Talk:Books of the Bible
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The article Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture was nominated for deletion. The debate was closed on 01 May 2009 with a consensus to merge the content into Books of the Bible. If you find that such action has not been taken promptly, please consider assisting in the merger instead of re-nominating the article for deletion. To discuss the merger, please use this talk page.
Do not remove this template after completing the merger. A bot will replace it with {{afd-merged-from}}.
|
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Books of the Bible article. |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|||
| WikiProject Christianity / Core | (Rated Start-Class, Top-importance) | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Bible | (Rated Start-Class, Top-importance) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
I have taken the time to divide the Apocryphal/Deutrocanonial into four categories that was devised by the NRSV translatiors. They are:
A. Books in the RC, Gk and Slavic Bibles:
- Tob
- Jdt
- AddEsth
- Wis
- Sir
- Bar
- LetJer
- Azar
- Sus
- Bel
- 1Ma
- 2Ma
B. Books in the Gk and Slavic Bibles, but NOT in the RC Bible:
- 1Es
- 3Ma
- PraMan
- Psa151
C. Books in the Slavic Bible and the Latin Vulgate Appendix:
- 2Es
D. Books in the Gk Bible Appendix:
- 4Ma
This list of catagories makes crystal clear which books are in which churches bibles. The previous list was a bit too ambigious to me.
The problem with the above list is that it only deals with the Protestant, Catholic, Greek and Russian Orthodox traditions. It does not deal with other Church traditions (e.g. Syriac, Armenian, Georgian and Ethiopian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.3.49.144 (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Islamic & Qur'anic
Does it really need to be listed twice? If anybody agrees, just remove one. I'd suggest Qur'anic is the one you remove, and keep Islamic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glorthac (talk • contribs) 01:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Reorganization
I have reorganized the list as to who's list is older. That is: Tanakh, a table listing a difference between the Prod/Cath OTs, the apocrypha, and the NT. -- iHoshie 08:35, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- The current list appears to have dropped the deuterocanonical books of the Septuagint not kept by the Roman Catholics but retained by the Orthodox that were listed as groups B., C., and D. above. I noticed when I tried to find 3rd and 4th Maccabees. Did they just get missed in the reorganization? Wesley 05:07, 30 May 2004 (UTC)
- I just added an Orthodox column to the end, because that was easiest. It still has a couple of omissions, and one or two more footnotes wouldn't hurt. The Orthodox Bible has a Psalm 151, and a few more verses at the end of Job telling who he is and how he's related to Abraham, for instance. Wesley \
- To keep the columns ordered by age, I believe the Protestant column would come last; not sure how the Catholic and Orthodox columns would be sequenced, probably matters far less in that case. Wesley 16:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject
Based on a suggestion in Wikipedia:Pages needing attention, I have started the skeleton of a WikiProject to try to cut down on the overlap between the various presentations of the canon. I think that a lot of people working here will want input on this. Feel free! Mpolo 13:24, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Location Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekhiel
Why aren't the three books of Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekhiel in the Tanakh at the same level with the corresponding three books in the Christian Bibles in the table? Thanks. (Bronto)
Same question. Also, if the intention is to list the books in the order used in the holy book in question, shouldn't that be mentioned in the description? Aliter 16:03, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Ditto re: alignment. Portress 01:52, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Title
Should Revelation be labeled as The Prophecy or just Prophecy, or some other name such as Apocalyptic Literature or Prophetic Literature...surely some terms similar to the latter ones have wide currency in academic Biblical scholarship. --Dpr 03:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
- I've heard it most commonaly called "apocalyptic literature" (like the book of Daniel).
It is called "Revelation" or "The Apocalypse of John" (aka "The Apocalypse of St. John"). People commonly (but incorrectly) refer to it as "RevelationS" (plural). "Apocalypse" means Revelation (translated from the Greek) so this is the most often used named in scholarly circles. I've never heard it referred to as "The Prophecy" by anyone in academia, or anywhere outside this discussion page, actually... [Paraforce]
[edit] Revelation
I think it would be wise to change “The Prophecy” for “Apocalypse”. Where it says “Revelation11 or Apocalypse” we should change it for “Revelation11 of John”, since we have many people with their “own” version of the book of “revelations”. Also “Apocalypse” is not the name of the book but it is a stile of writing just as an epistle or biography. Licio 15:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed changes to table
I'm proposing the following changes to the table:
- Mark with an asterisk those books which are present, but in a different order (e.g. Ruth in the Tanakh column), and adding the name if it is different (e.g. Chronicles).
- Move the "Nevi'im or Prophets" and "Ketuvim or Writings" headings under the Tanakh column.
- Add column and row boundaries for "asterisked" cells (e.g. Isaiah)
- Make column boundaries continuous, (e.g. add boundaries between the Protestant and Catholic columns at 3 and 4 Maccabees), except at subsection headings (e.g. "Historical books)
- Eliminate row boundaries between missing books (e.g. eliminate boundaries between 2 and 3 Maccabees, in the Protestant column)
These changes would produce the following table. Comments? If no one objects, I will make these changes.
Paul August ☎ 05:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, apparently someone has gone ahead and made this changes already. Paul August ☎ 22:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New table
(*) These books are present in a different order.
[edit] Odes or Odes of Solomon
I think we have some confusion here. A recent edit insinuates that the Odes of Solomon were in the Orthodox canon of Scripture. However, older edits mention a Book of Odes which includes the Prayer of Manasseh and others. I reverted to the previous version in the hopes someone will be able to bring some clear info to light. Yahnatan 21:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
- Using just "Odes" doesn't even lead to you a bible book at all. Either Odes of Solomon or Book of Odes is what is needed. Harvestdancer 20:16, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Esther and Song of Songs not in the Bible?
I found a seemingly odd, unsourced claim in the Deuterocanonical books article. Who considers Esther and Song of Songs to be Deuterocanonical? RK 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Contradiction between Deuterocanonical books and Books of the Bible articles
In the Deuterocanonical books article, it is implied that Protestants do not have any of the deuterocanonical books in their canon at all, except for these three:
Yet the Books of the Bible article does not list these three books. (Nor does it list any of the other deuterocanonical books. Which article is correct? And is it really true that all Protestant groups reject all of the other Deuterocanonical books? And do any Catholic Bibles include these three texts as valid deuterocanonicals? RK 02:38, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- my family is lutheran (i'm an atheist though) and indeed protestant bibles exclude the deuterocanonical books (judith, tobias, wisdom, baruch, ben sira, maccabees 1 and 2 and . most protestants anyway - I know mormons have additional books of their own. Catholics regard 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras and Prayer of Manasseh as apocryphal though. --Philo 11:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC);
[edit] Major and Minor. How about Former and Latter
Though there is no distinction between Major nad Minor prophets in the Tanakh, the "N" (i.e. Neviim) are divided into two categories. Rishonim and Acharonim (Priori and Posteriori). Joshua, Judges, Samuel 1-2, Kings 1-2 are considered Neviim Rishonim, whereas the rest are considered Latter Prophets. Perhaps that ought to be included. I understand that would be hard to fit into the graph, but at least in text...
[edit] Table explanation
I propose removing reference what missing books are called. The sentence is not NPOV. In fact, it is dual-POV. There is not set list for what is apocrypha, so using a potentianally prejoritive term like that out of context takes away from the article's neutrality on the topic. (Proper context for apocrypha being an article about Apocrypha). Since the topic is covered elsewhere in the article, and in its own article, it's a bit overstated when included in the table's description. Fcsuper 01:03, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Minor Alterations
The new format makes sense, but I don't think that we should refer to the Old Testament in the Christian canons as Tanakh because it's strictly Jewish term, and should only be used for the Hebrew canon. And also, earlier, I've altered the names to most books in the Catholic canon to correspond to the Douay-Rheims and other Catholic Bibles (eg. Knox), which include Latinised names (particularly in the prophets), and other variants. --Revolution 9 16:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Some Bibles order the OT according to the Tanakh. I have a modern Hebrew Bible (OT + NT) and an Albanian Catholic Bible done that way, so it is valid to include. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.206.229.202 (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Why did you alter it to match the Douay-Rheims-Challoner names? Nearly no English-speaking Catholic knows them by those names - that's not how they're found in the Lectionary, for example. Cheyinka 02:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other Bibles
The OT list could also include lists for the Armenian Apostolic, Ethiopian and Syriac Bibles. Likewise the NT list could add the Syriac NT. There are 2 Catholic orders: Vulgate (Maccabees after Malachi) & Septuagint (Maccabees after Malachi).
[edit] Two suggestions
- Merging the table cells for identically called books would make it easier to verify this fact in the blink of an eye.
- The column for the Slavonic New Testament is out of sync with the other columns thereby obscuring the fact that it largely corresponds the the other columns. Please fix this like in the table for the Old Testament.
Shinobu (talk) 05:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] what books are about...
Instead of concerning wholly on which denominations & sects accept which books in which order, could we possibly have a section what each book concerns. If someone wants to make a table (which I can't do) including the name of the book, author, subject of the book, possible year, and language written in and/or addressed to who it may concern - except better worded...
Sorry, I'm not logged in. User:Working for Him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.136.26.26 (talk) 05:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] david
how many sisters did david have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.172.61 (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Books in Catholic Bible
Hello, I just discovered this page and noted with some amusement how Catholic Bibles are described (or not described) in the table. The Douay-Rheims Bible is shown in the table, but more recent translations use spellings that are similar to Protestant Bibles (1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Isaiah, etc.). It might take a new table to explain it all, but I don't know how to do that and I don't know if it would be appropriate. LovesMacs (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Issues
Shouldn't this be re-directed to the entry on Biblical_canon, or vice-versa? Over the last year there has been an explosion of new entries all on the same subject! RK
- I agree with the above sentiment. The Biblical canon article seems to be the more compelling, and it also seems a bit empty without an actual list of Canons. I'm going to wait on doing anything about it though. If anyone has any compelling reason why this material should not be moved to Biblical_canon please say so. If there Are no objections within 24hours, I will move the list to the Biblical canon page, and redirect this page to that. Also adding Qoholeth as an alternate name to Ecclesiastes as that is used in the NJB translation. User:J.F.Quackenbush
- I think this article is just fine where it is. It is a very basic listing of the Books of the Bible with links to the books themselves, and should satisfy the needs of the many who don't want to get into any issues about canonicity. It should include the "Apocrypha" from the Catholic version of the Bible, but shouldn't need to go much beyond that. There are many places in Wikipedia where list and text pages are terds. Eclecticology 16:58 Aug 22, 2002 (PDT)
- Agree with Eclecticology: better to leave the Table as a stand-alone to which other articles can refer (including the one on Biblical_canon.Dampinograaf (talk) 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
A question however: is it opportune to include a list of Mormon sacred writings, which are note usually considered part of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures; not even by Mormons. See Mormon: "Mormons believe that the Book of Mormon is another scriptural witness of Jesus Christ that is comparable to the Bible".Dampinograaf (talk)
- Leave as is, per Eclecticology. Merging two lengthy and dissimilar articles, one text and the other tabular, is less useful than separating them. --lmgold 17:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bb224466 (talk • contribs)
- Leave as is. They are two different and very distinct articles with very diffrent content. --Carlaude (talk) 05:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] For info
Swedish protestants use a "Protestant Old Testament" with an addendum containing the books making the full set equal to the Slavonic Old Testament. I think there's no reason to add this to the tables however. It's just an indication that the facts are changing. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
