whole Wiki experience as far as I'm concerned. You guys have really made a difference for me and I think if the article gets accepted, it will be your doing! A group effort--as it should be here--right? So edit away--do what you think is good--the only thing I have disagreed about so far was removing the section headings. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)