Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  1. 2004 – August 2005
  2. Old project pages
  3. Old discussions at overhaul


GA Sweeps notice of possible demotion of Isaac[edit]

I want to inform the community that I have done a GA Reassessment of Isaac and found the article lacking. Not very much will need to be done but enough that I could not keep it GA without some effort. I am notifying all interested projects that I have held this article for one week pending editing. The review can be found here. If you have any questions please feel free to contact my talk page. H1nkles (talk) 23:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Just to point out, the Children's Bible Story Book article needs ratings from this wikiproject. Ross Rhodes (T C) Sign! 21:26, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation[edit]

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 22:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment of Ishmael[edit]

I have done the GA Reassessment of Ishmael as part of the GA Sweeps project. I have found a few items that concern me about the article. My review can be found here. I have held the article for a week and I am notifying all the interested projects in the hope that work can be done to keep it at GA. Please contact me at my talk page if you have any questions. H1nkles (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

How do I enter my name in the list of participants?[edit]

Thanks Arlen22 (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22
Got it. #~~~~
It will look like this. Arlen22 (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

hapax legomenon edited[edit]

There's a flag saying it needs an expert edit. I have good claim to be an expert on the subject, so i did a pretty complete edit, added a bunch of references, etc. What else should be done (if anything) in order to remove the flag, and hopefully get the article recategorized as past "Start" level?


Sderose (talk) 03:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Done Arlen22 (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Consultation on renaming article: Roman Catholic Church --> Catholic Church[edit]

Wikipedians at Talk:Roman Catholic Church are discussing the merits of changing the article name as such.
Roman Catholic ChurchCatholic Church. Please share your opinions there. --Carlaude talk 12:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved on July 2, 2009 by Shell Kinney

Project Page change[edit]

If you do not like the change to the Project please say so. If you do like the changes, please say so also. Arlen22 (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The old talk page is here. And is also archived using the normal procedures.
The old project page is here. Arlen22 (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that I did not change the Goals. Arlen22 (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Science and the Bible[edit]

The C grade article, Science and the Bible needs attention. Editors with issues in Talk:Science and the Bible are talking about deletion. J. D. Redding 12:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Work groups[edit]

We forget this:

Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Check the Project Navigation 22:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlen22 (talkcontribs)

Coordinator elections[edit]

Any parties interested in being one of the coordinators of WikiProject Christianity and its various related projects is encouraged to list themselves as a candidate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 2. It would be particularly beneficial if we had individuals from as broad a range of areas of the project as possible, to help ensure that we have people knowledgable about the widest range of content possible. John Carter (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Codex Vaticanus[edit]

I am looking for somebody, who can copyedit the article "Codex Vaticanus". Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of the Bible[edit]

A new article, whose lead says:

"The following charts list all biblical data relevant to the study of its timeline. Gathered from all parts of the bible, the data is presented without interpretation in as convenient a form as possible. Links are provided to articles which provide more in-depth analysis and interpretation. It is my hope that this page can act as a central 'portal' to all areas of biblical study."

Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Pageview stats[edit]

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Bible to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Arlen22 (talk) 13:40, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


What is the proper tense to use for biblical narratives? I want to fix Samson, which switches back and forth between the present (fictional) and the past (historical) in the first paragraph. Esther uses the past tense, while Book of Esther goes with the present. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a really good question. If I might ask a favor of you? I'm going to be busy for a few days unfortunately so I won't be able to do anything about it myself anytime soon. But if you could look over the bulk of the material relating to the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible books and articles and see which are in which tense, that might be useful as well. I have a feeling the same sort of questions might relate to material about Hindu and Buddhist scriptures as well, specifically, are we to count this material as fact, fiction, or maybe both somehow? But I think this is probably a serious question which is going to be relevant to more scriptures than just the Abrahamic ones. John Carter (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I'll see what I can do. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
So far, it looks like most, though not all, of the "Book" articles are written in the present tense (exceptions include Book of Judges, Book of Jeremiah, Book of Ezekiel). Most related articles are in the past (e.g. The Exodus, Joshua), though Job (Bible) and Jephthah buck this trend. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I've asked for clarification of this matter at Wikipedia talk:Writing better articles#Question regarding article tense, and hope someone responds with a clarification shortly. John Carter (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
John, in answer to your question, the sacred books of major world religions with millions of adherents including Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. are not to be treated as fiction, nor endorsed as fact. To do either would not be neutral. That has always been the policy for keeping the peace; neutrality means not adopting any point of view, just explaining what the points of view are. This probably doesn't answer the question about tense, though. Either way I don't think tense should imply either fact or fictional, if the writing a is clear enough. It doesn;t seem like a big deal, but past tense seems little more grammatically appropriate, since events are at least said to have happened in the past, not the present. If past tense might sound like this is implying that everyone agrees them to be historical, then you just need more explanatory words to explain the situation with regard to all the verifiable pov's out there. (differing interpretations, etc.) Switching to present tense is no substitute for explaining this. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
I note your comment refers to the major world religions, though. The question remains about some of the "minor" ones. And, there is, of course, the question, particularly regarding the Bible, as to whether the parables of Jesus and other stories whose facuality even within the relevant faith is a matter of question. It is specifically in the more problematic cases like those that I thought the clarification most required. John Carter (talk) 19:24, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, if an article is about a "minor" religion, or something else that they have a significant viewpoint on, we still have to apply npov. The other question is about sections that obviously aren't even presented as being historical account, such as "A king had two sons" or "The trees went out upon a time to choose for them a king"... I'm quite sure no one interprets these as intended for historical accounts, or anything other than illustrative of some lesson or moral. BTW notice also that these stories or parables are in the past tense, and it does not imply they are historical accounts. But if it were translated into the present tense as "The trees go out upon a time", in English, it would sound more like a stand-up comedy routine! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger question[edit]

I want to merge Tattenai and Tatnai, but I'm not sure which spelling to use as the main page. Help? Aristophanes68 (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


Can anyone help me? I'm writing on behalf of the Society of Old Testament Study, the main British and Irish academic society for Hebrew Bible/ Old Testament ([1]). As part of its coming centenary celebrations, the society wants to undertake several projects associated with improving public understanding of the Hebrew Bible. One of these is to be the creation of a separate wiki edited by members of the society, and probably designed with a slightly more specialist readership in mind, but we are also keen to contribute in any way that is useful to the creation and maintenance of the relevant pages on wikipedia. Although it is unlikely that more than a small proportion of the membership will be keen to get involved over the next couple of years, we can offer a considerable amount of expertise across the field. I appreciate that we could simply sign up and get stuck in straightaway, but it would be very helpful for us to know how and where we could be of most use (and how we could best avoid being a nuisance): suggestions would be very welcome, as would names of any editors we should contact directly about this. Stuart Weeks (talk) 00:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


Wikipedia needs an article for 'Jahdai'. I dont know enough about it to do it myself. I only know that Jahdai could either be a wife/concubine or conceivably a descendant of Caleb. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 19:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Suggest an article for Tubalcain (currently a disambig)[edit]

I was surprised to find that Tubalcain just leads to a disambig, and that the original scriptural figure doesn't even rate his own article. Granted, his mention in Genesis is brief, but the figure played a substantial role in extra-scriptural beliefs and legends for centuries and centuries. I'm not sure I know enough about the subject, but does anyone else have strong feelings on the issue, have info to contribute, or at least believe that the scriptural (and later somewhat "legendary" in an expanded sense) figure merits an article of his own? MatthewVanitas (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

standardized way of naming articles for biblical persons[edit]

How about a standardized way of naming articles for biblical persons. I would suggest 'X, son of Y' [or maybe X (son of Y)]. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I could live with that myself. There would be variations, like Adam and Eve, of course ;), and where there descent is dubious or unstated, and some cases, like David, Habakkuk, Solomon, where they are the best known uses of that name, so there might be some exceptions, but I could certainly live with it as a second-level standard to be followed if there is no otherwise extant policy or guideline which would contraindicate it. Anyone else? John Carter (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Should it be X, son of Y or X (son of Y)? The first one is easier to type. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes. For the record that is what I am suggesting. First it should be name X. Then if that doesnt work then go to X, son of Y. If even that doesnt work then I suppose one could go to X, son of Y, son of Z but I dont expect that would ever actually happen. Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 21:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Bad idea in general, particularly when you run into problems with different versions of the name for the same person. (Koranic vs. Biblical) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant bud (talkcontribs) 03:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Thats what redirects are for. Any standardization is better than none at all. What else do you suggest when you have multiple people in the bible with the same name? Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Children's Bibles[edit]

In Germany, there are - since the Middle Ages - Children's Bibles (i.e. books that contain some excerpts from the Bible in easy language and with many illustrations) by many authors, illustrators and publishers. This is described in de:Kinderbibel. In the English Wikipedia I just find The Children's Bible Story Book. Is there really only this one? -- (talk) 12:16, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Biblical disambiguators[edit]

If you have a moment, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Biblical disambiguators. Thank you!
V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

keeping track of changes to bible related articles[edit]

If you like to keep track of changes to bible related articles but dont want to add hundreds of links to your watchlist then try this instead: Changes_related_to_"Timeline of the Bible" Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Members of the Society for Biblical Studies in India[edit]

FYI: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 2#Category:Members_of_the_Society_for_Biblical_Studies_in_India. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


Please see:: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yahweh and Allah.Borock (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Project categorization[edit]

Going through the directory of WikiProjects, I noticed that there are 2 categories which mention this project, but both instances say the project's main listing is under a "Language and linguistics" category which does not exist. So my question to your project is, which category do you wish to have your primary listing under?
Philosophy and religion or Language and literature?
-Garrett W. { } 07:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Defining "text-type"[edit]

A search for sources with which to improve the page Text types turned up a number of books using the phrase to describe (I think) a sorting or selecting among various manuscripts, especially of the New Testament (e.g. Hartin and Petzer 1991 Text and Interpretation, Erickson 2005 A Beginner's Guide to New Testament Exegesis). Is "text-types" in fact a term of art in Biblical interpretation? If so, could some knowledgeable person comment at Talk:Text types?

In linguistics and philology, particularly historical linguistics and corpus linguistics, "text type" used more or less synonymously with genre. Text types as it is currently written cites only a single source, which appears to be a textbook for a composition course. This suggests that the page will require an entire re-write, ideally into two pages - one treating the linguistic/ philological sense of the word, and one treating the Biblical scholarship sense. Cnilep (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Radagast3, a hatnote at Text types directs readers to Textual criticism. Cnilep (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Cnilep, the term "text type" is used differently in New Testament textual criticism. As someone who has worked a lot in this particular sub-field, I can say that the term is frequently misunderstood even among those who are specialists in the New Testament. This misunderstanding is also evident when one reads, e.g., the sub-section in the New Testament article on "early manuscripts". Readings that are frequently found together in certain witnesses that are likely related "genealogically" allow one to group these sets of readings into "text types". Though such grouping is a construct that we create, it is based on evidence found in the textual witnesses (both manuscripts and citations). Some such groups become fairly distinguishable *by* the fourth century. One cannot, however, really talk about "text types" (much) before the fourth century. Terms like "(early) mixed text" and "proto-Alexandrian" are really anachronistic attempts to describe earlier texts using later categories. Moreover, all "text types" are ultimately products of older forms of the text. What's far more important than "text type" is an assessment of the individual readings: when, how, and why they arose--which then allows one to see which is the oldest recoverable reading. (talk) 12:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot[edit]

User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects provides a list, updated daily, of unreferenced living people articles (BLPs) related to your project. There has been a lot of discussion recently about deleting these unreferenced articles, so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Archive 4/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Archive 4/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.
There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.
If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 01:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested Move Of Genesis Creation Myth[edit]

here Thank you For you time Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Biblical cosmology[edit]

I'd appreciate it if someone would look at this and see if the sections on ancient astronomy and on angels are both relevant. A Google search on biblical cosmology doesn't turn up much when you add the words angels or cherubim, for instance. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Template:Bibleref2c broken[edit]

Template:Bibleref2c seems to me to have been broken, but I'm no expert. I have reverted for now, but if anybody can determine what the last editor was trying to achieve and what the problem was perhaps you could have a look. William Avery (talk) 11:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The Terumah[edit]

is this suppose to be the pastor pay. I hear teaching of give 2.50 cents per hundred dollars 2 the pastor on top of tithes can someone share some light on this —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

David - semiprot edit request[edit]


Please can someone check the 'semiprotected edit request' Talk:David#Edit_request which I was unable to perform myself, as it needs someone with some knowledge of the Bible. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  06:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This is still waiting; can someone please look at it? Thank you.  Chzz  ►  05:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Could we have some eyes on List of Biblical names?[edit]

The whole thing, including 'meanings' of names, seems to be sourced from a single 19th century work. Some of the 'meanings' are quite dodgy. In addition, we already have the articles List of major Biblical figures, List of minor Biblical figures and List of Biblical places. I and another on the talk page thought the best thing to do would be to remove the meanings and treat it as an index, which could then be used to help populate the other existing list articles. Each entry could then be given a good link, and the linked article could give a proper discussion of proposed derivations for that name. We started this process.

A third contributor then reverted all the removal we had done, and claimed on the talk page that the 'meanings' were sourced from several places. The support for this was a website which provides links to other sources, even though the actual 'meanings' used in the article all come from the one 19th century source. The second contributor put a PROD on the article, and this was removed.

I really feel we could do with a few more eyes on this, preferably people who have some idea of how this fits in the other articles on this topic on Wikipedia. My own position (as I have said on the relevant talk page) is that reproducing 19th century sources in their entirety is what Wikisource is for, and that even if we did that here, the article should be renamed and rewritten to make it clear that this is not an overview of modern views on what these names mean.

Please join us on the article talk page, even if it's to disagree with me. (talk) 20:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

¶ I added the Hebrew spelling of the name to the article on SERAH. I felt it was important; apparently the same name appears in narratives some 300 years apart and there is considerable legend to the effect that it is the same person, impossibly long-lived, but there was a slight difference in the writing of the name, which I thought was worth bringing up. Sussmanbern (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Dating the Book of Daniel[edit]

According to modern scholars, the Book of Daniel was written in the 2nd century BC. I would argue that this is a relevant information to put in the introduction of the article, but another user thinks otherwise. The "third opinion" agreed with my position, but the other user still opposes to this settlement.

Those who would be so kind to give their informed opinion are invited at Talk:Book of Daniel#Date of composition in introduction. Thanks --TakenakaN (talk) 15:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Parable of the Good Samaritan[edit]

There is an ongoing debate regarding Parable of the Good Samaritan#Historical reliability which would benefit from additional input. Issues which are involved include (1) whether Wikipedia should provide concise definitions containing only relevant information, or whether articles should be more detailed; (2) how WP:NPOV should be implemented in practice; (3) whether the section accurately represents the opinions of one scholar (Bernard Brandon Scott); and (4) the best structure for the article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 01:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bible verses/2010[edit]

I would like to bring your attention to an ongoing discussion here. Please chime in. - NeutralHomerTalk • 06:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed redirect from Ritual decalogue to Covenant code[edit]

Please see my proposal here and comment/vote. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding Links[edit]

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and am trying to understand how Wikipedia works, without disrupting anything or stepping on any one’s toes. My revisions on several pages have been removed and I am confused by these edits because I was not trying to self promote with my additions. Rather, I was adding a link to the Jewish Publication Society (JPS), the oldest Jewish publishing company in the United States and the authoritative English translation of the Jewish Bible. JPS has created a product called the Tagged Tanakh, which contains an online version of its most recent Bible translation.

You removed my links to the Tagged Tanakh, but Mechon Mamre, Bible Gateway, and the University of Michigan all have links in similar formats on Wikiperida pages related to the Bible. Please explain to me why these organizations are allowed to post and I am not. Additionally, I find it a little bothersome that Christian versions of the Bible (ie Bible Gateway and University of Michigan) are adding links to Jewish Wikipedia pages such as Torah and the Book of Genesis. Please advise me on the next step that I should take. Thank you, and I Look forward to hearing from you soon. Rrstern25 (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe you've already received an answer to this on various talk pages. -- Radagast3 (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm adding a reply to your User Page; I see that other people have replied, but I notice they really haven't explained what's wrong with the specific links you've posted. (I've had the same problem with links to The Christian Classics Ethereal Library.... Best, Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Law of Life[edit]

A Bible quote was included by the previous editor to the article: I cleaned it up and improved its presentation, but I'm unsure if it really belongs there...? Raymie Humbert (tc) 02:46, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Aorist[edit]

A discussion on Aorist has taken place on whether the article should remain essentially as-is, or should be rewritten the replace Greek-related grammatical terms like "aorist" by other terms. Input would be greatly appreciated at Talk:Aorist#RfC. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (3rd nomination) Sumbuddi (talk) 23:19, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bible articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release[edit]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Bible articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Adullam[edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Adullam, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Sreifa (talk) 15:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of copyrighted Bible translations[edit]

A quick reminder to members of this WikiProject: WP:NFCC#1 states that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Although the non-free content criteria are most commonly applied to images, they do apply to copyrighted text as well. Since there are a number of public-domain translations of the Bible available (e.g. KJV, ASV, WEB), this means that unless there is a specific reason why a copyrighted Bible translation must be used in a given article (e.g. to compare how different versions translate a particular passage), the use of quotes from copyrighted Bible translations (such as the RSV and the NIV) in articles is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Please use public domain translations instead. Thanks! —Angr (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The generally accepted practice on Wikipedia has been to use a variety of Bible translations on a "fair use" basis, with appropriate citations, and not quoting unacceptably lengthy sections. The public domain translations you refer to all have weaknesses, either in readability or translation quality, and so do not "serve the same encyclopedic purpose". And, as you say, in some cases multiple translations need to be quoted, in order to make a specific point about translation debates.
I welcome you raising this issue here, as I've previously suggested, but it is not really appropriate to single-handedly change every article in the project unless we have a consensus to do so.
I al particularly concerned by your widespread insertion of the WEB translation, a dubious translation not widely accepted by scholars, and associated with a particular minority POV. -- Radagast3 (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't particularly care about the WEB (though the NIV is also associated with a particular POV); any public domain or other freely licensed translation will do. I've been using the WEB because I think it's the easiest to read of the public domain translations, but any other free translation is also acceptable. But it is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy to use copyrighted translations under a claim of fair use when there exist public domain translations. —Angr (talk) 21:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I note that you have also been removing links to the multi-version BibleGateway site, so there is clearly more to your actions than a copyright concern. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I see that User:Angr has put an indefinite block on User:Radagast3 over this issue. This appears to me to be a totally inappropriate use of admin privileges. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not indefinite; I blocked him for one month, after warning him twice to stop restoring copyvios that I had removed from articles. —Angr (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
The block log says it's indefinite. StAnselm (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Hm, not sure how that happened. Thanks for pointing it out; I've corrected it. —Angr (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I've unblocked Radagast3. Fences&Windows 22:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
If we should choose an public domain bible version for all general purposes, I'd say KJV has the distinction of being the oldest still in widespread use. I'm not a biblical scholar, though, and wouldn't be surprised to learn that it's considered outdated or lacking in translation quality. Anyway, I agree with Radagast3 that there's no need to get rid of all "fair use" Bible quotes immediately. At the very least, it seems wise to achieve consensus on what version to use before changing them. Huon (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, and I'm unhappy that one admin seems to be single handedly implementing a "WEB-only" policy by fiat. If there is a problem with limited-size fair-use Bible quotes (and I'm not convinced there is), there would need to be a discussion here, leading to a policy on Bible-version use on Wikipedia. I would certainly prefer the KJV over the WEB, simply because it's so widely recognised, although I would strongly argue for the continued use of other translations under fair use in cases where the KJV is out of step with modern Biblical scholarship. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
One of the problems introduced by the mass conversion to the inaccurate WEB translation is in Parable of the Leaven, where the quotation from (using "yeast" rather than "leaven") contradicts the (sourced) explanatory text of the article, and indeed also the article title. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Is there really a problem with fair-use quotes? If it is decided (by whom, by the way?) that we really have to switch everything to a P.D. version, then that ought to be with care regarding context, and would almost certainly be better served by judicious choice for each occurence. KJV is certainly widely recognised; but Wikipedia is a 21st century technology in 21st century English for a 21st century audience. On that linguistic front, WEB probably comes a lot closer, but has a far less established track record as a translation. This issue requires care and per-item context. (But I return to my original question: is there really a problem with the already established use of quotes?) Feline Hymnic (talk) 22:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
WP:NFCC#1 applies to "copyrighted images, audio and video clips, and other media files that lack a free content license", not text. Evil saltine (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, this seems to contradict the relevant WMF policy. Evil saltine (talk) 01:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's rare to take a fraction of an image under copyright provisions that allow minimal use for scholarship, and as Angr says, WP:NFCC#1 primarily addresses images. However, this is common with text. In my understanding, quotations of copyrighted text that do not diminish the value of the work as a whole do not violate copyright. Also, given the sectarian problem that erupt over the interpretation of biblical passages, IMO it's generally a good idea to cite multiple modern & academic translations. Restricting ourselves to KJV would not "serve the same encyclopedic purpose". [edit: I see now that NFCC appears to specifically exclude text, though at ANI some have reached the opposite conclusion.] — kwami (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree that (1) a range of different versions should be quoted across Wikipedia, to allay POV concerns, and (2) that these versions should be ones widely accepted by scholars. The KJV has problems, being old, but it has at least a certain place of respect due to age. The WEB doesn't even have that. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't know where the accusations of bad faith came in. Angr is protecting WP from copyvios, a potentially serious problem. Radagast is reading the policy (as I am) as allowing quotes from NIV. There must be an archived discussion somewhere as to whether this is or is not allowed, given the long history of such citations on WP. — kwami (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I think it's safest for me to walk away from Wikipedia at this point, since I've been threatened with further blocks, even if my actions simply replace the WEB by less inaccurate PD versions. With respect to Angr, when he first raised the issue, personal distaste for the NIV seemed to be his main concern. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Kwami, I think the accusation of bad faith came when Radagast3 asked Angr to first reach a consensus on the issue here, and Angr responded by putting an indefinite block on Radagast3. StAnselm (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Please read MoonriddenGirl's comments on the copyvio issue at WP:ANI. She's one of our experts. Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I consider myself more experienced than expert. :) Copyright work is vast, and new nuances present all the time. That said, our NFC guidelines on text permit the use of non-free text for good reason, such as "to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea." This is in part to help ensure we meet the pillars of Fair use, specifically as regards "Purpose and character". If the quotation is simply to illustrate the passage, then it is more likely to be derivative than transformative. Probably the safest way to make use of the copyrighted versions is (as set out further in this conversation) to make transformative use of it. That is, cite the free version and, if necessary, bring up one of the copyrighted versions for critical contrast. That should more firmly establish our usage of non-free Biblical text as "fair use" in any case...particularly important if the cumulative impact is substantial. Quoting one verse in one article is not a big problem in any event. Quoting thousands of them, though.... You can run into trouble there. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Experienced or expert, I think you still probably know more about it than a lot of the rest of us. ;) I can't see any objections whatsoever to what she says above. Personally, I would myself, if possible, avoid the KJV in at least some circumstances. People like Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus have said it is, as a translation, at least one of the worst English translations out there. That being the case, it can be a bit misleading or misrepresentative of the original text. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Radagast3 only asked me to "reach a consensus on the issue here" after he had repeatedly reverted my removal of the copyrighted text. The only issue that needs to be discussed on this page is which PD translation we want to use. The use of any copyrighted translation for simple quotation purposes (e.g. "The text of the parable is as follows:") is prohibited by WP:NFCC and Foundation policy, which does not only apply to media files (although they're what's at issue probably 95% of the time). As for which translation to use, I would point out that since the WEB is public domain, we are free to alter it and to use it without attribution. That means if we want to write "leaven" and the WEB says "yeast" (or whatever), we can just change it. —Angr (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Angr, we are also bound by policies mandating neutrality, verifiability, and a prohibition on original research. For these reasons, we cannot "just change it". We must use some translation verbatim. Neutrality also means that we cannot promote the text of an obscure translation over a translated text that is in common employment. And verifiability means that we need to prefer translations with independent scholarly commentary, preferably a great deal of it, over those with little or no commentary. In addition, proper neutrality will often mean presenting more than one translation, and using a variety of translations throughout the encyclopedia. Nothing in NFCC prohibits brief quotations of text that happens to be copyrighted; this is found throughout the encyclopedia. NFCC does prevent use of copyrighted material where it is replaceable; for the reasons I've outlined above, much of our use of the NIV or other copyrighted English translations is not replaceable. Gavia immer (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
This is outrageous; or, what Gavia immer says. Using the KJV is fine for some purposes, especially when we are talking about things relating to common English phrases deriving from the Bible and the like. When we are trying to talk about what the Bible actually says in the original, it is not appropriate, because no Biblical scholars use it for that purpose because its language is often archaic, because it used the textus receptus, which is not usually considered to be the best text, as its base, and because there are mistakes or misunderstandings that we have cleared up in the four centuries since its publication. What we need for these purposes is a scholarly, modern translation. (I tend to think the NRSV, which is what is generally used for college courses and the like, is the better choice than the NIV, but the NIV is minimally acceptable for this purpose). So far as I can tell, there is no public domain text which fulfills these criteria. The provenance of the World English Bible is incredibly dubious. Who are Rainbow Ministries? Why should we trust that they are a reliable source to provide a translation of the Bible for Wikipedia? From the FAQ, it appears to be effectively a one man project (Frequently asked question #6 - "Is the WEB a one-man translation?" - doesn't inspire confidence, especially since after kind of sort of denying this the author of the FAQ suddenly goes into first person singular for the next question), and that one man's qualifications are not at all clear. I'm not sure if other public domain translations have exactly the same problem, but none of them have much in the way of either scholarly or popular acceptance. Using something like the WEB makes our articles amateurish and violates rules that require that we use reliable sources. john k (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
As I said above, I don't particularly care about the WEB; I'm not going to defend it. When we discuss the specific language used by various translations, of course we can quote them, but for large blocks of text being used only to show what the passage under discussion says, i.e. to illustrate the story, using a copyrighted version is a violation of NFCC#1. If people don't like the WEB, we can use the Great Bible, we can use the Geneva Bible, we can use the Douay-Rheims, we can use the KJV, we can use the RV, we can use the ASV, whatever. If the Textus Receptus differs from what modern scholarship holds to be the most accurate text, we can discuss that in the text, providing minimal quotes illustrating only the difference under discussion. We can even give the original-language text and translate it ourselves. Or we can skip quoting the whole passage altogether and simply provide external links to pages where the reader can see what it says. But quoting several verses of a copyrighted translation just to show what the story says is no different than putting a copyrighted publicity photo of a living celebrity in an infobox. If, on rare occasions, a modern copyrighted translation does have to be quoted, then we should certainly prefer the (N)RSV to the unscholarly and unreliable NIV. Also, our external links should never automatically point the reader to the NIV; that's flat-out POV-pushing. Using {{bibleref}} without a third parameter takes the reader to a page like this one where he can decide for himself which version he wants to read. —Angr (talk) 14:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, this seems a bit more reasonable. Firstly, I completely agree that we should prefer NRSV (or RSV) to NIV if and when we want to use a copyrighted source; NRSV is the standard scholarly version; NIV is an explicitly evangelical version (but still better than WEB, which we should not ever use). And I agree about linking to the NIV, as well, I think. In terms of "saying what a story says," some examples might be useful here. I might agree with you or not, depending on what, exactly, we're talking about. For articles on parts of the Bible that have become familiar in the English language, I think we should generally use the KJV as our first reference, and then give other (copyrighted) versions as appropriate if we need to elaborate upon obscurities or inaccuracies in the KJV. I do think that when we are trying to get at analysis of issues like "what was the writer of this passage actually trying to say here?" and, especially when we are talking about articles that deal with use of the Biblical text as a historical source, that copyrighted scholarly versions like NRSV are indispensable. john k (talk) 20:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ormulum's FAR[edit]

I have nominated Ormulum for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Large amounts of copyvio in New Living Translation[edit]

Anyone interested in fixing this today? Most of it is from [2] (the book itself), [3] and various faq pages here [4]. Some editor even didn't notice or care abouta adding "Most of these queries came from our (tyndale house) own editors ". If no one else is interested I'll have to stub it. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Not stubbed, although shorter, with 2 more references. Dougweller (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Christianity portals[edit]

I am currently trying to get together some lists of articles relevant to each Christianity-related portal which could be used, at least potentially, to help bring all the extant portals up to Featured Portal status. The current, admittedly incomplete, list of articles, images, etc., relevant to each portal can be found at User:John Carter/Christianity portals. I also think that, at least in theory, we would probably best use a single article only in a single portal, and that we probably have enough articles to do that, although there might be a few exceptions. I would welcome input from anyone on the associated talk page regarding which articles and other materials they would like to see associated with which portal(s), any suggestions for additional portals or changes to existing portals, etc. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:32, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible study (Christian).Jaque Hammer (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Templates for Bible Sources[edit]

Please see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Bible#Merging, and Migrating template usage to Biblesource. Hopefully we can reduce the proliferation of templates, at least a little. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing[edit]

I have noticed that on articles like Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of Mark, Gospel of Luke, and Gospel of John, some editors are pushing a POV. They define a set universe of "mainstream scholarship" and used that to define what the "scholarly consensus" is. No evidence is ever given that this is what the "mainstream" is, it is just assumed and requests for evidence are ignored. Not only that, but this fake-mainstream is even often described as the "consensus". This universe just so happens to include and be personified by skeptics and atheists like Bart Ehrman or the ultra-controversial Jesus Seminar. Actually Ehrman and Jesus Seminar members are often the most heavily cited sources. Any scholars who deviate from this view are labeled "fringe" and their views dismissed. Most scholars actually deviate from what is defined by certain editors as "mainstream", but this nice little definition allows the majority to be dismissed as "fringe". Evidence that these people represent the "mainstream" is never given, editors just demand that one accepts it because "that's what everyone knows". With this, direct quoted evidence that they don't represent the mainstream is dismissed and never taken seriously. If they make claims that are well cited, these claims are deleted outright for no reason other than they don't fit in with this artificially defined universe of what is "mainstream". Wikipedia is ruled by what the majority of editors on a given article think about a topic, not what the "correct" or "mainstream" view is. These edits don't represent the "mainstream" view, but a heavily skewed POV. As such, these articles are badly biased on certain points, especially authorship.

I would like some non-involved editors to take a look at these pages and the talk pages to see what they think. RomanHistorian (talk) 20:44, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind is pushing neutrality, and you're pushing back with theologically conservative fringe views. Worse, you're editing against consensus to insert weasel words. This is not good. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing[edit]

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bible as a story book[edit]

Please see WP:ANI#Is wikipedia policy to confirm that the Bible is a story book?. Please see Solomon's temple for more background. -- Avi (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Help requested at Book of Daniel and Son of perdition[edit]

We are currently discussing ways to improve these articles. Your input would be appreciated. Please see the discussions in Talk:Book of Daniel and Talk:Son of perdition. Elizium23 (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


Tahash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm hoping to get some additional eyes on the Tahash article. This is a very long article on what seems to be a rather niche topic with very poor referencing. There is an ongoing dispute as to how, if at all, the article should be shortened. Any involvement would be greatly appreciated! —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

This is a request for an image of the Samaritan Torah text of Shemot-Exodus 25:5. Do we have access to such an image, can we get one, can it be copied into this article? It would show the ancient Hebrew spelling of the word "tahash", showing if it is spelled with or without the mater lectionis yud/yodt ( י ) as an illustration of statements in Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar § 30 suggesting lack of matres lectionis before 10th century BCE.
Also: if any of you have a Master's, Doctor's, Bachelor's degree in Semitic Studies, in Biblical Literature, please look at this article and make corrections to any errors you find, with verifiable sources, as there have been disputes over the accuracy of statements in it, and disputes over the verifiability of cited sources. During the past 2 years some unexpected material has been contributed, and some material that has been in it for a while and unchallenged has recently been challenged and reverted. There was a recent large blanking edit, giving reason "linguistic incompetent" which I answered as well as I could. A banner has been placed over the article asking for immediate attention. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I just encountered it. It needs a lot of work. Dougweller (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Religious text primary[edit]

A TFD has ben opened on Template:Religious text primary. The TfD was opened on 2 December; so is due to close in two days time. Additional perspectives and the widest input would probably be useful. Jheald (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Patriarchs (Bible)[edit]

Could someone have a look at Patriarchs (Bible) a recent change Patriarchs_(Bible)&direction=next&oldid=404377992 deleted the substantial content and left a bare new structure which seemed to me problematic. I have tried to restore the old content while keeping some of the new material and empty structure but don't feel competant to do much on it. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC))

Book of Jasher[edit]

We have several articles on this 'lost book' and its variations, and a number of links using it as a source. I've raised the issue of sorting this out at WP:FTN#The book of Jasher, maybe the wrong place to start but there you are and now I'm notifying relevant projects. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Ritual decalogue[edit]

Some more knowledgeable eyes would be useful at Ritual decalogue where a slow editor war has been brewing over the lead. The discussion on the talk page seems deadlocked between the same three editors. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:04, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for input in discussion forum[edit]

Given the closely linked subjects of the various religion, mythology, and philosophy groups, it seems to me that we might benefit from having some sort of regular topical discussion forum to discuss the relevant content. I have put together the beginnings of an outline for such discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Religion/2011 meeting, and would very much appreciate the input of any interested editors. I am thinking that it might run over two months, the first of which would be to bring forward and discuss the current state of the content, and the second for perhaps some more focused discussion on what, if any, specific efforts might be taken in the near future. Any and all input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk)

Automated message by Project Messenger Bot from John Carter at 15:44, 5 April 2011

"Standard" commentaries[edit]

This may seem a strange question. When I was in college, lo those many years ago, I took a class with the head of the (secular) school religion department in which he said the Bible he used was the Jerusalem Bible. But there are the matters of the various commentaries. Some of these are contained within the specific version of the Bible or an obviously related commentary, some are not. There do seem to however seem to be several which are widely used based on what I've seen. I note, for instance, that those who hold with Biblical inerrancy (I don't) don't use the same commentaries/commented editions I would (I tend to favor the JB above myself). This is fine, and I have no problems with it, but I do think that it may well be to all of our advantage if we could figure out which commentaries/Bibles are used most frequently by such different strands of Christianity in particular - I am not that familiar with Judaism, and don't know if the same variation occurs between the various Jewish groups, or even Islamic or others. However, I do think that the articles would in general probably be easiest to promote if we had some sort of list of the most frequently used commentaries, and any major disparate groupings, so that, in those cases where there are significant disagreements in thinking, we would be able to know which sources to consult to provide information on the interpretations of the major extant belief groups.

I hope the above makes some degree of sense. In any event, if anyone knows of commetaries or editions which are most frequently used by fundamentalist, inerrancy, moderate, "scientific", or other major groupings, it might be useful in at least some cases to other editors to have them pointed out. Given the staggering number of commentaries out there, having some sort of "quick-list" of most frequently used commentaries would probably be useful. John Carter (talk) 17:22, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Article rename discussion for Jerusalem during the Persian, Hellenic and early Roman Periods[edit]

The article Jerusalem during the Second Temple period was recently renamed to Jerusalem during the Persian, Hellenic and early Roman Periods. There is an ongoing discussion regarding the proposal to rename it back to the original title. This article is listed as part of this WikiProject, and comments may be left at Talk:Jerusalem during the Persian, Hellenic and early Roman Periods#Requested move. • Astynax talk 19:00, 15 April 2011 (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) 23:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

All sources[edit]

All sources






They seem overly large to me - I have to scroll horizontally. Wouldn't images be better? Huon (talk) 23:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
You have to scroll horizontally? They're only 1,000 pixels wide. o_O Abyssal (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


I think that the relevance of this term for the discussion of biblical texts should be explained, and examplified; c.f. its talk page. (Perhaps articles on some other terms should be revised in similar manners, too.) JoergenB (talk) 22:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC).

I think you meant to link to Interpolation (manuscripts)? Elizium23 (talk) 23:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
You're right, of course. Thanks. JoergenB (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for a redirect[edit]

I am not a formal member of this WikiProject, but I hope you will not object if I request something. If one types in The Revelation of St. John the Divine, one will get red wikilinks. Can some please change this so that typing this will get a redirect to Book of Revelation? Thank you if you would look into this, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure. Abyssal beat me to it. There's also Articles for creation/Redirects which is made just for the purpose of requesting redirects. Huon (talk) 20:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Note of discussion re English spellings of Hebrew Bible terms[edit]

This probably isn't needed, but just in case anyone is particularly well-versed in academic sources for the Exodus period (which I'm not) they may be interested in some of the discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism regarding the Jewish priesthood template. In particular I'd like to know what the correct academic English would be for the plate on the High Priest's turban. Also what modern study on the etymology of herem is. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

merge Elias with Elijah[edit]

I would welcome opinions re merger Elias with Elijah, please add your contribution here.  Andreas  (T) 18:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems in articles on Bible translations[edit]

Hello, I wonder whether any one in this WikiProject group would help out with something? There are several articles in Wikipedia on Bible translations. One of these has sub-heading such as "Translations of the Bible into Wikipedia" and then says "Main article - translations of the Bible into Xhosa" but that is in red letters, showing that there is no such article in Wikipedia. In fact, the article is peppered with "Main article" - only to be followed by a red wiki-link! Could some one please remove these? Many thanks, ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The precise article I was thinking of is available at:

If you look there, you will see numerous places where "Main article" is followed by a red wiki-link. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I answered ACEOREVIVED on the Talk page three weeks ago, it was related to ongoing efforts since 2009 to split incubated articles off to, for example Bible translations into Czech and so on. Pretty well all done now, just very minor languages left, so the redlinks have gone. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Interwiki for 1 & 2 books[edit]

Not sure I'm at the correct place to ask, but anyway: I've noticed that while in some languages there are articles on Books of Samuel, Books of Kings and Books of Chronicles (1 & 2 in a single article), in other languages these are separated into eg es:I Crónicas (with iwiki links to the 'overall' pages in en-wiki &C) and es:II Crónicas (with iwiki links only among themselves). Should these latter be also linked to 2 Samuel &c, even though the page is a redir, or would that be against some policy related to redirect pages? --Thrissel (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Hussite Bible[edit]

Your current Hussite Bible page makes it sound as though Hungarians created it... Please note that the name is derived from Jan Hus, who was a Moravian/Slav, a totally different language. Jan Hus I think tried to translate the Latin text into Czech, Moravian and Slovak languages, he had some disagreements with the Roman Catholic organization, and was burned at stake in 1415. The two Hangarians Tamás Pécsi and Bálint Újlaki came afterwards, so you need to fill in the first creation before you go and describe its subsequent use. Good luck in your research, and much needed upgrade of your article at Kind regards, Tibor Schimek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:36, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know much about Jan Hus' attempts at Bible translation, but a quick Google and Google Scholar search indicates that the "Hussite Bible" is indeed the Hungarian translation not done by Hus himself. Our article on Jan Hus currently mentions no attempted Bible translation by him. Do you know of reliable sources? Huon (talk) 14:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Religious debates over the Harry Potter series[edit]

Is it synthesis or POV to present Bible verses prohibiting witchcraft and sorcery in an article which presents Religious debates over the Harry Potter series? Please see Talk:Religious debates over the Harry Potter series#Biblical prohibitions against witchcraft. Elizium23 (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Catalogue of Vices and Virtues[edit]

Hello, should this article be deleted? My concern is related to NPOV tag, however if its not going to be linked to, might as well remove it. - RoyBoy 02:11, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Books of the Old Testament[edit]

A tag has been placed on Template:Books of the Old Testament requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you.

As per discussions in 2008 that agreed too many templates were in use on the articles about individual Books of the Bible, and since another cleaner template exists (and is in use to replace it), I have proposed speedy deletion of Template:Books of the Old Testament, whose content exists in the Template:Books of the Bible at the bottom of every such page. This will remove the clunky, old, intrusive series template, but will leave in a template with the same set of links. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


Hi, I have been working on the Parashah article for several years (about space divisions in the masoretic text of the Bible). It is now way beyond "start" class, so I raised the quality rating to "B". However, it would be good to have other people look at it too and give their feedback. Please comment on the talk page there about the quality rating and what else needs to be done to improve the article. Thanks, Dovi (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Books of the Old Testament[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Books of the Old Testament has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. EncycloPetey (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


Ammon was recently tagged with Template:unreliable sources. As both the topic and the sources are biblical, I think this could be rebutted by a subject matter expert to assert that the Bible and secondary sources on the Bible are reliable with respect to a biblical topic. patsw (talk) 14:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

"Reliable sources" on Wikipedia does not mean what most people would take that to mean. It's not the authenticity of the Bible being called into question. Rather, the "reliable sources" criterion requires that secondary sources be relied upon in scholarship of this sort, and the Bible is fundamentally a primary source. It's fine to point out where certain information can be found in scripture, but because the Bible is a primary source, it isn't a "reliable source" under Wikipedia's definition of that term. Likewise, the Magna Charta, US Declaration of Independence, and Anne Frank's Diary would not be "reliable sources" because they too are primary. It's therefore not an issue with the Bible itself, but with the kind of source material to which it belongs. What is needed are citations from scholarly Bible papers, Bible dictionaries, textual commentaries, surveys and the like, even if these secondary sources are simply describing and analyzing what the Bible says. It may sound a bit silly at times, but the criterion does mean that you've got someone's interpretation of the issue to fall back on. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
That is being bureaucratic rather than helpful. I know what the Wikipedia means by reliable sources. The article already contains secondary sources: the (apparent) claim is the secondary sources are not reliable, or that a secondary source is required to confirm reliability upon "Ammonites" in a text like 1 Kings 11:5 which contains the word "Ammonites". I asked why on the Talk:Ammon as well to get the reason for addition of the template. We might as well demand a secondary source to explain "Egypt" for the text of Exodus 1:1 patsw (talk) 03:31, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, your original post said that the Bible was a "relaibale source" and linked to the policy that indicates what Wikipedia deems is "reliable", so I gatered that you did not understand the difference. The article on Ammon does contain a few secondary sources, but relies heavily upon references to Bible verses for its facts, which is an issue by current Wikipedia policy. For example, the article says that: "Attacks by the Ammonites on Israelite communities east of the Jordan were the impetus behind the unification of the tribes under Saul," and cites 1 Sam 11:1-15 as the only reference. While this passage in the Bible is relevant to this topic, those verses do not actually state what the article text does about Ammonite attacks as an impetus for unification. It's certainly impled strongly, and the conclusion is easily reached, but that's not what a citation is supposed to do. Drawing one's own conclusion from a source that doesn't state it is considered "original research". What we need is a citation from a writer or commentator who, in discussing that passage, identifies the Ammonite attacks as such an impetus for unification. That is how I interpret the addition of the "unreliable sources" template to the article. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar and relted articles on the historicity of Jesus[edit]

I have recently reviewed the Jesus Seminar article, and, as is I think visible from the article and talk page, think that there are some serious concerns regarding it. It may be, I don't know, that articles on other topics relating to the historicity of Jesus might be, perhaps, more frequently edited by individuals who have a specific interest in the group rather than the broader group of editors. Certainly, I have found that most of the discussion on Christianity WikiProject pages relates to specific groups and beliefs, rather than modern academic opinions. Anyway, I would welcome any input on the article, and believe, perhaps, it might be valuable if related articles got a bit more attention from possibly a broader group of editors as well. John Carter (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Duplicate of help notice on WPTalk:WPChristianity[edit]

Already posted this note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. Please see Talk:Gospel. Fine to link to peripheral material articles and deal with theories at length there, but basic "Gospel" article needs to be kept mainstream. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

This issue was resolved with the help of regular editors. Oral gospel traditions still needs some attention. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Does the Bible say homosexuality is sinful?[edit]

Editors at Christianity and homosexuality are considering this question. You can be a part of this exciting and invigorating discussion here. – Lionel (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Following this link I saw Homosexuality in the New Testament, as noted on Talk:Homosexuality in the New Testament suggest a radical prune of pdfs and non-relevant content. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


Hello! I noticed that other large projects, such as WP:India, have newsletters. I think a newsletter could help improve the project. Who is interested in contributing to it? I look forward to your comments. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Editors wanted to help me bring some balance to the articles[edit]

I have noticed that on various articles, like the exodus, a small group of editors consistently enforces a minority hyper-skeptical POV. The problem routinely seems to be that the same small group of 2 or 3 editors work together somehow, while the editors trying to bring back the majority scholarly viewpoint come one at a time, and so are usually outnumbered. If anyone wants to work with me to bring some balance back to these articles, let me know.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

If you are going to post in various forums asking for help to bring balance, you owe it to others to explain what this would mean in practice, following our policies on sources and WP:NPOV. To help you, the section on balance in our NPOV policy says "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both approaches and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint." Dougweller (talk) 19:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Doug is right. But see continuation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity In ictu oculi (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

A Thought[edit]

If this group truly desires to improve the articles on the Judeo/Christian bible, how about trying a little objectivity and fairness? Biblical apologetics are in no way to be considered academic. Just a thought... Manson 23:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manson48 (talkcontribs)

Proposed moves[edit]

There are discussion underway at the talk pages of Books of Chronicles, Books of Kings, and Books of Samuel as to whether or not to move those pages to article titles reflecting the singular nature of each of the works in the Masoretic text, rather than the current Septuagint-based titles. The input of any interested editor would be greatly appreciated. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 05:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The Bible as a physical book[edit]

The Bible Wikipedia page seems (unless I've missed something) to treat The Bible as the text itself, rather than the physical book/CD-Rom or whatever the words are contained in. I cannot find anything on Wikipedia regarding Bibles as printed medium. Are there any pages. To assist in understanding what I am on about if I'm not being clear: I wrote the article Bible case and wanted to add a mention of it onto The Bible page. However there is no relevant section to add it to. Likewise things like different sizes of physical bibles, the medium on which they appear, bible boxes and the like. Am I missing something? Thanks in advance for any response! Cls14 (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Notability of many articles on individual translations of the Bible into English[edit]

Since this concerns the wider Christianity Project, I have raised my concern on its talk-page and this is just a note to advise that the subject is up for discussion. Jpacobb (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Divine Name King James Bible[edit]

Which articles are appropriate places in which to mention The Divine Name King James Bible? I mentioned it in "Tetragrammaton" at 20:06, 1 July 2012, but my addition was reverted in the next revision.
Wavelength (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Should Arabic be used for Biblical persons?[edit]

Some users, or at least one, actively inserts the Arabic versions for Biblical persons (Moses, David, Jesus etc.) into the lead of each article. I don't really see this as relevant or accurate. Of course these religious figures are of importance in most languages, but the lead would look very silly indeed if we added the different versions of their names in each language. I would argue that the only relevant languages are English (as this is the English Wikipedia) and the language of the person in question, as is standard procedure with biographies. So for Moses, Davic etc., we of course use the English version of their names, and provide the Hebrew version as there Biblical figures were Hebrews. While they are important in the religions of Arabs, Lithuanians, Finns, Italians and many others, I don't see that as enough reason to include their names in Arabic, Lithuania, Finnish, Italian and so on. This is already being discussed under the article on King David, but as it concerns multiple Bible-related article, this is probably the right forum to discuss it.Jeppiz (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You are even wrong with the title, as I said in the David article(Not King David, not everyone believes that he was a King) he is not only a Biblical person, why are you not saying;Quranic person, Kitab-i-Aqdasi person, person mentioned in the five books of the Ahmediyya faith? Why are you not putting this discussion also in the respectively religions projects? I do not actively insert the Arabic versions, I restored them.

"'While they are important in the religions of Arabs, Lithuanians, Finns, Italians and many others", that doesn't makes any sense; Arabs, Lithuanians, Finns and Italians are not ethno-religious groups. And the Arabic version is necessary because they are also figures mentioned in the Quran and also in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, scriptures of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (both are written in Arabic), you are forgetting that David is not only a prophet in Christianity and Judaism but also in many other religions(like Samaritanism, Yazidi, Druzes, Mandeans to start with) and did you know that some people don't even believe in prophets and God? This is an encyclopedia, not an online Bible, we are required to give the views of others and not to hold a monopoly to the truth. "but as it concerns multiple Bible-related article, this is probably the right forum to discuss it", again let me tell you that they are not only figures mentioned in the Bible, please be nuanced. Runehelmet (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

PS: I only restored them in the Moses, David and Jesus article, so adding 'etc.' is giving an image that I inserted them into various other articles. And that sir.. is lying.
Runehelmet, I certainly did not intend to imply that you have inserted Arabic versions into many articles. You'll see I wrote "some users". However, even if you did insert them into more, that would not be an accusation. It's not an edit I would have agreed with, but it would have been an edit made in good faith.
As you rightly point out many Biblical persons are prophets in many religions, but that's not my point. You seem to think I argue for using Hebrew for David and Moses because they appear in the Bible, but that's not the case. I suggest we use Hebrew for them because Hebrew was their language. As I point out below, I don't recommend using Hebrew for people in the Old Testament who were of other nationalities.Jeppiz (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Jeppiz, you seem to acknowledge that including Hebrew is appropriate for figures from the Old Testament. But if these same figures are also in the Quran, then including the Arabic form is by all means equally appropriate. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Til, quite the opposite, I emphatically do not think all figures from the Old Testament should include a Hebrew version. Quite the opposite, I would oppose a suggestion to include a Hebrew version of Cyrus the Great even though he figures in the Old Testament, and I do not suggest we should give the name of the Persian empire, or the Assyrian empire, or indeed any non-Hebrew figure in Hebrew. We should give the names in English (on the English Wikipedia, not in other Wikipedias) and in the original language. That is perfectly in line with the point I'm making about Biblical figures who were Hebrews, to give their name in English and in the original language.Jeppiz (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
We should be guided by what is useful for the reader. In the lead this would mean English and the language of the most important source documents. More could be given in an etymology section. The native language of the subject would generally be included for those reasons, but should certainly not be the sole ctiterion. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion regarding weekly Torah portions[edit]

There is currently discussion taking place at Talk:Chayei Sarah (parsha) regarding material to be included in wikipedia regarding this reading, as well as the others. Input is more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Whatever happens, I recommend that a summary with links to relevant discussion sections be drafted and kept among the guidelines at both BIBLE and JUDAISM to simplify the resolution of any future issues. It looks like this has come up more than once already, and having a project guideline somewhere could stave off potential problems in future. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I have a feeling the resolution of this discussion will probably also apply to other faiths as well. For instance, the readings of the Bible in the Catholic Church's mass would probably also fall within the basic guidlines. So, too, would those of the Orthodox churches, Anglican churches, at least some of the Lutheran churches, and any other Christian groups which have a similar pre-ordained schedule of readings and possibly homiletics publications as "cheat sheets" for the homilies. I tend to think that they might even apply to similar service readings of other religions as well, should they have such. The number of potential articles which this could ultimately help bring about the creation of is rather staggering to my eyes, actually, and I'm not sure personally we really want all the articles that we could face seeing as a result of this discussion. So I very much welcome the input of all editors, whatever their opinions of the articles, to offer their input. John Carter (talk) 00:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move[edit]

Discussion on name of Genesis creation narrative article at Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Requested move. -- (talk) 06:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

The section "in popular culture" (present in many articles) adds not impoverishes[edit]

In fact I am amazed that a year and half ago has been removed. See this discussion: Section "popolare culture". --Kasper2006 (talk) 22:59, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Isaac and Ishmael[edit]

At the momentt Isaac is GA status, but changes in Isaac#Christian views (the major change was made with the edit summary "Christian View expanded based solely on Scripture and knowledge of "types and shadows" of Christianity.") mean it no longer meets criteria 2 of Wikipedia:Good article criteria and I will probably ask for it to be reassessed if this isn't fixed. Another editor tagged the section.

Ishmael I'm not sure about. I removed some OR by the same editor, but I'd like someone with more knowledge to take a look at the changes.[5] Thanks.Dougweller (talk) 08:10, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Merge input needed - Trachonitis[edit]

I would like some input on a proposed merge between Trachonitis and Lajat. Another editor thinks that these may be the same place. Please comment at Talk:Trachonitis#Merge proposal Ego White Tray (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Bible disambiguations[edit]

We have an issue with Bible disambiguation pages that needs to be addressed. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation#Bible disambiguations. Note that this is not the same topic that was discussed at Wikiproject Religion three years ago. Ego White Tray (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Watching Wikisource[edit]

I have found the bible links on Wikisource very easy to use. But look at this. They need watching, and I am not sure if people do. I know that is officially not an English Wiki issue, but if some of you want to watch that with a Wikisource account it may help. I am not that active on these things, but thought I would suggest it here. There are not that many pages, i.e. one page for each NT book. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This may also be relevant. History2007 (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Articles in other reference works on the Bible[edit]

I am starting a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible/Encyclopedic articles which lists those topics which are covered by separate articles in other highly regarded print reference works on the Bible. It should be noted that those works are however about the Bible itself, not about the religious groups which hold the Bible in esteem, and as such it contains only topics which seem to relate in a fairly significant way to the Bible in some way. I think it might serve as a good basis for determining what articles here should exist, and perhaps provide some indication as to what other reference works say on some of the topics we are covering here. I will try to go through the Anchor Bible Dictionary and add the articles included in it as well in the near future, more or less following the format of the current list. John Carter (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

God or god of Israel[edit]

There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters#the God of Israel or the god of Israel as to whether to use a capital "G" in the phrase "god of Israel". StAnselm (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move: Genesis creation narrative[edit]

For your information, there is a new proposal to move Genesis creation narrative to Genesis creation myth. See Talk:Genesis creation narrative#New proposal. StAnselm (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ten Commandments article titles[edit]

Currently all members of Template:Ten Commandments, below, appear to have titles from the NIV, except for Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain (though the template displays with the modern translation). It seems to me that the KJV names are more widely used, but I don't know if that satisfies WP:COMMONNAME, which specifies common in reliable sources, not popular usage. Perhaps the best way forward is to rename to the Bible reference, but then they are repeated in two places in the Bible, so that might be restricting the scope of each article. Using the numbers won't work, because there are three numbering schemes, two of which are widely used, and I don't think you could argue one is primary. Basically I don't know what to do, so I thought I'd just ask what other folks thought.

--JFH (talk) 16:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Decalogue RM[edit]

(Discuss)DecalogueDecalogue (disambiguation)Ten Commandments is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Decalogue should redirect there. JFH (talk) 17:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)--JFH (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


Should there be a wikiproject Quran? What about a wikiproject Vedas ? Pass a Method talk 12:51, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

These might be better questions for "Wikiproject Religion" than here, since neither of those would be a subset falling within this Wikiproject. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Probably actually better asked at WikiProject Islam and WikiProject Hinduism, respectively. Alternately, one would be free to propose such projects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals. Personally, I tend to think that there would be less interest in either of those proposals than in this existing project, and it might be hard to find sufficient active editors with enough interest to start them. The Bible is, to an extent, of significant interest to multiple religious traditions, which to the best of my knowledge the two above are not, and even that doesn't help get much real interest or attention in the related content, which doesn't lead me to think that there would be much use to creating them.
P.S. I also note that the basically never active Wikipedia:WikiProject Religious texts also theoretically deals with those topics, although, like I said, it has rarely if ever displayed any real interest or activity. You could propose the creation of new groups there as well. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Third Epistle of John to GA status[edit]

Just wanted to post a note of congratulations to User:Cerebellum for bringing Third Epistle of John up to GA quality--so far as I can tell from the project's listings, it's the first book of the Bible to reach this milestone on Wikipedia. Hopefully it can be the start of a trend! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:34, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

AV/KJV page move discussion[edit]

See Talk:Authorized_King_James_Version#Requested_move Mangoe (talk) 01:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Ramsey Psalter[edit]

We have received an e-mail at OTRS with respect to the image in this article:

Your illustration of the 10th century Ramsey Psalter on this page is not the 10th century Ramsey Psalter. I don’t know what it is, but it’s not 10th century. There seems to be an early 14th century Ramsey Psalter (c1310) at the Pierpont Morgan Library, New York; perhaps that’s what you’ve got.

Here is an image of the 10th century Ramsey Psalter from the British Library – the fifth manuscript down:

I would appreciate someone looking into this and changing the image if necessary. Thanks.--ukexpat (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Should article Biblical apocrypha be renamed Apocrypha?[edit]

That would also require current article Apocrypha to be renamed: (to what? perhaps Non-biblical apocrypha?)

WP:TITLE#Deciding on an article title gives five criteria for good article names, the first two being Recognizability and Naturalness. I went to Apocrypha myself recently, expecting to find something more like what I now find is in Biblical apocrypha. On Apocrypha's talk page, I found a couple of edits from readers who apparently made the same mistake, left comments about the need for improvement, and no indication that they ever got further. So there's an indication that Recognizability and Naturalness favor the idea of renaming. The next criterion is Precision, which argues for leaving the titles alone, but it conflicts with Conciseness which argues for renaming if you accept the Recognizability and Naturalness points. The last criterion is Consistency, which seems fairly neutral here. Or so I see it all, but I've only been a Wikipedia editor for a couple of weeks.

One more thing: the term "Apocrypha" has a very large currency within the context of the Christian religion and the Bible, along with biblical canon. That context is also one where discussions of considerable vigor have been taking place for around 500 years. I'm guessing that there is no other context that has a similar vitality, especially within the group "readers of English" (our constituency). I think the prominence of the topic argues for renaming.

I hope my initial view is clear, but the proposal only makes sense if enough others look at it that way too. So I thought it might be useful to consider and wanted to put the idea forward.

I've also raised the question at the Project Christianity Notice Board, but asked for discussion to take place here. Evenssteven (talk) 15:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I would disagree with moving Biblical apocrypha to Apocrypha, because there's a undeniably major difference between (1) the books included in the certain editions of Holy Bible (the dozen or so) not for doctrinal purposes but as books "the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners", and (2) the entire corpus of apocrypha which is now in the realm of hundreds of ancient writings. If there is a confusion, it is the result of bad writing in the lede, not for lack of accuracy or because of your expectations in searching.
As for considerations of WP:TITLE, I think the following applies:
  • Per WP:UCN -- Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. I assert that my stated disagreement above establishes how such a proposed move would be less accurate than the status quo.
  • Per WP:PRECISE -- titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that again, I would assert status quo is the more unambiguously precise/accurate.
  • Per WP:NATURAL, the biblical apocrypha are not the primary use of apocrypha--there are several types of apocrypha, of which the dozen or so non-canonical books included in some bible editions is just one. By way of an analogue, most sports cars sold are painted red. "Red sports car" shouldn't be renamed "sports car" under such an argument. While in English language sources, apocrypha often refers to the subject matter of Biblical apocrypha, it isn't the only one, and because of that ambiguity, this disambiguation per the status quo is proper.
  • I would argue that recognizability and naturalness are inherently subjective and should not override the precision aimed for by disambiguation and achieved by the status quo. As for its subjectivity, where you (perfectly within your right) may consider the term/article title Apocrypha to indicate a discussion of the limited selection of books included in the Holy Bible (as you indicated above), I immediately infer the broader category. The lede would the place to establish that precision--and I think the gist of the point is conveyed (though there is room for improvement), but the inclusion of a hatnote makes the navigation accessible. As with almost every point of confusion over content, it can always be written better. I would ask you to reflect (1) does your requested move make it easier for someone looking for the broader discussion already at Apocrypha to locate it after the move, (2) what would you rename Apocrypha that would be recognizable and as easily accessible? (3) What better ways could you improve the status quo (i.e. rewriting the ledes to reduce confusion/reorganizing content/disambiguation issues) that would not necessitate a requested move/name swap?
  • Your proposed moving of Apocrypha to Non-biblical Apocrypha is not accurate. If the Biblical Apocrypha are discussed at Apocrypha, it would be akin of having a page for "crayons" and for "blue crayons" but despite the "blue crayons" being discussed at "crayons", we rename the article currently called "crayons" to "non-blue crayons." This becomes a nightmare from epistemology.
Therefore, I assert my opposition and reiterate that the status quo (Apocrypha discussing the larger topic across several religious traditions, Biblical apocrypha discussing the selection of those books included in some editions of the Bible) of how the two articles stand in opposition and as a complement to each other is entirely appropriate and more accurate than the alternative proposed by this discussion, and reiterate my opposition to such a proposed move.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
On an aside, perhaps the argument should be refocused because of the large overlap of material towards one of merging the content of Biblical apocrypha into Apocrypha and not doing a title swap. It would require a lot more work, but it seems to be the better option to avoid the overlap and possible confusion. --ColonelHenry (talk) 17:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for the fine points you make. I quite see them all, and that's the more experienced perspective I was hoping would come in discussion. I do agree that there's plenty of overlap, and merging the two makes good sense to me also. With the sections on Hindu and Chinese usages of the term apocrypha, though, I wasn't sure where I might be stepping on toes if I had suggested that. I'd say we're on the "same page" :) or at least headed the same direction. I could help some in the merge, but am only familiar with the more biblical context. I do find the material currently in Biblical apocrypha to be in considerably better shape, so it would be important that we don't have any backslides in article quality. Evenssteven (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Both articles are already long, with mostly separate material, and I do not think a merger would be helpful. – Fayenatic London 06:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
  • @Fayenatic london - surprisingly, I think a lot of that length Iespecially the comparison between different bible editions apocrypha lists) can be more efficiently discussed through a table. I concede there is a lot of material to merge, but there is a lot of overlap that can be done away with and might render your larger concerns moot. The more I look at this article, I see better ways to effectuate a merge. But I wouldn't dare do so without consensus. On the other hand, what are your thoughts regarding the proposed move? --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I have read the above with interest and hope the following comments help.
  1. Criteria like reasonableness and naturalness are somewhat subjective in that they are often more a product the particular circles one moves in than anything else.
  2. There is an article Deuterocanonical books which covers part of the same ground and should be taken into account.
  3. C.C. Torrey made the point that "Apocrypha" identified ancient religious writings whether Jewish or Christian which were once considered by some to be part of the Scriptures but finally failed to gain acceptance as canonical. However, it was later restricted by tradition to those dozen books which were traditionally included in English bibles (notably the KJV) in a "sort of ghetto" between the Old Testament and the New. (The Apocryphal Literature Yale:1946)
My preference would be to have two articles: "Apocrypha" as the all-embracing one, and "Deuterocanonical books" to deal in greater detail with the "Biblical apocrypha". As a technical term "deuterocanonical" has the advantage of saying exactly what it means, "second canon" and I suspect is gaining greater prominence partly because it does not carry the overtones of "false" and partly because it avoids ambiguity. Obviously some sensible redirects will be necessary.Jpacobb (talk) 20:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with removing overlap, but this can be done without merging.
The general article Apocrypha has worldwide content, covering Chinese and other material not related to the Bible at all, and should not become the main article on any Biblical topic. Its lead section is too long, and a lot of that content should be moved down to the "Intertestamental" section or merged into Biblical apocrypha, or summarised/deleted if it adds nothing to the encyclopedia.
Deuterocanonical books should probably be kept as a separate article from Biblical apocrypha, as the latter is a wider topic. However, each of the articles should define its own scope and have only a brief summary of what's in the others, to avoid content forking. – Fayenatic London 14:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Ah, very good Fayenatic london. "Without merging"? I honestly don't know for sure; maybe. I wrote that leading material that's now in "Apocrypha", and I agree: too long, move what's needed elsewhere (even another article), plenty of room for editing. I thought it was a step up at the time, but am far from satisfied. "Each of the articles should define its own scope...": there you've hit the nail right on the head. Content will not be right in any article if there's any lack of clarity about the scope of any article, and that's just what's missing now, intra-article. There needs to be a progression of sections within each article that illuminates the topic in gradations, from less detail towards more detail. "Apocrypha" lacks that now, making it hard to tell just what the article is supposed to be about. "Biblical apocrypha" could use help that way also.
Let's step back to "recognizability and naturalness are inherently subjective" from ColonelHenry. That's true. But let's remember that those guidelines are in WP for a reason: subjective does not imply unimportant, nor does it mean that objective is superior. There's a real consideration to be weighed, but consensus is the only reasonable avenue to decide. I didn't raise that issue just because of my own perspective (though that would have been ok too). There are a couple of others who left entries on the "Apocrypha" talk page; read them - same thing. I know that the aspect of title precision conflicts; that's why we need to weigh carefully the one thing against the other. ColonelHenry favors status quo, arguing the precision side; no opposition here, just a different initial impression.
So if current "Apocrypha" is supposed to have the larger and more general scope, and that's the community consensus, I'm fine with that, as long as we've really done the careful considering. I think the meaning for "Deuterocanonical books" is quite clear and the article explains it and backs it up, narrowing the whole wider apocryphal subject area. I agree that there needs to be a separate article for the 12 OT books whose canonicity is disputed between protestant and catholic, and the topic should focus on the Reformation dispute. We already have "Development of the Christian biblical canon" to describe the ancient developments that produced the Catholic and Orthodox canons. Not much overlap is necessary among those. Scope is the big issue that could strongly influence choice of article titles. Evenssteven (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Well, I can definitely say that having read the different articles, I'm having a hard time distinguishing "Jewish" from "OT" apocrypha, and just as an aside, there should a table defining the contents of the OT in the OT article, and there isn't. From an outside perspective, many of the Bible articles have been broken down so much that they're not intelligible to a non-specialist such as myself. There's what, 5 development articles, most of which overlap chronologically? Same problem with apocrypha - 3 articles, and two are indistinguishable because there's no clarifying language or cross-reference. I think the title should remain as-is, but that some thought be given to a major overhaul of content. MSJapan (talk) 00:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm also a non-specialist, and I agree: "not intelligible". I also agree with "major overhaul of content". But I think the first thing that's required is some consensus on overall organization of articles (=knowing scope). And design of articles (progression of sections). Then we'll know what content to put where, and what remains to be written. And also what name to give the articles. Oh, and discussing "canon" shouldn't hide behind the "apocrypha" label; "canon" needs to be more in the open somehow. Evenssteven (talk) 07:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Would anybody like to sketch out a navigation template? I suggest it should have brief explanatory phrases after the long words (which are properly used in titles for precision). – Fayenatic London 22:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
See my reply below, under Overall organization of articles on Canon and Apocrypha Evenssteven (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm yielding the article rename suggestion to the solid points in ColonelHenry's rebuttal. I do see how the two article titles could distinguish separate topics, even though I remain confused about what each is trying to say at present. Hopefully that can be made clearer through re-writing. And possibly that re-writing will also make clearer these articles' relation to the new discussion topic below. For now, I think it better to retain stability until larger considerations point to a clear path for improvement. Evenssteven (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Overall organization of articles on Canon and Apocrypha[edit]

The discussion from the preceding section Should article Biblical apocrypha be renamed Apocrypha? has morphed. I'm opening this new discussion title for its continuation, and to maintain discussion focus.

The navigation template sounds to me like a good practical item. We need something concrete to deal with, lest discussion just become theoretical. And we need to be able to deal with larger goals in bite-sized chunks that are doable in increments. I'd give this a shot myself, but I still don't feel I have enough perspective over this big picture right now. I'll continue reading and re-reading articles and other materials to try to make some headway before attempting proposals. BTW, I'm not sure what a navigation template looks like nor how it is implemented (I've only been on WP less than a month). Pointers gratefully received on my talk page (or in a contribution here along those lines?). Thanks much, Evenssteven (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's one: Template:Bible relatedFayenatic London 15:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Another concrete area: There seems to be a lot of overlap between "Deuterocanonical books" and "Biblical Apocrypha". I tend to think that "Deuterocanonical books" is the more descriptive title where that material belongs (and it is the much better-written article at this time). But before I would want to start any major overhauls within "Biblical Apocrypha", can anyone point me to what the difference between these articles really is supposed to be? In other words, how much necessity is there to retain two articles, and/or where do we draw the dividing line? I'm partly following up on MSJapan's points above. Evenssteven (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

As I understand it, deuterocanonical books are defined lists in Catholic and various Orthodox canons, whereas Biblical apocrypha covers those plus other texts which are less well supported. – Fayenatic London 15:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. But these "other texts": they do not then fall into Biblical apocrypha because of disagreements of canon arising out of the Reformation (for they are not Catholic-canonical at all, deuterocanonical or not), but for some other reason? Perhaps because they just began to be republished in the intertestamental sections of some Bibles beginning at that time? Or are they in that category rather because the early church placed them in the antilegommenae during development of the original canons and just never accepted them into the canon at all? Perhaps those separate classifications are simply some material that goes into the Biblical apocrypha article, yes? Thanks again! Evenssteven (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
I'll be incorporating some info from RSs into various articles, to the effect that the Eastern Orthodox church has never committed to a list of Old Testament books as "official canon", but has traditionally used the Septuagint from ancient times, partly because it is quoted in the NT, partly because the Septuagint was considered definitive as Jewish canon at the time of Christ, and partly because it was completed before later Jewish reactions to Christianity caused them to change their own canon. At least, that's where the ancient discussions settled out. I have also found that "deuterocanon" is a Catholic description only, since it refers to the official Catholic re-affirmation of canon that occurred in response to the Reformation. The 1672 Orthodox synod of Jerusalem was not an ecumenical council, thus did not have a binding authority to make "official canon" for all Orthodox, although what it did was re-affirmative also. But there was (is) no first Orthodox canon for this to be the second one. Likewise, "apocrypha" was first a Protestant term from the early Reformation, used to describe specifically those books it rejected from canon (which term was borrowed from ancient use in developing canon), but in this case was pointed foremost at disputes with Catholicism, sometimes disparagingly. I think it would be useful for the articles and their application of these terms (in titles also) to be clearly delineated along these lines, making clear the viewpoints behind the use of terminology. More recent refinements of meanings can be made clear in light of their history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evenssteven (talkcontribs) 20:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I may have been a little misleading in the prior post. The Orthodox would likely have no problem with using the term "deuterocanonical" in reference to Protestantism and its canon(s). But barring that context, they would find no need for the term. Evenssteven (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Jewish apocrypha[edit]

There's a generic problem with the Apocrypha articles, and that is that there is a separate "Jewish" and "Old Testament" article. Maybe there's a nuance I'm missing, but I should think these are more or less the same thing.

Looking at the former article (which is linked in the title), I found that it includes the "early Christian period", which doesn't make a lot of sense, because if that is the case, there was already a distinction that would make those items "not Jewish" (again, maybe there's a nuance here, buit I don't see it and it's not explained in the article). I also removed a section on the Gospel of Adam and Eve, because that's not what it is called according to the uncited source from which is was lifted verbatim (Britannica, v.2, p.178). The tone was all wrong, and it could not be rewritten without finding other sources. From that point onward, there's a lot of "Christian" references in the sections, which again, would indicate to me that those books are not Jewish and therefore don't belong in the article anyway.

Could someone look that over and make sure that everything is correct and adequately explained if it looks like it shouldn't be there? MSJapan (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

In reply to your first para: The article's lede states that Jewish apocrypha "does not include books ... accepted into the canon of some or all Christian faiths." Therefore there should be no overlap with Old Testament apocrypha. – Fayenatic London 13:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, that's part of it, but there's still a problem. Jewish apocrypha should be in what context? The Tanakh is either equal to or smaller than the Old Testament depending on how one looks at it. For that reason, I'm pretty sure that OT and Tanakh are synonymous to Jews. Might it be easier to fold everything into the OT Apocrypha article and just denote what is Jewish vs. Christian? MSJapan (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Take a look at the discussion on the Apocrypha article above also. This fits in with defining the scope of all these kinds of articles. Evenssteven (talk) 21:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move: Sotah[edit]

Please see Talk:Sotah#Requested_move. It has been re-listed due to lack of participation. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I should add that this is to reverse an undiscussed copy paste move from ordeal of bitter water. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's be accurate, In octi. A merger of articles to the more accurate name was done in 2009. Four uncontested years later you are raising the issue again. -- Avi (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
The copy-paste move was done in 2009, that is correct. The clean up was 5 May 2013. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up Paul Bedson's "pseudo-gnostic apocrypha" nonsense stubs[edit]

Members of this WikiProject may be interested in this discussion. SJK (talk) 06:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of non-free Bible translations[edit]

There is an RfC concerning what should Wikipedia's policy be on the use of non-free Bible translations: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 60#RfC: Use of non-free Bible translations.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

GHeb peer review[edit]

A peer review for the Gospel of the Hebrews article has been opened at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Gospel_of_the_Hebrews/archive1. Please contribute suggestions and constructive criticism to prepare the article for WP:GAN. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

GEbi FAR[edit]

A concern has been expressed (in intensely personal terms) about the comprehensiveness and neutrality of the recently promoted Gospel of the Ebionites feature article. Therefore, an internal review is in order. I have started a discussion on the talk page Talk:Gospel of the_Ebionites#WP:FAR. Please contribute suggestions, constructive criticism, etc., that will result in further improvements to the article, per WP:PRESERVE. The article is move protected until the day after it is featured on the main page, but I will address any comments/concerns asap after that. Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Basemath and Mahalath need merging[edit]

These are the same person - Mahalath seems to usual name according to GBooks and GScholar, would someone like to merge them? Both have useful material. Dougweller (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

These two articles are contradicting each other and themselves, making a confusing situation out of a total of 3 verses in Genesis (two of which are mentioned). 1) Gen 26:34 (not mentioned but should have been) - Esau marries 2 Hittites, Judith d. Beeri and Bashemath d. Elon. 2) Gen 28:9 - Esau marries Mahalath d. Ishmael. 3) Gen 36:2 - Esau's wives by whom he had children include Adah d. Elon (Hittite), Aholibamah d. Anah (a Hivite), and Bashemath d. Ishmael.
Some take this at face value to mean that Esau had at least six different wives, and Bashemath is the name of two different people. Several scholars have tried different other combinations, including that one Bashemath is the same as Adah, and / or the other Bashemath is the same as Mahalath. Even according to this theory Bashemath is the name of two different people, one a Hittite and one an Ishmaelite. I believe the clearest way to present this is not to assume anything, but describe the two references to Bashemaths on the Bashemath page, along with the relevant interpretations, and describe the one reference to Mahalath on the Mahalath page, along with the relevant interpretations. Another possibility would be to merge all wives of Esau into a mega-article Wives of Esau where everything in these 3 verses can be explained and laid out on one single page, along with all the theories. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of the Ebionites undergoing FAR[edit]

Gospel of the Ebionites is currently undergoing featured article review. Anyone who has any interest in helping to make this article at FA status is more than welcome to do so. Ignocrates (talk) 00:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Book of Job - God, Yehweh or Yahweh?[edit]

Please take a look at Talk:Book of Job#God, Yehweh or Yahweh?. I don't know which is correct where or why the IP is doing this but it need attention from someone who can figure this out. I've got some idea about what is going on but I'm probably wrong. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Editor changes biblical dates, etc[edit]

Maxximiliann (talk · contribs) is a new account so should be treated softly, but I'm concerned about major changes in dates and other changes such as Yahweh to Jehovah. He is apparently editing from a JW viewpoint (as also suggested by his reversion of a talk page edit[6]. I'm hoping someone from here can explain why this is a bad idea before I have to take this further. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

First, according to the Cyrus Cylinder, Cyrus conquered Babylon in October 539 B.C.E. Cyrus’ first regal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E. This means that the Jews would be back in their homeland by October 537 B.C.E. or “the seventh month (Tishri)” as Ezra 3:1 says.
It is a simple matter of counting back 70 years which brings us to 607 BCE for Jerusalem’s destruction. Dates other than 607 BCE ignore the statements in Scripture that the land would be desolate for 70 years. (Daniel 9:1,2)
Next, the difference between Yahweh and Jehovah is one of language. "Yahweh" is a possible Hebraic pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton while "Jehovah" is in English. Since the articles in question are in English using "Jehovah" is not only logical but natural. Maxximiliann
You realize that "Jehovah" is perhaps the most unlikely and inaccurate of possible transcriptions of how the Tetragrammaton could have actually pronounced in Biblical Hebrew, and it is not really the most common transcription in modern English either, right? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Argumentum assertio does not a competent substitute for evidence make. Especially since "Jehovah" has been in use in the English language as the rendering of the Tetragrammaton since at least the 12th Century. Maxximiliann (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, "Jehovah" is a fairly good rendering of the correct pronunciation using 12th Century spelling, because in the 12th Century, J was used to represent the sound of modern Y, and V was used to represent the sound of modern W. It is more widely recognized as an antiquated spelling now, since English readers will pronounce the J and V differently than it originally was intended. (BTW, JWs do not insist on spelling it with J and V in several other languages, but acknowledge that it should be spelled in native languages without the obsolete English values for J and V.) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 21:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, "Jehovah" is such an archaic spelling that it continues to be used throughout contemporary English Bibles such as the American Standard Version, the Darby Bible Translation, the English Revised Version, Webster's Bible Translation and the New World Translation, to only mention a few ... Maxximiliann (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
We simply can't calculate biblical dates ourselves, that is original research. And trying to edit war your viewpoint will get you blocked. Dougweller (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Again, you are mistaken. Performing simple arithmetic is not a violation of the Original Research policy. I kindly invite you to review current NPOV Policy and desist in your continued practice of noetical bigotry. Maxximiliann (talk) 21:06, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no basis for the JWs' claim that the Jews must have returned in 537; comparison of Josephus and Ezra places the return in 538 and the laying of the foundations of the temple in 537. Apart from that there is a multitude of problems with the JWs' dogmatic claim that Jerusalem was conquered by the Babylonians in 607 BCE rather than the correct year of 587 BCE—so many problems in fact that it's entirely safe to say the JW view is 100% definitely wrong. Your fringe views are not welcome at Wikipedia.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, regardless of other interpretations of 'scripture', Jeremiah 25:12 quite definitely states that Babylon's king would be 'called to account' after 70 years—a period during which all the surrounding nations serve Babylon—were fulfilled. So any interpretation that places the end of the 70 years after the Babylonian empire was replaced by the Persians is automatically wrong. This is probably why JW literature has not quoted Jeremiah 25:12 in over 30 years.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Try again. Your exegesis of Jeremiah 25:25 is specious, puerile. Verses 12-14 & 17-26 lists those who would suffer Jehovah God's judgment; 'drink from his cup of the wine of his rage.' (25:15,16) It most certainly does not assert what you mendaciously allege. As I've already explicated, the seventy years of desolation Jerusalem had to experience was precisely that. (2 Chronicles 36:20,21; Jeremiah 25:12; Zechariah 1:12; Daniel 9:2; Zechariah 7:5; Jeremiah 29:10) Nowhere is this figure presented as allegorical or figurative in any way, shape or form.
Withal, you just finished stating, "Josephus and Ezra indicate that construction of the temple foundations began in Cyrus' second year, and that the Jews were in their homeland the year before, which was 538." At worst this would put the desolation of Jerusalem at 608 BCE, nowhere near the figures you're trying to push.
In effect, you're repudiating your own argument for a later date, therefore, your entire delirious argument is laid bare for what it is, pure sophistry. —Maxximiliann talk 03:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
You've just pasted the same response that you left at Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (597 BC)[7], and it's just as irrelevant here as it was there. As with the other Talk page, I didn't even mention Jeremiah 25:25 here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
And how exactly does that change the fact that your entire argument is just naked casuistry of the worst kind?—Maxximiliann talk 00:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Your actions have been reported.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I've filed a counterclaim. You are hereby banned from posting on my talk page until this matter is resolved by the competent authorities.—Maxximiliann talk 01:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no premise for 'banning' an editor from your User Talk page. However, I will have no need to comment there if I am not mentioned or alluded to there.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Some help?[edit]

I've noticed a bunch of places on Wikipedia where virtually all biblical scholarship disagrees with fundamentalist Christians who believe there is no such thing as pseudepigrapha in the Bible, and Wikipedia seems to take something of a theological stand by implying that these issues are controversial among scholars. See the recent history of Saint Peter, or the 7th paragraph of Second Epistle of Peter which lists four sources supporting early (Petrine) authorship and implies that only a quarter as many favour a later date. I've also noticed that when I write a sentence accurately reflecting what is in a source, someone will come along and change the way the sentence was worded to imply the source supports a completely different viewpoint (even when this "viewpoint" is the factual statement "Most scholars believe X"). Hijiri 88 (やや) 14:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

First, I don't for a second doubt what you say above, believe me. Having said that, I question the use of the word "pseudepigrapha" not because I think it prejudicial, because I don't think it necessarily is, but because the term is rather widely used in academia, generally for things like the Testament of Adam, so it is kind of leading in this context. For material like this, we need a lot more input and some more people who have access to the leading academic and independent sourcing. I personally wish I knew the percentage population of fundamentalists, so that we could indicate that they believe something that the other unknown percentage of others don't agree with, but at this point maybe the best thing to do is to find some leading academic sources, like the 2012 Coogan Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, and find what they have to say, and then maybe to start RfCs, probably one at a time, on how to structure the content of our articles to better reflect the academic standard. Also, there is a good chance that there will be an ArbCom on the rough topic of early Christianity soon, and it may be that we can get some help then. But, maybe, at this point, get together some sources on the topics, and then file either single or maybe one mass RfC, maybe here?, on the proportional weight to be given the pseudipegraphic and non-pseudepigraphic views in our content. John Carter (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, just think about the number of fundamentalists versus the number of legit bible scholars (I'm neither, tbh), and then think about which group is more likely to want to promote their agenda via Wikipedia. I use "pseudepigrapha" because about half of everything I know about the New Testament comes from Dale Martin's lecture series on the YaleCourses YouTube channel (I'm pretty sure the official open university lectures uploaded by a renowned academic institution meet WP:RS comfortably), and he uses it instead of Bart Ehrman's "forgeries" (which I think we can agree is even more problematic). I haven't generally used the term in article space, though, preferring "Scholars are in general agreement that Peter didn't write either of the epistles attributed to him.[ref]" The only problem is that usually within around a week, an IP (usually, but not always, based in the southern United States) will come along and, without even adding their own source, change the sentence to say "Some scholars believe that Peter didn't write either of the epistles attributed to him.[inappropriate ref]" I agree, though, that we should generally use good tertiary sources like the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible to establish WP:DUEWEIGHT. I actually took this same view on a Japanese classical text with a similar problem.[8] Anyway, I'll keep it up, and if I see any more significant trouble (the worst it's got so far was this silly misunderstanding) I'll try an RfC. Thanx! Hijiri 88 (やや) 01:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, "the majority of Biblical scholarship rejects the Petric authorship of both." The change (not by me) to "some" should not be chastised too strongly, as it is merely less specific, not inaccurate. Furthermore, I'm sure this ill-conceived yet mild change was motivated by the misleading nature of your sentence, as if pseudepigraphy were anything near a firmly established fact. We ought to take care to distinguish the breadth of support for a view from its depth. Here, the case against Petrine authorship is extremely flimsy, as is the case in favor. This kind of wildly exaggerated certainty comes with the territory in Biblical criticism, and no doubt you've simply carried it over from your sources. I'm sure you will find both extremes represented among the various tertiary sources as well. I'm not interested in starting an edit war, but I would have said something like, "Petrine authorship is widely doubted," which concisely captures what our readers will want to know and nothing more; there's a whole article for anyone who cares to inquire further. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission[edit]

Just a heads-up about this submission. Seems non-notable. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of many "Pseudo-" stub alleged Gnostic apocrypha[edit]

Please see here. SJK (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


Template:Bibleverse needs to be edited by and admin. The source code links to That website is no longer active. User:Atethnekos edited Template:Bibleverse/sandbox which links to

{ { Bibleverse|BOOK#|BOOKNAME|c:v–c:v|SOURCE } } John 1:1 Joel 4:2 1 Maccabees 2:1-5 are not working.
{ { Bibleverse/sandbox|BOOK#|BOOKNAME|c:v–c:v|SOURCE } } John 1:1 Joel 4:2 1 Maccabees 2:1-5 are working.
The source code of Template:Bibleverse needs to be changed in its entirety to:the source code found in Bibleverse/sandbox
Can someone take care of this? Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 07:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Never mind It's been fixed. --@Efrat (talk) 07:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

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)