Template talk:Books of the Old Testament

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Ben Sira

I added Ben Sira (this is how the article is titled, I've never seen it spelled anywhere else like this) and 2 Esdras under "Apocrypha". Even though 2 Esdras is accepted by any church (as far as I know), its generally kept with the Deuterocanonical works and should be in this list.Rt66lt 02:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

The article on 2 Esdras says the Russian and Ethipoian Orthodox Churches accept it. Changed "Apocrypha" accordingly.Rt66lt 02:24, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for those changes. I reformatted the heading for the Russian and Ethiopian Orthodox so the whole thing is not as wide. fischersc 03:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I've moved the Letter of Jeremiah to the Catholic, Orthadox, and Coptic section. The letter of Jeremiah is chapter 6 in the Book of Baruch in the Catholic Canon. --Ronconte 13:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Should this template include links to 2 Enoch or 3 Enoch. At the moment you have a link to 1 Enoch at the bottom of the template? I'm trying to find out if it should link to the other two books as well. If this template should reference all three articles ill add links for them and add the template to those pages. Just looking for your advice and opinons, cheers. :) --Shimirel 02:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. 2 Enoch was only "discovered" in the 19th C. and exists only in Slavonic; I'm not aware of any Church that includes it in their canon (though I could always be wrong, you never know). 3 Enoch is known as Hebrew Enoch; it is also not in the canon of any Church that I am aware of. 1 Enoch is the only one of these that forms a part of any Church's canon at the moment, I'm pretty sure. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer and for your edits on 1 Enoch nice to know someone cares about the page as much as I do. -Shimirel 01:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More corrections

Please note,

  • Psalms 151 through 155 are not part of the Oriental Orthodox canon.
  • The (Ethiopian) Oriental Orthodox canon does include books known as 1, 2, and 3 Meqabyan (= Maccabees), however, these are not the same books as the 1, 2, and 3 Maccabees used elsewhere, in fact, the 3 Ethiopian books have nothing whatsoever in common with any of the 4 books of Maccabees known outside of Ethiopia. You could say that in all this makes seven distinct books of Maccabees.
  • The Ethiopian Dodesqalya (Didascalia) according to my sources is NOT the same work as those known elsewhere as 'Didascalia' nor 'Didache'... (this is really hard to find as it has never been printed and exists only in manuscript)
  • 2 Baruch is evidently included in the Syriac Peshitta, but that doesn't make it canonical in Oriental Orthodox Churches.

Please make the appropriate changes. Thanks, ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Psalms 151-155 are part of the Syriac Peshitta, which is "Oriental Orthodoxy". 1-4 Macc are part of Greek Orthodox, I agree they are not exactly identical with Ethiopian Macc, but not sure how to handle the issue with the currect structure. Ethiopian Didascalia is very similar to I-VII of Apostolic Constitutions, book VII is the Didache, perhaps a wikilink to there instead would be preferable. Agreed about 2 Baruch, so let's call that Peshitta? 64.149.83.167 03:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually 4 Maccabees is not canonical for any Eastern Orthodox Church. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes it is canonical in the NRSV English Bible with Apocrypha. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.65.78 (talk • contribs) 2007-05-02:23:21
I'm afraid that publishing houses are not authorized to determine which books are canonical for the Orthodox and which are not. Especially when they publish the NRSV. And if you read the intro to 4 Maccabees, you'll find they tell you it's not canonical. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
If you want to make Peshitta a separate category, you could move the extra Psalms and 2 Baruch there since they are largely unknown in other Oriental Orthodox churches. May I ask what is your source for the contents of Dodesqalya? Like I said, it's practically impossible to find, never having been printed... Since The 4 Greek Macc's are not the same books at all as the 3 ones canonical in Ethiopia, they should not be represented as if they were. There are no articles yet for the Ethiopian books of Meqabyan, but I am familiar with their contents (they are in my Amharic Bible) and I could easily write such an article when I get enough spare time. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Apostolic Church-Ordinances, see also Catholic Encyclopedia: Apostolic Church-Ordinance: "first published in Ethiopic by Ludolf (with Latin translation) in the "Commentarius" to his "Historia Ethiopica" (Frankfort. 1691). It served as a law-code for the Egyptian, Ethiopian, and Arabian churches, and rivalled in authority and esteem the Didache, under which name it sometimes went. ... The document, after a short introduction (i-iii) inspired by the "Letter of Barnabas", is divided into two parts, the first of which (iv-xiv) is an evident adaptation of the first six chapters of the Didache, the moral precepts of which are attributed severally to the Apostles, each of whom, introduced by the formula "John says", "Peter says", etc., is represented as framing one or more of the ordinances. The second part (xv-xxx) treats in similar manner of the qualifications for ordination or for the duties of different officers in the Church." 75.0.9.233 06:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable this is, but it may be the result of some confusion with the Fetha Negest, which most definitely served as a law-code for the Egyptian, Ethiopian and Arabian churches and the first part of which was largely based on earlier apostolic church ordinances (note small caps) including Sinodos... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 07:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know the details of the Ethiopic. This [1] claims: "The Ethiopian Didascalia (Didesqelya),[15] a book of Church order in 43 chapters, distinct from the Didascalia Apostolorum, but similar to books I-VII of the so-called Apostolic Constitutions." note 15 = "Incomplete text and translation in T. P. Platt, The Ethiopic Didascalia, London 1834. Complete English translation in J. M. Harden, The Ethiopic Didascalia, London 1920,"75.0.9.233 09:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 Esdras

The idea that Russians have a book called 2 Esdras that is unique to them is silly, since they refer to is as 3 Esdras. While this name may be unique to them it is certainly not 2 Esdras according to 2000 years of naming tradition, since that is Ezra Nehemiah according to the LXX, or 4 Esdras according to the Vulgate. The protestant idea of naming it 2 Esdras is a novelty. 203.32.87.174 13:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

This is being discussed at Talk:2 Esdras. Most common usage in English prevails on this wikipedia, not Russian. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:14, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Psalms of Solomon

An anon. user has inserted text in several articles and this template that the Psalms of Solomon is part of the Greek Orthodox canon. I think this is incorrect, based on the following: The Oxford Annotated NRSV Bible states that the Greek Orthodox church uses the Catholic deuterocanonical books plus 1 Esdras, Psalm 151, the Prayer of Manasseh, and 3 Maccabees (4 Maccabees is in the appendix but not considered canonical). The online Encyclopedia Britannica states that the P of S is not part of any scriptural canon. Is there agreement that it should be removed from this template? --Blainster 20:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


203.32.87.174 23:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC) I don't think it's true either. There are quite a few references on the web making the claim, but they all give signs of having originated from the same spurious sources. I think is should be removed until better documentation is presented.

It is absolutely not part of the Orthodox canon. TCC (talk) (contribs) 02:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It is included in one manuscript of the Septuagint, so some people think that all Orthodox Bibles have it, and this is not the case at all. Good edit, IMHO. Yahnatan 11:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What did the Synod of Jerusalem specify?64.149.82.79 20:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It refuted the Calvinist theology of Patriarch Cyril Lucaris, mainly. It did nothing with regard to the canon of Scripture. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Schaff's Creeds: "To these eighteen decrees are added four questions and answers ... The third defines the extent of the canon including the Apocrypha." Footnote 139: "The following Apocrypha are expressly mentioned (Vol. I. p. 467): The Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Tobit, History of the Dragon, History of Susannah, the books of the Maccabees, the Wisdom of Sirach. The Confession of Mogilas, though not formally sanctioning the Apocrypha, quotes them frequently as authority, e.g. Tobit xii. 9, in P. III. Qu. 9, on alms. On the other hand, the less important Confession of Metrophanes Critopulus, c. 7 (Kimmel, P. II. p. 104 sq.), mentions only twenty-two canonical books of the Old Test., and excludes from them the Apocrypha, mentioning Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Baruch, and the Maccabees. The Russian Catechism of Philaret omits the Apocrypha in enumerating the books of the Old Test., for the reason that 'they do not exist in Hebrew,' but adds that 'they have been appointed by the fathers to be read by proselytes who are preparing for admission into the Church.' (See Vol. II. 451, and Blackmore's translation, pp.38, 39.)" 75.15.204.88 16:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "removed" vs. "excluded"

I am going to make a minor edit to this template that I believe is a matter of using more neutral language. However, since I feel that since this is a fairly widely-used template, I may be less than biased because I am a Protestant myself, and there may be a reason for the curent wording that I have missed, I don't want to do it without at least opening a discussion.

The template currently says that Protestants "removed" the apocryphal books, but most Protestants would say the opposite, that the apocryphal books never were part of the canon, and other divisions of Christianity "added" these books. With that in mind, I am going to change "removed" to "exclude", and likewise, a few lines down for the benefit of the Orthodox canon, I'm going to change "add" to "include". If there's a good technical reason why this is wrong, I'd be interested in hearing it. --BBrucker2 15:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The historical record shows that they were not only removed, but enables us to say when, where, and by whom. However, 'excluded' is just as good, and since some people were taught differently, is probably more neutral, so I won't quibble. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I really am quite curious as to the historical record of this. I enjoy reading up on church history. Is there an article you can point me to? --BBrucker2 18:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, the books in question were removed from the Jewish canon around the year 90 by the Sanhedrin at the Council of Jamnia. Most people think they decided to remove them because they have doctrines about the Messiah that were being used by Christians. However, the writings of the Early Church fathers clearly indicate that they continued to be used and revered as authoritative by the early Christian community, which itself was illegal in pagan Rome. Finally when Christianity was legalized in the 300s, the Roman Emperors decided to reorganize the Church, and decided to suppress the very same books that the Sanhedrin had suppressed, again rejecting the books in question. However, this had no effect on Christians living outside the Roman Empire which is why they still have these books in their Bible. So the Bible that is missing these books, is in effect, a Judaeo-Romanized version. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, which books are we talking about? The Emperors never did anything to the Biblical canon AFAIK, and in any event nearly all the books listed are still canonical in Orthodoxy, in churches where the Emperors would have had the most influence. Or is this about the 6 entries at the bottom of the template? TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Widening a useful template

First of all, congratulations a truly useful template. This template takes a topic with many complicated technical details and sets it out very clearly. Good job.

A couple of small suggestions:

  • Width: There is a lot of information here in small print, which sometimes doesn't format very well on the short lines allowed in the template. Perhaps the template could be slightly widened in order to accomodate the text better (which would also result in it being shorter from top to bottom)?
  • Septuagint: Some brief mention should make about the order of the books in all Christian denominations deriving from the order of books as found in the Septuagint, with variations (as the template clearly shows but doesn't explain).
  • Torah: Is there a reason why the 5 books of the Torah/Pentateuch aren't listed?

What do people think? Dovi 07:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The width seems fine to me? Though... as to why not listing the 5 books of the Torah, perhaps to save space? There is a link there, easy to follow it and see more details. Finally, I'll just mention I think it is a great template too! Mathmo Talk

[edit] Samaritans

The template should probably be updated to include a section on the Samaritans. Aherents of Samaritanism have a different view of the canon than mainstream Judaism. Samaritans, according to the Wikipedia Samaritan article, they only hold the Samaritan version of the Torah as inspired (though they have other texts of lesser standing). It should be noted that this version of the Torah differs from the Massoratic Text, and is writen in an older (pre-Babylonian Exile) script of Hebrew. —Wikijeff 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

On another note, I think the template should be widened some as well. —Wikijeff 03:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

It is truly a blessing to see this small contribution grow, be used, and modified as much as it has. When I created it 2 years ago I never thought it would be used like it has. It has given me encouragement in the wikipedia world, since I had become disheartened with the community. Especially regarding Biblical articles. Many times there is just so much controversy that it makes it impossible to contribute anything of lasting value. Thank you for everyone who has continued this template. You have revived my interest and I may begin contributing other items again as well. --fischersc 21:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Church of England / Episcopal / Anglican

Anglicanism is defined by the 39 Articles, which is explicit about the position on the books listed in the template — not canonical. It is a very positive statement, despite rejecting canonicity.

“ And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther, The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom, The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach, The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet, The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses, The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees, Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

 ”

Anyway, I've removed Anglican from the template, effectively Anglicans just fall into the general Protestant category wrt this issue. They are certainly more positive than other Protestants, but we cannot claim they hold these books to be canonical, when their own "Articles of Religion" deny it to be the case. Cheers all. Alastair Haines 07:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused here. Where do the Thirty-nine Articles exclude these books? It says: "the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners" and indeed these books are read in the modern church. This is inclusion, not exclusion. Nowhere do the Thirty-nine Articles say "not canonical" or "rejecting canonicity" - these are your words, i.e. Original Research. 75.15.207.239 21:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, it's the Westminster Confession of Faith that excluded the so-called King James Apocrypha, but this was rejected by the Church of England during The Restoration. 75.15.207.239 21:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
There are lots of copies of the 39 articles on the web, check 'em out, the intention is clear in context. Alternatively, just check with your local Anglican minister, they have to sign that they agree to the 39 articles in order to hold office. Interesting original research of yours, to suggest "reading for life and manners" = "canonicity", but I don't recall ever hearing that view published. I can feel your point, but sorry, but we can't have it at Wiki unless you source it.
Re: Westminster Confession, you're right on the money again, and it clarifies the point — "nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings". In other words, not only are they not inspired (according to WC), but not appropriate for any special use (i.e. "reading for life and manners"). WC only allows two classifications -- canon or not -- other traditions sometimes accord church fathers special status, without considering them canonical. Talmud and Mishnah also have special status, without being canonical. Then there are papal bulls in the RC tradition ... Big and fascinating topic. :) Cheers. Alastair Haines 22:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikisource has original text related to this article:

You've missed the point. The Apocrypha are included in the Thirty-Nine Articles, not excluded. The section in the template is included/excluded. Here's a copy of Article 6 of the 1801 American revision titled: "OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR SALVATION":

...In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. Of the names and Number of the Canonical Books: Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers; Deuteronomy; Joshua; Judges; Ruth; The I Book of Samuel; The II Book of Samuel; The I Book of Kings; The II Book of Kings; The I Book of Chronicles; The II Book of Chronicles; The I Book of Esdras; The II Book of Esdras; The Book of Esther; The Book of Job; The Psalms; The Proverbs; Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher; Cantica, or Songs of Solomon; Four Prophets the Greater; Twelve Prophets the Less. And the other Books (as Heirome [The Old English form of Hieronymus, or Jerome...] saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine. Such are these following: The III Book of Esdras; The IV Book of Esdras; The Book of Tobias; The Book of Judith; The rest of the Book of Esther†; The Book of Wisdom; Jesus the Son of Sirach; Baruch the Prophet†; The Song of the Three Children†; The Story of Suzanna; Of Bel and the Dragon†; The Prayer of Manasses†; The I Book of Maccabees; The II Book of Maccabees. All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them Canonical. [books marked † were added in 1571.]

75.14.211.113 04:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop including your own original interpretation of the article in the template. I will format the text so the point is clear:
[Point One]

  • In the name of Holy Scripture
  • we do understand those Canonical Books
  • of the Old and New Testament,
  • of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church. [Clue 1]

[Point Two] {section A}

  • Of the names and Number of the Canonical Books: [Clue 2]
  • Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers; Deuteronomy; Joshua; Judges; Ruth;
  • The I Book of Samuel; The II Book of Samuel; The I Book of Kings; The II Book of Kings;
  • The I Book of Chronicles; The II Book of Chronicles; The I Book of Esdras; The II Book of Esdras;
  • The Book of Esther; The Book of Job; The Psalms; The Proverbs; Ecclesiastes, or the Preacher;
  • Cantica, or Songs of Solomon; Four Prophets the Greater; Twelve Prophets the Less.

{section B}

  • And the other Books [Clue 3]
  • (as Heirome saith) [Clue 4]
  • the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners;
  • but yet it doth not apply them to establish any doctrine. [Clue 5]
  • Such are these following:
  • The III Book of Esdras; The IV Book of Esdras; The Book of Tobias; The Book of Judith;
  • The rest of the Book of Esther†; The Book of Wisdom; Jesus the Son of Sirach; Baruch the Prophet†;
  • The Song of the Three Children†; The Story of Suzanna; Of Bel and the Dragon†; The Prayer of Manasses†;
  • The I Book of Maccabees; The II Book of Maccabees.

[Point 3]

  • All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive and account them Canonical. [Clue 6]

Jerome (Heirome) says, Igitur Sapienta, quae vulgo Salomonis inscribitur, et Iesu filii Sirach liber et Iudith et Tobias et Pastor non sunt in canone. [Emphasis added.] Whether you and I believe Jerome wrote that in the prologue, that is what they believed then.

2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." [AV] Whether you or I like the KJV, that is the translation they were familiar with — scripture => inspiration => doctrine. The contrapositive is "no doctrine, no scripture".

  • [Clue 1] "never any doubt" does not describe the apocryphal books, which is why, even when accepted, they were called deutero-canonical.
  • [Clue 2] "the Canonical books" are explicitly named as such and listed
  • [Clue 3] "the other books", that is, the non-Canonical books, clear from context.
Reading *other Canonical books does not explain the distinction, and reads in an assumption.
  • [Clue 4] "Hierome", quoted above, known to them from the Vulgate prologues as ardently anti-apocryphal-inclusions.
  • [Clue 5] "establish any doctrine", they believed the whole Bible to be true, and knew what it said, especially that "all scripture is profitable for doctrine", so what is not profitable for doctrine is not scripture.
  • [Clue 6] "Canonical" is again repeated to make it explicit what is canonical and what is not. Were what had just been said about the apocryphal books relevant to the New Testament, it could have been abbreviated to something like: *Likewise, we do so receive all the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received. But there is no "likewise", in fact, it is contrastitive. The NT is Canonical and therefore profitable for doctrine.

Admittedly, without punctuation, and without familiarity with Jerome, KJV or 17th century English, I can easily imagine people reading this article to the exact contrary of what it is actually saying. Unfortunately I grew up for 17 years in an old fashioned Anglican church that used the 1662 Prayer Book, I kinda talk funny sometimes cause of that. Anyway, unless you can find a peer-reviewed source that interprets the article as you do, I'm afraid I need to revert it once more. If you are right, you will not be the only one to have seen it. Sorry, but I must ask you to go hunting for all those scholars who can clearly see what you do. Alternatively, you may save time by thinking through what I've presented above. Cheers. Alastair Haines 08:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


Refs as requested:

St. Joseph's Episcopal Church - Vocabulary: "Apocrypha: The collective name for the books that are in the Septuagint (the collection of Old Testament book translated into Greek by the Jewish scholars of Alexandria) but are not in the Hebrew Bible. The Roman Catholic Church considers these books to have the same authority as the other books of the Old Testament, while some Protestant denominations reject them. The Episcopal Church considers them as worthy of teaching, but not of necessary doctrine for salvation. Also known as the Deuterocanonicals ("second canon")."

Orthodox store: NRSV with Deuterocanonicals & Apocrypha: "This popular paperback study and devotion Bible a good selection as a home Bible, too. The supplement section includes maps and a variety of reader's aids. The Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books appear as a section between the Old and New Testaments and are commonly accepted by the Roman Catholic, Anglican and Eastern Orthodox churches."

Journalist's online handbook of religion: "Apocrypha: Ancient writings in Greek that were rejected as part of the Hebrew Bible but accepted by later Greek and Latin church fathers. Martin Luther, the Protestant Reformation leader, followed the Hebrew canon and rejected the books of the Apocrypha. As a result, many versions of the Bible include the Apocrypha, but still more versions do not include the books. Roman Catholics accept the Apocryphal books, and some called Deuterocanonicals, as part of the scriptures, and Anglicans generally accept the books as "instructive for the faith" though not inspired of God. Similarly, Eastern Orthodoxy accepts the Apocrypha, though to a varying degree. Most Protestant denominations, following Luther, reject the books as being not part of the inspired canon. The King James Version of the Bible, which ironically originally included the apocryphal books, now often appends these books to the Old Testament. The Apocrypha is comprised of the books known as: First and Second Esdras, Tobit, Judith, parts of Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, parts of Daniel, the Prayer of Manasses, and First and Second Maccabees. Roman Catholic editions generally integrate the Apocrypha into appropriate sections of the Old Testament as deuterocanonicals (second canon). Editors and reporters should avoid the common misconception of equating apocryphal literature with false or inauthentic writings. Several Apocryphas books have different names depending on the canon being followed. The best outline of this confusing collection of ancient documents can be found in the Introduction to the Apocrypha in The New Oxford Annotated Bible, beginning at page iiiAP. (see Bibliography)."

The Origin And Authority Of The Biblical Canon In The Anglican Church, H. W. Howorth, Journal Of Theological Studies, 1906, pp.1-40.: "In conclusion, whatever excuse the Lutherans and Calvinists of the Continent may have had for treating the so-called apocryphal books as non-canonical, it seems to me that that excuse cannot cover the position of the Church of England, whose polity was not a product of the sixteenth century, but is based on the practices and theories of the primitive Church."

The Apocrypha, Bridge of the Testaments at orthodoxanglican.net: "On the other hand, the Anglican Communion emphatically maintains that the Apocrypha is part of the Bible and is to be read with respect by her members. Two of the hymns used in the American Prayer Book office of Morning Prayer, the Benedictus es and Benedicite, are taken from the Apocrypha. One of the offertory sentences in Holy Communion comes from an apocryphal book (Tob. 4: 8-9). Lessons from the Apocrypha are regularly appointed to be read in the daily, Sunday, and special services of Morning and Evening Prayer. There are altogether 111 such lessons in the latest revised American Prayer Book Lectionary [The books used are: II Esdras, Tobit, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Three Holy Children, and I Maccabees.] The position of the Church is best summarized in the words of Article Six of the Thirty-nine Articles: “In the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority there was never any doubt in the Church. . . . And the other Books (as Hierome [St. Jerome] saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine . . .”"

World Bible Society: History of the Bible: "The Apocrypha was kept as part of virtually every Bible scribed or printed from these early days until just 120 years ago, in the mid-1880's, when it was removed from Protestant Bibles. Up until the 1880's, however, every Christian… Protestant or otherwise… embraced the Apocrypha as part of the Bible, though debate continued as to whether or not the Apocrypha was inspired. There is no truth to the popular myth that there is something "Roman Catholic" about the Apocrypha, which stemmed from the fact that the Roman Catholics kept 12 of the 14 Apocrypha Books in their Bible, as the Protestants removed all of them. No real justification was ever given for the removal of these ancient Jewish writings from before the time of Christ, which had remained untouched and part of every Bible for nearly two thousand years."

St. Stephen Anglican: "The Apocrypha has semi-canonical status. It contains books written in the inter-testamental period. The Anglican position on the Apocrypha is it is useful for the example of life and the instruction of manners, but not the proving of doctrine."

Episcopal Dictionary: "Canon - a term used for the accepted, or "canonical" books of Scripture. There are 39 books of the Old Testament, 27 books of New Testament and 14 books of the Apocrypha."

St. Mary's: " The Bible is divided into three parts: the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament, ... There are 39 books in the Old Testament, 14 books in the Apocrypha, and 27 books in the New Testament. ... All of the Old Testament and most of the Apocrypha are read once a year during the course of our worship. ... The Authorized Version remains the official Bible of the Anglican Church."

75.0.12.104 08:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I have created a template Template:Books of the Biblical Apocrypha where this very interesting and important collection of ancient books can be gathered neatly into a navigation bar. Your references only show that some Anglicans are happy to include the apocrypha in the Bible, not that they consider it canonical, inspired, necessary for doctrine or life. That is quite a different thing. Protestants include the Pericope of the Adulteress and the long ending to Mark's gospel in their Bibles, however they do not consider them canonical, inspired, necessary for doctrine or life. I'm sorry, but you are being very unfair to Catholics and Orthodox believers who consider the books to be God's own words, and to Anglicans who value the books, but ardently deny that they are God's words. We must report what people believe, not harmonize it. I welcome further discussion from all who may wish to contribute at the Template talk above. Alastair Haines 13:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Content forking is against Wikipedia policy. 75.14.208.224 18:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
POV forking is mostly undesirable in articles. The debate re: Anglicans is a matter of you intruding an inaccuracy regarding the Apocry/Deutero books. The discussion can be continued, though everything you cite only proves what I said in the first place. For example, "The Episcopal Church considers them as worthy of teaching, but not of necessary doctrine for salvation." Please register, so you can be accountable for your edits. Alastair Haines 00:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canon vs. Old Testament

Is this a template about the Old Testament or about the Canon? The two are different you know. The Gutenberg Bible includes 2 Esdras in its old testament, but that does not make it canonical. (Some) Anglicans may very well consider Sirach to be (semi-) canonical, but they do not place it in the Old Testament; they place it in the Apocrypha section of their bibles. Rwflammang 16:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, the two are closely associated and not quite identical. That's one reason I'm sympathetic to the term "Biblical Apocrypha". Though it's not an ideal term, it does clearly distinguish that there are apocryphal books that no denomination includes in their bibles. The practice of placing an Apocrypha between the Testaments, reinforces the sense of the chronological term, intertestimental. Whether deuterocanonical or apocryphal (doctrinal descriptions), there is little or no dispute regarding relative date. Alastair Haines 00:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major revision

The work done on this template to make the Apocryphal books easily navigable, and to concisely present which groups accept them is a treasure. I have taken the bold move of providing more space for it, by the simple expedient of separating it from the books of the Hebrew Bible, i.e. those common to all groups, including Muslims. It must still be called Old Testament because it uses the English or Latin names for books and the Christian "chronological" ordering system. A template already exists for the Tanakh with the Hebrew names and traditional divisions. The See also section allows a reader to easily find Tanakh, Apocrypha, New Testament or Qur'an. Both the New Testament and Qur'an, like the Tanakh also have their own templates. It is not surprising this template became crowded, because the Old Testament is the source of everything else, and where they all derive their authority. Now the Apocrypha has its own space ... at last. Hopefully, I can provide articles on the Oxyrhynchus papyri of Wisdom, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus and Esdras in the near future. I imagine I shall be wanting to use the Apocrypha template there. I hope the additional space will allow some of the niceties we would all like in its presentation. Cheers. Alastair Haines 13:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Apocrypha is a Protestant term. Wikipedia policy is NPOV. Catholicism does not have Apocrypha, it has Deuterocanonicals, Orthodoxy does not have Apocrypha, it has its Bible, etc. You can not assume a Protestant POV here, that is against NPOV. 75.14.208.224 19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
As you say Deuterocanonical is used by some groups rather than Apocrypha, it would be POV to insist on Deuterocanonical in all cases. As it turns out, one of your sources explains that there is actually a distinction made between Apocrypha and Deuterocanonical books. Apocrypha often refers to LXX books, and Deuterocanonical to other inclusions. In that context, they are technical terms, not Prot or Cath. I would argue that usage would be preferable at Wiki. But it is beside the point, you are attempting to forbid use of Apocrypha in favour of DC, because Protestants use it, that is simply discriminatory. On the other hand, I'm recommending we name groups according to scholastic consensus (which was achieved long ago). Where there are alternatives, we name according to the group that uses them, or other features of the context. To call Christian use of the Old Testament Tanakh is a misnomer, to call Jewish use of the Tanakh Old Testament is a misnomer. To insist on OT everywhere is discriminatory, to insist on Tanakh everywhere is also discriminatory. Wiki, in fact, uses both, depending on context. A good example for us to follow regarding Apoc and DC. Anglicans call it the Apoc because it is not canonical. We cannot put "canon" into the mouths of Anglicans when they've told us that's not what they believe.
It's unfortunate the proposed revision is not directly visible, because that shows the Hebrew Bible to have no dispute, and acceptance even by Muslims (hence Abrahamic religions). The Apocrypha/2nd cannon is another fascinating story in its own right. Documenting it concisely in a nav template seems a very worthwile project to me, and one that needs less political rhetoric and more scholastic citation. Alastair Haines 00:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


I've protected the page because you were both on the verge of a 3RR violation. I have no idea which version is the more correct or neutral. Please discuss it here, and let me know when you've reached an agreement. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, you have protected an unsourced, erroneous edit. I have provided a sufficient verification trail to prove that. Looking for consensus while disregarding citations is an odd methodology, heavy-handed, and rude. Stop and think about it. But you are forgiven even before apologizing, everyone makes mistakes. Alastair Haines 21:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
75.14.208.224 19:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Can I comment that, for a template to be used primarily for navigation around the site, navigation must be the primary consideration? I'm not the biggest fan of this kind of infobox template, anyway. But the last thing they need to be is to constitute, or to be construed as, commentary on Wikipedia content. Charles Matthews 19:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody support this major revision [2] ? 75.14.208.224 20:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Books common to the Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, and Protestant Canons cannot be called the Hebrew Bible, which is specific to Judaism. It is just what it says it is: a list of books different canons have in common, that exists only because someone choses to make the list. I personally see no value to the list, which in and of itself has no meaning for Jews, Christians, or Muslims. I think in addition to general articles on the Bible and Biblical canon, which should not be about whimsical lists but rather about different religions' Bibles/canons, we should have separate articles on the Tanakh/Hebrew Bible, and on the Catholic Canon, and on the Protestant Canon. I also think we shoul dhave separate articles on each book, and within each book's article identify which canon(s) it belongs to, or who consideres it apocryphal or pseudopigraphal. But I see no point to a list of "lowest common denominator" books which, after all, are not "more sacred" or "more important," it is simply a list of books taken out of their cultural and historical context. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Tanakh is the exclusive Jewish term. Hebrew Bible is the name for the biblical books accepted by the academic community to have been originally composed in Hebrew, and accorded canonicity within Judaism. These things are already documented at Wiki. I completely agree with your main point. Where canonicity is disputed, it is mainly a matter for discussion within articles, rather than in templates. That was why I separated the disputed books from the undisputed books. At least we could have one, neat, simple, template for the Old Testament (like there is for Tanakh). At the moment we are being held to ransom by an anonymous editor who provides unsourced errors and unilateral administrative action to protect it. Alastair Haines 21:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like there are a number of issues. 1. What should this body of books be called? Hebrew Bible? Tanakh? Old Testament? 2. What groups should we say accept these books? Do we list Muslims? 3. Should we include the first 5 books, or just a link to Torah/Pentateuch? 4. Should we include the books not agreed upon by everyone?

I want to first say that I think in theory, it is already a bad idea that we have this template, in addition to Template:Books of Torah, Template:Books of Nevi'im, Template:Books of Ketuvim. Having this template and those is already crowding the top of an article, and creating POV forks. While I can understand that Judaism has its own canon, and Islam has its own canon, the Catholics have a canon, and the Protestants have a canon, and the Orthodox, etc. And following this logic, it makes sense to have a template describing each of the different canons. But in actuality, we cannot fill the top of an article with dozens of templates for each unique canon, especially when the content would be mostly redundant anyway. I can see what this template has tried to do. It's attempting to be all inclusive. It says these groups agree on these books, then there are these other books, and then these other books. However, this makes for a rather long template. I also believe that adding the 39 articles stuff was over the top.

So I am conflicted on the best course of action. I don't know if we should try to create a template that tries to fit all of the notable POVs, including the more 'obscure' books, or if we should try to create a concise template that only includes books that the majority can ALL agree upon. I'll have to think it over some more. -Andrew c 00:11, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest an all-inclusive navbox for all Biblical canons, Jewish and Christian, each listed in their entirety in their own order by their own nomenclature, and use the collapsible class to hide all of them by default. The reader can then expand out the one he is interested in. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
That may address Charles Matthews concern as well. It would be hard work, because the Christian class has many subclasses, if the disputed books are included. Three ways could be nice, it would need the support of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tanakh or those who maintain that template. I can see how it would solve nearly all issues, and I can't see the difficulties except communication and the work that entails. I support Csernica's proposal, not just with words, but a promise to help you or anyone else who would like to co-ordinate the project. Alastair Haines 03:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Can we not have a Venn diagram instead, with, ooh, five or six circles? Facetious, sorry, but if that is the problem you have, it is not going to go away quickly. By the way, I totally disagree with the comment above re no value to the list, which in and of itself has no meaning for Jews, Christians, or Muslims - this list is ideally not for followers of Abrahamic religions any more or less than for Buddhists. It should be designed for readers looking around Wikipedia. Charles Matthews 19:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions of Old Testament

What I like about this template as it stands before the major revision, what makes it really useful, was that it shows plainly and easily the differences between some of the more important definitions of the Old Testament. The major revision, while it does have a certain categorical neatness to it, as has been cogently argued above, it simply does not provide this easy-to-see, useful illustration of these differing definitions.

Furthermore, this very useful feature is not available elsewhere in Wikipedia. The linked article on the Tanakh is truely excellent, but it really only illustrates one particular definition of "Old Testament". The article on Biblical apocrypha is specifically not about the Old Testament, nor the New, but on that peculiar inter-testamental section introduced to bibles in the 16th century. The article on Apocrypha includes long digressions on exotic books that are not found in any bible at all. The article Biblical canon is a detailed and often disjointed treatise that obscures as much as it illuminates; at any rate the definition of "Old Testament" is not exactly the same thing as a history of its canon. The article Deuterocanonical books is fairly clean, but one of its chief assets is that it includes this template! The article Books of the Bible is a confusing and unreadable jumble.

All of this is to say that the pre-revision template very usefully meets a need. It is not clear to me that the revised template does so. Rwflammang 16:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the pre-revision template is cluttered by having the undisputed books in it! The first five are reduced to a single summary entry! In other words, the template has evolved from a navigation tool for the undisputed 39 books of the Old Testament (as per title), into an attempt to draw information together regarding para-testamental books (how's that for a neologism ;). Something needs to be done. Genesis is not in an Old Testament navigation template, lol! The para-canonical material is all at Template:Books of the Biblical Apocrypha, minus the error regarding Anglicans and 39 articles.


It's not clear to me how removing Genesis to inlude Tobit meets a need. Why force a template to do more than space allows? Having two templates to do two jobs seems only natural. Both jobs are worth doing. But if we insist on only doing one job, clearly the "second-canon" has to go, so the "first canon" is all there. Unless there is a group that thinks the deuterocanonical books are more important than the primary canon? ;) Alastair Haines 17:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, the title of this template is Books of the Old Testament, not the pov undisputed 39 books of the Old Testament. Second, there is a rather large group of Christians, that would be the Catholics and Orthodox, who think that all of the books of their particular Bible are important, not that some books are less important. Likewise the Church of England (Anglicans) values its Apocrypha (meaning hidden, not false) and considers it part of its Bible, though of a "semi-canonical status"[3]. 75.14.209.88 17:57, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Who disputes the 39 books? Please provide a reference. Who says Genesis is not in the OT? Who says Ezekiel is not? There is only one POV here. All 39 are "in". When it comes to Tobit or Macabees, then we have points of view -- inclusion POV and exclusion POV -- both must be represented ... somewhere. Given that 39 books is a lot already, the way to do that is in a carefully composed template covering all points of view.
The title of this template is Books of the Old Testament, not the POV "Jews and Protestants are wrong, here's what other's say". Actually, there is much more ecumenical agreement on this than you suppose. That is why the term Second Canon is used even by the groups that include additional material, they nearly all give it different (and lower) status within their traditions. A good analogy would be the Jewish heirarchy of Law-Prophets-Writings, all are holy, but the Torah is most holy. Sadducees accepted only the Torah.
For Wiki to include 39 books in the OT will raise no eyebrows anywhere. For it to include additional material, well that is introducing points of view.
There is no question regarding the importance of the Apocrypha. This is Wiki, an encyclopedia documenting notable ideas. There is no question Wiki must include documentation regarding the Apocrypha. But for Wiki to suggest the Apocrypha must be classified under Old Testament ... that would not only be POV, but inaccurate, it is not even how groups that accord second canon status to books describe their views. In other words it would be original research, a new synthesis. Alastair Haines 02:01, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point about Genesis. It should be included. So should Tobit. So should 2 Esdras. All of these books are included in some definitions of "Old Testament". The Anglican issue has nothing to do with the OT and belongs in the Biblical apocrypha article. Rwflammang 21:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I created the Biblical Apocrypha template because the Aprocrypha is fascinating, incontravertibly notable, but sufficiently obscure to most readers that a navigation template, including books from all traditions is decidedly helpful. I read a lot of ancient literature, but I can't remember all the alternative names for various books, so I look for articles using Search ... others wouldn't have the patience.
There is no question that the inter-testamental books need a nav template. An important practical question is locating that template easily. To assist with that, I provided a link to it at the bottom of the list of the universally accepted Old Testament. An alternative to that approach was suggested, where collapsible sections are created, that would work gernerally as well, in some ways even better.
Neutral terminology for the intertestimental books currently is Biblical Apocrypha at Wiki, which seems like a compromise consensus from previous editors. It has its merits, but Apocrypha is somewhat loaded, as is Biblical, but in opposite directions. Para-canonical, used by Dead Sea Scrolls academics and others, is an interesting alternative neologism. Frankly, I think intertestamental is much more descriptive, in a context where Old and New Testament are being used (see title of template). It is the chronology, rather than doctrinal issues that are prominent.
Anyway, whatever the good intentions behind it, an Old Testament template that extends longer than a full screen, yet doesn't explicitly include the first five books has obviously reached "critical mass", it needs to shed some weight. Books that are not universally accepted as part of the Old Testament are the logical ones to move to their own category. Alastair Haines 01:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
We may be able to take a leaf from Template:Christianity and have expandable sections. --TimNelson 05:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
We could, but that would detract IMHO from the pre-revision template's simplicity which provides so much to its usefulness in illustrating at a glance the various different definitions of "Old Testament". Rwflammang 14:18, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I get it, this IS humour -- "at a glance", "definitions of Old Testament". Take a long, hard look at the template, I can't see the Old Testament named, let alone defined. Alastair Haines 16:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
As happy as I am to see how amused you are, I have to point out that this is not humor. Please stay focused and on topic. You and the anonymous editor managed to get this template locked up, and now none of us can make any of the improvements you suggest. The Old Testament is named in the title of the template. That it is not named in the actual text is a problem that would be easily remedied if you two had not managed to get it locked up. What you suggest is good: The word "Old Testament" should be added to the text. I'll be happy to do it myself as soon as the template is unlocked. Rwflammang 01:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
One administrator locked the page without request or consensus and has withdrawn from being held accountable. Neither of the users involved had acted contrary to any Wiki policy and there's no evidence to imagine they would. Users do not have access to protection tools, and cannot predict idiosyncratic administrative decisions. Neither 75.etc.etc or I cannot be held responsible for things that are not within our ability or knowledge. The administrator has been asked to answer for action taken (above), and has received a request to modify it (below), both have been ignored. I recommend you keep to the topic and not make inappropriate personal accusations. It would appear that our Orthodox friends have come to the rescue with superior technical knowledge. The Tanakh section looks good, and I imagine Judaism editors may be happy for it to replace their own excellent template, given the less intrusive nature of the new "collapsible and comprehensive" version. I'm confident the collapsible template will allow everything to be covered that needs to be covered and am grateful for the time and consideration that is being given to it. Alastair Haines 10:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request to admin re: protection.

Could an admin place {{protected2}} in <noinclude> brackets so that it doesn't appear as if numerous articles are protected? ✤ JonHarder talk 23:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Very amusing

I was just checking some information on one of the intercanonical books that is only known in Greek and has never been considered as part of the Tanakh. Sure enough, with complete disregard for Judaism, its terminology and traditions, there is a huge template running longer than the article, titled "Tanakh or Hebrew Bible". Now the good news is that Jewish readers wouldn't ever be looking for this book, because if they did, it would be rather hard to explain why a long list of Christian denominations are listed as claiming they know what should be included in the Tanakh. I can only wonder what educated Wiki readers think when they see a template alleging Christian denominations are some kind of authority on the Tanakh. Fortunately, such things are so entertaining, it's hard to see how anyone could take offense. Have a happy day. Alastair Haines 11:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 75.15.205.149 changes mind

I copied the template we are discussing here, deleted the 39 books of the OT, and reference to 39 articles. Our anonymous friend (who is supported by admin protection, without consensus), made this comment there:

“ This template is screwed up. What is it trying to represent? The Apocrypha of the 1611 King James Version? That is here: Biblical_Apocrypha#Apocrypha_of_the_King_James_Version. Of course this is only valid for Protestantism. 75.15.205.149 20:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC) ”

So now we have the additional claim that what we currently have at our template is the Protestant view! That group will not be lining up to discuss this page then, since admin has kindly protected their POV for them. Alastair Haines 23:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not really worth stressing out over the version currently protected. It doesn't indicate any bias or preference one way or the other on the part of the mod; it's just the version that happened to be up when he protected. Article protection is done to stop an edit war, not to freeze one of the disputed versions permanently. It is expected that in the meantime the editors will take a deep breath and civilly work out some compromise version.

I've made a bit of a start on the template I proposed earlier, although some bugs in the system are giving me a bit of annoyance. TCC (talk) (contribs) 00:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] So what is the consensus?

So what has all this recrimination brought us to? What is the the consensus? Do we have a template (called Books of the Old Testament) that illustrates all the definitions of "Old Testament", or only one? Should it list all the books found in actual printed Old Testaments (including Genesis, Tobit and 2 Esdras) or only some of them? Should it include off-topic dogmatic statements about the Aprocrypha or not? Should it include expandable sections or not? Let's have a vote. Rwflammang 01:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The work by Csernica is promising, I assume the beginnings are here: [4]. At the minimum I would think that a template for the Books of the Old Testament should include Catholic (Trent), Orthodox (Jerusalem) and Protestant (WCF) Bibles. I have no problem with the contractions of the first five books into the Pentateuch and the minor prophets into Minor prophet. Possibly the Catholic books could be contracted to Deuterocanonicals, but I would prefer they be listed out, because there currently is no article on the Anagignoskomena of Greek Orthodoxy, which is not equivalent and also because other significant groups (Russian, Ethiopian, Syrian, Armenian) do not recognize a division of their Old Testament. I agree that the topic of Apocrypha can be better handled at Biblical Apocrypha. I suppose that I should make it clear that I am the other party involved in the 3RR with User:Alastair Haines. I agree to concede to consensus. 75.0.4.138 03:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes that's it. As I said, an apparent bug in the collapsible tables is giving me grief. Note when you expand out the Jewish section, all the subsections say "show" when they're already showing. Clicking on "show" just changes it to "hide" -- clicking on "hide" changes it back to show, and then hides the subsections. I suppose "autocollapse" just doesn't work well with nested collapsible tables, and I'll have to explicitly set them to "hide".
Ideally, the template would have a parameter that allowed you to select a section or subsection that would be expanded by default, so an article like Torah could use the same template with only the Torah section expanded. I'll have to think of a way to do that where it doesn't confuse editors trying to use it. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection icon

I've removed the icon indicating that this article is protected. The article is still protected per Slim's admin action. However, the icon was causing undo confusion because its appearance here causes its appearance in the 78 articles relying on this template. This gives editors the false impression that all these articles are also protected when they are not. Rklawton 17:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if I unprotected? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for asking, looks like the next version of the template will be provided when the technical bugs are worked out. The "collapsing" feature allows many well-known, documented views about a long list of books to be provided in a concise, non-intrusive fashion. I'm the editor that changed the current protected version, and I won't be changing the current template, since a better alternative, thanks to technology of collapsing, is being provided. Mind you, if that template doesn't show up in a couple of weeks, there are serious issues with what we have at the moment and something must be done. Your personal assessment of the 39 articles issue, may be a helpful contribution to the discussion in that case. Cheers. Alastair Haines 21:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
For Csernica. Thanks for your initiative and work. There is a working nav template at gene that may assist you in ironing out the bugs with your draft template. When I get some time (I am currently here), I'll copy your template to my own workspace and see if I can make any sense of the tag syntax. I'll report any breakthroughs at your user talk. Cheers. Alastair Haines 21:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to admin for releasing protection, and thanks to the editors who have reproduced my edits from prior to the protection incident. There seem to only be two outstanding issues: 1. producing the collapsible form of this template; and 2. settling both the divisions and names of those divisions. I can think of at least two basic alternatives.
  • Tanakh (24 scrolls in 3 divisions, 1 or 2 further subdivided)
  • Law
  • Prophets (former and latter)
  • Writings (section for 5 megillot?)
  • Old Testament (all 39 books listed)
  • Catholic OT (all 39 books + others listed)
  • Various Orthodox OTs (all 39 books + additional others listed)

etc.

that is -- dividing by traditions

OR

  • Tanakh
  • Hebrew Bible (39 books accepted by all traditions)
  • Greek Books (different numbers of books accepted by different traditions)

that is -- dividing by contents, then by tradition, like the current template

There are difficulties with both. Additionally, Tanakh has it's own template, that doesn't really need modification or replacement. That template already exists on most pages our OT template appears. Replacing the Tanakh template with ours, I feel should have endorsement from editors working in Jewish texts. I'd be a little uncomfortable without that. We certainly don't need to duplicate the information, unless we're replacing what is already there.

At the "top level", the collapsible template needs descriptions of what you will get if you click "Show". What should these be? What should we get when we do click "Show"? More than 30 books under each head? Or should each book appear only once under an appropriate head? Alastair Haines 06:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I say, the first version, by traditions. Note, Hebrew Bible is just the English way of referring to the Tanakh (parets of the "Hebrew Bible" are actually in Aramaic, so it does not mean those books of the Bible written in Hebrew, it means the Bible of the Hebrews; Hebrew today refers to a language but in the Bible itself it refers to a people, namely the Children of Israel; even today some refer to Jews as Hebrews) Slrubenstein | Talk 14:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to have the co-operation of WP:WikiProject Judaism on this project. Do you know anyone there? or should I just leave a note. Alastair Haines 14:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "other" Christian denominations

Why other "other" Christian denominations mentioned to exclude the Apocrypha? What "other" Christian denominations are there that don't fit into one of Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant? Peter Ballard 08:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Books_of_the_Old_Testament"
Personal tools