This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Removed images

Removed images from the article due to possible copyright issues; will wait for response from user who uploaded the images:

Wycliffe's Bible was not the first English translation. There was an earlier English translation dating to the ninth century CE, and associated with King Alfred the Great, who encouraged the translation and may even have done part of the work himself. A few books of this survive. It was probably once reasonably compete.

I'm glad you said that. I thought there was a translation prior to Wycliffe's.

Yes, this version does exist; however, most people consider the language Anglo-Saxon and not English.

Structurally, do we want to create a page for Genesis, Exodus, etc? or do we want to create sub-pages for these books for example in : Bible/Genesis, Bible/Exodus?

For information sake, the NET Bible is not in public domain and you'll have great difficulty getting permission to use it. I tried last year for another web-based project that I'm a part of and the answer was a strict 'no.' The WEB Bible, although in the public domain, is not yet complete in all of its editing and would therefore not be a wise choice either. Perhaps the best answer would be to wait until the International Standard Version is complete, a project which is designed to create a freely distributable modern translation. Check http://www.isv.org/ Otherwise, use KJV, you know that most people know it, are at least moderately confortable with it, and hey, its free. -- Jon Dixon

In the early days of Wikipedia, someone started importing the KJV here: ChristianBibleGenesis. I would recommend that we wait on importing any texts the size of an entire translation of the Bible. I imported Macbeth manually, and it took me quite a while, since I tried to do some useful formating. Alls_Well_That_Ends_Well--Text was imported in seconds, but it's not very useful as far as format goes. I'm hoping that, at some point in the future, the Wikipedia software will evolve so that we can make better use of primary sources such as the Bible, but for now, I don't think the effort is worth it. -- Stephen Gilbert

I removed the following from the first paragraph. Islamic concepts of the corruption of Biblical text is a tendentious attack on the pre-existing religions. Though the *statement* about Islamic belief is true, it is not relevant to the introductory paragraph. Perhaps it can appear in a later context. Here it is:

Muslims believe that the original texts of the Jewish and Christian Bibles were revealed by God, but that the surviving versions have been corrupted. Muslims have their own sacred text, the Quran, which they believe to be free from the corruption they believe has affected the Jewish and Christian Bibles.

I put that statement there because the article originally said that the Bible is the foundation of all three monotheistic religions, and all three monothiestic religions accept at least some of the books. That applies well to Judaism & Christianity, but with Islam the relationship is more complex; so I added that text to try to more accurately reflect the Muslim attitude. -- SJK

well, someone ought to delete that statement from the aticle! Muhammad's relationship to any written text of the J-C scriptures was intensely problematic, and to call it 'foundational' is not at all correct.

I have deleted that claim now. Do you think we should discuss the Muslim attitude towards the Bible somewhere in the article in more detail, or does that belong somewhere else? Also, I don't like how the article treats the Bible as if there was one Bible with disagreement about the books it contains. The Jewish and Christian Bibles are really different things, not just a disagreement about what belongs in the one thing. Even though the Christian Bible may contain everything the Jewish does, the additions aren't as minor as the deuterocanon/apocrypha. -- SJK

I agree. It is a strange article, though better than it was. I think the Islamic view will or ought to end up as one of the headers under 'Interpretations.' --MichaelTinkler

I haven't been keeping a *close* eye on this page, but I see a need for both a History of the Bible (Canon formation, manuscript transmission, etc) and The Bible as History on archaeology. there's a cross-reference from the Book of Mormon mentioning the lack of archaeological 'confirmation' already. --MichaelTinkler

I put that bit on the book of Mormon page. I aid "support" not "confirmation". Many of the cities and peoples the bible mentioned at least existed (how faithfully they were reported by the Bible writers is another matter). About the book of Mormon, most of his claims have no archeological support whatsoever, and the civilizations described would be better in the company of atlantis. --AN

whoops, sorry about the verb. I understand the difference you meant. --MichaelTinkler

Once again I'm changing LXX to Septuagint. I know it's easier to type the abbreviation, but unless one knows the legend of the 70, the fact that Septuaginta is the Latin word for 70, and that the Roman numeral is LXX, the abbreviation is obscure. Wikipedia does not have to worry about saving paper, so there is no inherent advantage to abbreviation other than for the typist. (oh, other than that, on a first read I like the additions) --MichaelTinkler.

I'm certainly not expert, but isn't the Apocrypha considered an intergral part of the bible by some sects? Calling it not canonical is rather a slap in the face for those who believe it is a part of the Bible. --corvus13

The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches include some books that Protestants do not; I thought that was covered fairly in the article. Is anyone aware of any specific sects that include additional books in their canon, beyond the ones include by the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox? Has anyone published a Bible containing these books? If not, I don't think there's a problem. --Wesley

Can we have some unification of the many similar articles? I think that a visitor to Wikipedia will miss a lot of information because the information on the Bible is split up into so many entries: Bible, Tanakh, Old Testament, New Testament, Biblical Canon, Septuagint, etc. I understand that not every topic can be fully discussed within one entry, unless we make it a very long entry. Thus, I agree that we can and should have links to specialized entries on sub-topics. But we need to structure one page as the main page for this topic. Obviously, the main subject entry is almost like this, but I think it could be made clearer that it is the main page. What if we re-structured one entry something like this: RK

Bible - with a brief overview

- Old Testament
  - Jewish concept of the Bible - Tanakh and Oral Law, with list of books.
  - Christian concept of Tanakh as an Old Testament, with list of books.

- New Testament, with list of books.
- Apocrypha, with list of books.
- The biblical canon
- Bible translations
- The origin of the five books of Moses (Documentary Hypothesis)
- The historical origin of the rest of the Tanakh/Old Testament
- The historical origin of the New Testament
- Modern day additions to the Bible or New Testament, such as the Book of Mormon.

We could then make a note on each of these topic sub-pages (which really are their own independent entries) showing how they relate to the main Bible page. We could use the same format (or tree) for each entry, so that a reader can see where there are, and what they might wish to view next. RK

I don't understand why so many Wikipedia writers, on so many topics, keep chopping apart decent articles into many tiny little micro-articles. When we do this, then people who want to use Wikipedia need to keep on clicking from one entry to another to get the whole story, and they must keep checking the sub-links in the minor articles as well. We need a rule of thumb that keeps cohesiveness, and prevents fracturing. How about this? When we want to add a new point to an existing article, make a new heading and try to keep it in the main entry. However, as time goes by this section may grow; if it grows to more than the rest of the entry, or if it grows beyond two pages, it should get its own entry. Similarly, if other Wikipedia users comment that the new material doesn't belong, then it also should be spun off into its own article. But for the sake of easiness of use and cohesiveness, we should give the benefit of the doubt to keeping things simpler. RK

I've moved the sola scriptura reference up, and modified it. Sola scriptura isn't a principle of scripture interpretation. It's a principle of where doctrines should come from. For example, sola scriptura comes up when discussing the doctrine of the assumption of Mary (i.e. Mary never died but ascended bodily into Heaven). Catholics accept it because of was traditionally believed by the Church, accepted by the Church fathers, and embraced by the Popes. Catholic apologists say God sometimes gives doctrines through the Church in this manner, rather than through scripture. They do not say that the doctrine comes from some interpretation of scripture. Protestants who accept sola scriptura reject the doctrine because it's never mentioned in scripture.

Thanks for clarifying what's meant by sola scriptura. Regarding the assumption of Mary, I believe the actual teaching in both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy is that she did in fact die, and was buried; later her tomb was opened and her body found missing by the apostles, who then concluded that her body had been taken up to Heaven. In the West it's called the Feast of the Assumption, emphasizing her assumption into Heaven, while in the East it's more commonly called the Feast of the Dormition, emphasizing her falling asleep; both are celebrated on August 15. Wesley 16:44 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)

The dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, as defined by Pope Pius XII in 1950, says Mary, "when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory" (Munificentissimus Deus), leaving open the question whether or not Mary died before her assumption. User:Pdfox December 23, 2002

I found a copy of Munificentissimus Deus here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM, which appears to be the official dogma promulgated by Pope Pius XII. If this online version is trustworthy, it makes clear that according to this dogma, Mary did physically die, but that her body did not suffer the usual corruption but was taken up to Heaven instead. Section 17 of the document quotes this prayer which Pope Adrian I sent to Charlemagne: "Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself." The beginning of that same section refers to the "feast either of the dormition or of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin". Wesley 16:02 Dec 24, 2002 (UTC)

While it is true that Munificentissimus Deus quotes several sources that refer to the death of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the actual definition of the dogma of the Assumption does not assert that she died before her body was assumed into heaven -- nor does it deny her death.

At the time that the dogma was promulgated, there was a strong sentiment among many Catholics that the immaculately conceived and sinless Mother of God would not have suffered death (which is "the wages of sin"), but was instead taken up alive into heaven like Elijah the Prophet. Judging from the sources quoted in Munificentissimus Deus, Pius himself did not take this view, and it has become distinctly less popular in more recent times.

Nevertheless, the dogma was deliberately so worded ("when the course of her earthly life was finished") as to allow faithful Catholics to believe either hypothesis: that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven without dying, or that her incorrupt body was assumed into heaven after her death.

Either way, the dogma presents Mary's assumption as a concrete and present instance of the resurrection of the body; a belief asserted by virtually all Christians in the creeds, yet often replaced in the popular imagination by a more shadowy spiritual immortality. User:Pdfox 26. December. 2002

Well, you seem to be more familiar with the history surrounding the document, so I won't argue further. A cursory reading of it still seems to imply to me a belief that she died, in phrases like "saved from the corruption of the tomb" where it could have said "saved from the tomb" instead, and comparing her victory to Jesus' victory over death, which of course He accomplished after having physically died. Perhaps that's more because of the lenses I'm using to read it. Thanks for sharing the background information. Perhaps this should be incorporated into the article on the Virgin Mary? Wesley 14:43 Dec 26, 2002 (UTC)

Thanks. I have followed your suggestion. User:Pdfox

moved from the To Do under new testament. Possibly also appropriate would be a brief overview of the liberal and conservative takes on modern biblical criticism, as well as some information on the Q Gospel, the Gospel of Thomas, The new testament Apocrypha, and the theory of Markan priority. -me

At least some of this should be discussed in biblical canon rather than in this article. -wesley

I disagree. It seems that the idea of an encyclopedia is one where each article is as informative as possible, but that does not trust certain information to appear in other articles. Certainly the issues concerning the canonization of certain books would belong under biblical canon, but there should also be an over view under Bible, Old Testament, and New Testament. similarly, while in depth discussion of how the books of the New Testament came to be written belongs in the New Testament article, there still should be a general summary of that info under Bible.

Before reading the above comment, I removed the following text:

(TODO: This is a bit of an oversimplified take on the New Testament. At the very least the history of the early bishops and the drawing together of the new testament from the various extant traditions should be discussed.)

... and replaced it with a pointer to Biblical canon. I guess I don't really object to having basic information repeated; it would be good to keep cross-references from short summaries to the articles where there's greater depth. My biggest objection is really how much time it would take to integrate the same material into several articles. If someone else wants to go ahead and do that, go right ahead. Meanwhile, a pointer to more information seems more useful than a TODO note. Those sorts of notes probably shouldn't appear in the actual articles anyway. They're good to put on discussion pages, or on a user's own wikipedia page, where lots of wikipedia editors keep todo lists of articles to write or improve. Wesley 17:31 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

Has there been any discussion of linking verse references to a place on the web where someone can see the biblical text? An example is BibleGateway.com at http://bible.gospelcom.net/. --Bernfarr

Why has this entire page been deleted? Was it redirected? Should it be reverted?

Looking through the logs, it looks like the person using this IP from time to time will hit the "Edit page" link just to examine the wiki source; the deletion was probably accidental. (No prior history of vandalism, one edit that made a link, several unsaved unpreviewed edits, lots of browsing.) It's already been restored. --Brion 23:18 Sep 19, 2002 (UTC)

Seeing as this page has grown quite large, I wonder if it might be beneficial to move the section on translations to a separate page? Any thoughts?

Basswulf 11:44 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. How about moving the section to Bible translations? We should probably keep about one paragraph here that says something about the Bible being translated a lot and the significance, then point them to the separate article for the full details. That article should more or less repeat the introductory info, and then go into the different translations. Other thoughts? Wesley 13:37 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

That's a plan - I agree with you proposed implementation. Let's wait a day or two and then go for it Basswulf 14:06 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Just out of interest, are we going for just the English translations (this being the English version of Wikipedia), or for translations into any language (this being an international encyclopedia)? I'm in favour of the latter option, and not just because I recently wrote a paragraph about Welsh translations. Magnus 14:31 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Definitely all translations - the aim is to leave the main Bible page tidier while not loosing the information, and just pulling out the bit about English translations would seem like more fragmentation rather then a useful granularity! Basswulf 15:58 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

Change accomplished - hopefully Bible translations will now see some more translations added. --Basswulf 09:50 Apr 22, 2003 (UTC)

Ok, in recently fixing the neologism "deuterocanon", I ran across a metric gazillion pages, all of which attempt to describe the status and relationsnhip of the apocryphal/deuterocanonical books. The different descriptions are of varying completeness and accuracy. Somebody (it might be me) needs to rather completely refactor the whole mess into one comprehensive discussion, which can then be referenced. (There is no need whatsoever for "apocrypha" and "deuterocanonical books" to both exist, for example; there is no need for "books of the bible" to have its own page, separate from "bible", and then the "tanach" page have its own attempt to cover the discussion. The whole thing needs work. Does anyone have a list of all the pages that discuss the books of the bible? That may be a place to start. --Tb 19:53 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I can't guarantee it's complete, but you'll want to look at biblical canon, Tanach, Bible, possibly Bible translations, Deuterocanon, possibly Septuagint and Masoretic Text... there's also a page that lists people in the Bible, don't know whether it would be affected. I'm probably one of the chief culprits when it came to spreading usage of the word "deuterocanon", and here's why: first, I didn't make it up but it found it being used in any number of places; secondly, it doesn't have the inherent bias against the books in question that "Apocrypha" has. It's certainly awkward to keep saying apocryphal/deuterocanonical books, and I'd be glad to use an easier but still neutral substitute. Wesley 21:35 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I suspect that a reduction in the number of uses of the awkward terminology would be quite automatic if we reduce the duplication of a gajillion pages all describing the same thing. :) I don't mean any accusation against "deutercanon", all improvements to the wiki are good! Using the slashed form is more NPOV than just "apocrypha", and I conceive of my changes as a further improvement on your already good work. Scholars these days almost always just say "deuterocanonical books" and leave it at that (for just the same reasons they say "Hebrew Scriptures"). That is, "deuterocanonical" doesn't have the same negative content as "apocrypha", and so it is fairly NPOV all by itself. (But I don't object to the slashed name if that's thought even more neutral.) Of course, Anglicans have their own take on the apocrypha (which is what we call it), giving it more status than Protestants and less than Catholics. Anyhoo, I'll probably tackle this one soonish and I suspect the result will be much better for all concerned. --Tb 21:42 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Tb. The Orthodox all agree to use the "Septuagint", but since different Septuagint manuscripts have slightly different collections of books, not even all Orthodox are entirely consistent; the variations at that level are minor in any case. By the way, regarding the language of the New Testament, I had thought that at least some scholars think that one of the gospels, I think the Gospel of Matthew, may have been originally composed in Aramaic rather than Greek. AFAIK the rest was definitely composed in Greek. Wesley 21:50 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There isn't any doubt that Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic normally, which means that of course there will be semiticisms in the text. But there is basically no evidence whatsoever that any of the texts were written in anything but Greek. Translations are not hard to notice, and the text of Matthew doesn't look anything like a translation. Indeed as well, I would submit that as far as canon goes, even if an Aramaic "proto-Matthew" were discovered, it wouldn't be accepted in place of the Greek text. Everyone agrees that the Gospels didn't drop full-formed, which means they came from prior sources, but it is the text of the Gospels which is canonical, and not those prior sources. --Tb 21:59 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I won't press the argument; I thought I had read that there was a decent case for an original Aramaic Matthew (yes, such a text does exist), but I'm not that concerned either way, and if you're that confident that it's the universal scholarly consensus that Matthew had to be Greek first, I'll go along. Wesley 13:33 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

These is now an Aramaic Matthew, like there is an Aramaic translation of everything in the New Testament, but what we have now is manifestly a translation of the Greek text. The nattering in the past has been about a possible different text underlying Matthew. One serious problem with this is that it doesn't account for the verbal identity between huge parts of Matthew and Mark/Luke. The stronger point is that the "New Testament" is a particular text, in a particular language; an Aramaic Matthew is no more "The New Testament", than is Q. --Tb 19:08 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand. Yes, this is probably what I had read about before. Thanks. :-) Wesley 23:17 17 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I deleted the following:

The focus of the entirety of the Bible is the life, ministry, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ through Old Testament prophecy and metaphor, as well as New Testament testimony and tradition.

This is essentially a sectarian description, and doesn't do much more than reproduce what is already said in the article. Does this mean that each verse individually is focused on Jesus Christ? This is essentially a credal statement from one portion of the Reformation, and if it's too be included, we would need to include credal statements from a jillion sources, including the Muslims, the Bahai, the LDS, and so forth, each expressing its own distinctive phrasing. Better, I think, is to reserve such things for the religions' pages, and have this page report only the general issues: which the section I deleted just isn't. --Tb 04:14 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I agree that the deleted statement was not neutral. Perhaps instead there should be a brief statement that different religions and denominations have different overall perspectives of the Bible, see the respective articles for details? Or does that already go without saying? Wesley 16:56 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think (and I say this as a Jew) that the deleted text could have been salvaged by merely putting it in the form "Many Christians believe that the focus..." That is in accordance with the normal Wikipedia standards on NPOV, that one can put in opinions if they are attributed to the holders. BRG July 23

No, that would hardly salvage it. We cannot pick one among a bazillion different statements of Christian biblical theology and only explain that one. Saying "Many Christians believe XXX" is a cop-out, and not NPOV unless all views held by a similar number are also discussed. And that's clearly just not going to work. The problem isn't just that the statement ignores non-Christian points of view; it also ignores many many Christian points of view. Better to have each religion which cares about the Bible have its own views described on the article for each. --Tb 23:14 26 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I deleted the link to TNIV.info due to the fact that there is an article on the TNIV already. That article has a link.

--hoshie

Ok... I'm not sure why having the extra link here is such a bad thing, but I suppose it is a little redundant. Did you decide not to delete the links to New American Bible and New English Translation this time? Wesley

Not at this time. There are no articles on the NET or NAB...yet. --hoshie

history / neutrality /

From the current article:

> It also includes a great deal of the history of the Jews.

Is this NPOV (I mean implicitly claiming the Bible to be history) ?

--- However, should we out of hand completely say that the Bible is not accurate history? I find it discouraging to see that people totally accredit the works of ancient historians, whose writings were almost certainly biased by nationalistic/governmental concerns, but then completely try to discredit the Bible's accounts of historical events, even though the Bible evidences examples of real impartiality in it's reporting on ancient events. I think discrediting the Bible as "completely non-historic" is definitely prejudicial.

I agree this does not seem neutral.

This is what I got when I tried to 'neutralize' that paragraph:

Delete:

Contents: The Bible tells how the one God relates to the world and his creations, especially mankind; it also details mankind's relationship and obligations to God. It also includes a great deal of the history of the Jews. Many Christians use the Bible as a source of religious beliefs and doctrines. Most Protestant Christians advocate that it is the incomparably authoritative guide in all matters of faith and practice, a principle called sola scriptura. Insert:

Synopsis: The Hebrew scripures of the Bible - portions of which contain stories traditionally held to be historical accounts of much of the early history of the Hebrew Nation - teach that there is one God, Jehovah, "Creator of Heaven and Earth" who created Man "in his own image", and details the relationship between Man and his Creator. For Christians, the Bible continues, with the advent of Jesus Christ the story begun in the Hebrew scriptures, and is a primary source of religious doctrine and a foundation for their spiritual beliefs. Some religious sects, notably, several of the 'Protestant' Christian sects, believe the Bible to be the ultimate and authoritative guide in all spiritual matters, by a principle referred to as sola scriptura.

anyone have a problem with this edit? If so,go right ahead, I may not be back a while, I don't spend much time here, I have other less daunting tasks I'm on, but I applaud you folks for daring to even try to satisfactorily edit such a contoversial area of the wiki.

I hereby award you ALL the 'Barnstar of the Mustard Seed':

It looked bigger in the catalog... Pedant 09:11, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Recommendation

I think it would be great to have a link to this category "Bible" to the Christianity category elsewhere in wikipedi

I know how to edit single pages, but not how to link pages to categories (or visa-versa - I tried to figure out both)

Also, (forgive the newbie here) how does one add new pages within a category - for new topics that are related?

Thank you,

Codemoose

You can add an article to a category by editing the article and adding a wiki link of the form: Category:Christianity between the usual pairs of square brackets. Example: [[Category:Christianity]] Wesley 16:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Commissioning of the Vulgate

"and so Jerome was commissioned to produce the Vulgate translation..." This seems to me an abuse of the passive voice. Who commissioned Jerome? Surely we know. Yet it is unclear from the text. –Floorsheim 05:14, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think he was commissioned by the current pope of Rome, whoever that was. At the very least, I know the pope advised him to retain at least most of the deuterocanonical books in the Vulgate. Wesley 16:18, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Aramaic New Testament

This is spun out of the imagining that since Jesus spoke Aramaic, the gospels must have been originally written in Aramaic. I don't suppose it matters, in the general context at this entry. Wetman 12:53, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oh, brother! (Not to you, Wetman; to the anonymous editors.) Looks like we're about to play edit war again.

Factually, the majority of scholars do NOT believe the New Testament to have been composed in Aramaic.

I'm reverting back to the previous version. Note to anonymous editors: we're not trying to establish the truth of Aramaic or Greek primacy here, as that is NOT Wikipedia's job. Until you understand this, cut it out.

I notice the following tidbit has been added:

'One argument of the pro-Aramaic scholars is that the language of Jesus Christ, his Apostles and the Authors of the Gospels was Aramaic not Greek. Another is that the first Christian comunities came into existence in modern Lebanon and Syria, not in Greece.

Nice, but I believe it belongs in the Aramaic primacy article, not here, as this article should not digress into a tangent about Greek versus Aramaic primacy. If someone believes this short fact can fit in here, then I guess it's not the end of the world, but I think it would go better there. (Still needs to be NPOV'ed a bit, as there is not universal agreement on some of it.)

I appeal to the good editors of the Wikipedia community to please help keep this minority POV from being pushed on this article. Jdavidb 20:11, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it, Koine Greek was the language of the day, and this is upheld by the most ancient extant manuscripts. Matthew was of course originally penned in Hebrew.

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 13:25, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

I did some major edits here and in Biblical canon, Apocrypha, Deuterocanonical books, and a few more, attempting to clean up the mess a bit. Mpolo 17:55, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

Ineffability of name

Why is this text relevant to the introduction of the article? It is trivia, only important to Jehova's Witnesses, which is why the anon editor entered it. Jayjg 20:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I found out that the original language of the Gospels was Aramaic. I also learned that JESUS is GOD. http://aramaicnttruth.org/page.php?page=home Christian

Seconded. This is the main introductory section and needs to cover the issues of significance. The exact number of repetitions of the name is not in dispute (I suppose, I haven't counted them) but is this what we need in this place in the article? It looks out of place and without proper context. FrankP 22:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jayjg, why do you say this is only important to JW's? This is relevant much of Christianity. (For ex: Do a google search and you'll find many Messianic sites that touch over this issue). It's relevant because most Bible translations subsitute the name with an title such as "LORD".--Josiah 00:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because it's not an article about the usage of the name YHVH, but it is an article about the Bible. What's the difference if English Bible translations generally translate it as "LORD"? It gives undue prominence to a minor doctrinal issue only important to a small number of Christians, and it actually belongs in Tetragramaton if anywhere. Jayjg 03:47, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, Jayjg, and the most important character in the Bible, by far, is supposed to be the Creator of the world, i.e. God. In modern times, I would say at *least* 1/3 of bibles translate the name. It isn't a "small" issue anymore. The Catholics, who were pretty much the last to pronounce the name because they used to follow the Rabbinic tradition on this issue, now use the pronunciation of "Yahweh" in their church services. Additionally, this is a hot subject in the academic world. This is an extremely relevant part about the bible.--Josiah 17:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thirded. On the grounds of balance, such a large paragraph would struggle to be justified anywhere in the article, let alone the lead section. — Matt 18:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wrote the paragraph. I feel it is important to state clearly that a major component of the original text, (ergo the name of God represented by the Tetragrammaton) has today been entirely removed (in my opinion prejudicially and very inappropriately) by the majority of Bible translators. What could their motivation in doing this be, if not prejudicial? If this removal and alteration of the text is not recorded as fact, then we have fallen down in our duty to deliver accurate and historical information. It is not mere trivia, and is not merely important to JW's. Bible transmission down through the centuries has been carried out with the utmost care and scrupulousness by persons who devoted their entire lives to making sure that the copies and translations were accurate. In honor of their efforts, I placed that paragraph there. - TTWSYF

I see this is important to you, but it doesn't belong in the opening section, or even in this article. It might possibly belong in the History of the English Bible article, but even that is questionable. Currently the feeling on the page is against this insertion, and for good reason; this article is not supposed to be a vehicle for "honoring" people, but rather a description of the Bible. Jayjg 19:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is important to note, in any description, the major influences and modifications involved with the main topic. The Bible in general, not just English language translations, has been effected by this removal of the Name. As well, proper understanding as to the identity of the main character of the Bible has been effected by these omissions. How can we view information making this point clear as invalid? If as a writer I honor ancient scribes, then as a Bible historian I honor fact. I really must question the motivation of those who wish to hide the historicity of these important omissions and alterations of the original text. I strongly object to your classification of this important information as trivia.

Tell me why an important point with regard to the Bible, it's translation, and the name of it's main character is supposedly invalid? Further, in what way was my description of the removal of the proper translation of the tetragrammaton from modern-language translations POV? I am not unsupported in my point. (Josiah) TTWSYF

A question for Josiah: are these your opinions, or are these positions taken by scholars, translators, and religious leaders? It is not for me to say whether these opinions are right or wrong, justified or unjustified. BUT Wikipedia is not a venue for original research. If these are your views, they must be removed from the article. If, on the other hand, you are reporting views publicised explicity by religious leaders, by all means create a section summarizing these views and making clear whose views they are. Slrubenstein

Both. Yes, they are partly my opinion, but they are also carried by religous leaders, scholars, and translators. Scholars such as Anson F. Rainey (Professor of Semitic Linguistics at Tel Aviv University) and others defend a pronunciation of "Yahweh", whereas Emmanuel Tov (Hebrew Univeristy, Head of the DSS project) and others believe that "Yehovah" is more correct. There are, of course, others who think both pronunciations are incorrect, such as Everett Fox (Professor of Judaic and Biblical Studies, Clark University). Many of the proponents of the pronunciation "Yahweh" have relied on records of Samaritan beliefs, and to counter that they (The Samaritans) asked my friend if they could publish an article he wrote in their newsletter, which is now avaliable at [1]. See also the Catholic Encyclopedia [2]--Josiah 16:50, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

All of these arguments about the name are interesting in a way, but simply not relevant here. They belong in the Tetragramaton article. This article is summary of the overall work, and contains no similar information on any other translation issues, much less in the opening paragraph. Jayjg 16:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do agree, however, that the paragraph could use some work done on it.--Josiah 16:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Upon consideration, perhaps the paragraph should be placed in it's own subcategory. User:TTWSYF

I really don't think this can be classified as new research - the removal/modification of the Tetragrammaton in the original extant manuscripts, from an indication of a specific personal name (YHWH) to the replacement with impersonal titles (eg. LORD or GOD) is a matter of historic fact. I quoted Biblica Hebraica and Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia as two extant examples of ancient manuscripts from which this fact can be clearly identified; a plethora of Bible translation experts and scholars have commented on this omission, and often translation teams of works in which these omissions have occurred have commented on their decision to make these modifications either in their forewards or elsewhere. Certain extant ancient Greek manuscripts also indicate the name with usage of the Tetragrammaton. Plaques, stained glass windows, coinage, etc. from throughout Europe (and even NA) testify to the usage of the Tetragrammaton and the name in times of antiquity (as Josiah pointed out, notably Catholic edifices and organizations.) Debate is ongoing with regard to the "correct" pronunciation in English and other languages, but in terms of application to accurate reporting on the subject of the Bible, such debates are not significant - however the fact of the omission of this name, which is the most commonly used name throughout the text by far, (used far more than Moses' or Jesus Christ's name, for example) is certainly very significant and lacking in many other reference works, for whatever reasons. I can provide extensive references to these points if necessary. User:TTWSYF

I added a comment to the Discussion page of the article on the Dead Sea Scrolls... Would you esteemed gentlemen respond to my comments? Thanks. TTWSYF

The use of the term by various translators, suitably NPOVd might be interesting in an article on English Biblical translations, or in the Tetragramaton article, where this agenda based POV stuff has also been inserted. However, in an overview of the Bible this POV trivia, currently the single largest paragraph, simply does not belong. Jayjg 16:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In what way is this POV, Jayjg? Explain it clearly, give examples, give evidence, not just POV conjecture of your own. What agenda motivates the inclusion of fact with regard to the exclusion of the name? How can the fact of the removal of the proper translation of the name (from many different language translations of the Bible, not just English language ones) be viewed as a "point of view"? TTWSYF

Re-reading the synopsis I have come across what really bothered me in the first place, although at the time I couldn't put my finger on it - the sentence that originally puts forward the concept of the ineffability of the Tetragrammaton/Name seems to indicate that the Bible somehow commands or orders people not to pronounce the Name, Jehovah or Yahweh etc. Actually, there is no such proscription in the scriptures whatsoever, (actually the scriptures seem to clearly indicate that the Name was is common use for every day activities, worship and prayer in ancient times) - in fact the only proscription (as apparently entered by an anon writer in reply/replacement of my "due to superstition and other factors" sentence), is found in the Talmud. It is tradition, therefore, and not scripture, that indicates the non-pronunciation of the Name. Therefore, could this passage be edited? The "whose ineffable name is represented by..." part, in my opinion, should be removed. TTWSYF

I don't see how the introduction indicates that the Bible says the name shouldn't be pronounced. Jayjg 16:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For Jayjg - quote from the intro paragraph: (stars mine) "The Hebrew scriptures of the Bible—portions of which contain stories traditionally held to be historical accounts of much of the early history of the Hebrew Nation—teach that there is one God, **whose ineffable name** is represented by the tetragrammaton, יהוה. He is "creator of Heaven and Earth" who created man "in his own image", and details the relationship between Man and his Creator." There is nowhere in the *Bible* where there is any indication that persons should not use the name indicated by the Tetragrammaton, but the paragraph states the Name to be "ineffable" or unpronouncable. I restate my request that this should be changed to simply, "whose name is represented by..." TTWSYF

That makes sense to me. But that whole Tetragramaton paragraph should be moved, ideally out of this article entirely. Jayjg 15:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed ineffable, moved the portion with regard to God's name into it's own section, and added statistics, quotes and facts with regard to the distribution, availability, translation, and cultural validity of the Bible. TTWSYF

The Name of God as found in the Bible

I don't think the "Name of God as found in the Bible" is of sufficient notability in the context of an overview of the Bible to warrant a section in this article. I'm not even convinced it's worth mentioning at all in this article. — Matt Crypto 00:25, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement. Jayjg 02:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On what grounds? Did you read the above discussion and commentary? The name of the main character of any book is obviously an important point of discussion with reference to the work in whole; that name is the most-used name in the entire text, and it has been removed/modified in the majority of current translations. I must call into question your motivation - anyone attempting to write a completely "secular" Encyclopedia article about the Bible cannot be successful. Anyone not comfortable with historical fact with regard to the Name must have their own reasons for this. And they are certainly not NPOV. TTWSYF

I find it quite telling that the statistical information added recently was not touched, but any reference to the name Jehovah was deleted... Under the claim that God's name is "too insignificant to be included." Since when is the name of the main character of a book too insignificant to be mentioned? It's obviously prejudicial.

Yes, I did read the above discussion and commentary. I'm not interested in writing a "secular" article; I'm interested in writing a balanced article. Of all the discussions about the Bible that take place in the world, what proportion of those discussions do you suppose are debates over the translation of "YHWH"? I don't know, but it seems obvious to me that it's a very small proportion indeed. Remember, this article is an overview of the topic; we must avoid swamping it with minutiae. I would point out there's a big difference between including the fact that the Bible includes God as a character, and a discussion of the peculiarities of various translations of one word that is used for God. — Matt Crypto 14:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Matt is exactly right. The overview mentions God, and now even mentions the more common transliterations of the Tetragrammaton. While some small religious sects have a great deal of value invested in finding the exact transliteration of the name, all claiming that their particular version is the correct one, and muttering darkly about the conspiracy to remove it from the Bible, the fact remains that for the vast majority of Christians and non-Christians it is a tiny footnote about which they simply don't care. Trivia does not belong in a small article providing a mere overview to the huge topic of the Bible. Jayjg 16:18, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What should be established is the fact that the Bible is about a god named Jehovah; (or Yahweh as some insist.) There are many gods worshipped around the world and many more have been in the past. Just using the word "God" to describe the main character of the Bible would be like using the word "man" as the main individual descriptor in a book about Winston Churchill or Jesus Christ. The entry may be a bit unwieldy but it is scholarly and is based upon well-supported fact. What it imparts is not trivial. And this is a Wikipedia, it's not as though it has limited space for a certain topic, etc. The claim that facts about the name Jehovah are viewed overall as unimportant by people in general does not mean that the facts are unimportant. By removing information about these facts, you contribute to their obscurity, which is the real situation among the general populace. But since when should general opinion be viewed as more important than representation of accurate information in a reference work? TTWSYF

Please read the comments above; the purpose of this article is an overview of the Bible. The information you wish to insert might be relevant in a more detailed article on that topic of the Tetragrammaton. Jayjg 19:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It is not trivia, but well founded factual information extremely pertinent to any discussion of the Bible. For someone claiming to be an "anti-POV warrior" your bias shows up very clearly in your edits... TTWSYF

It is trivia that belongs in an article about the Tetragramaton, not an overview of the Bible. While each article has lots of space, that does not mean everything we can think of should be jammed into one article. What exactly do you imagine my bias to be? Jayjg | (Talk) 19:11, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes. As Jayjg points out, it's quite clear that, relative to an overview article about the Bible, a discussion of the Tetragrammaton is too trivial. I'll reask a question I've asked above: of all the discussions about the Bible that take place in the world (and even of those which are scholarly discussions) what proportion of those discussions do you suppose are debates over the translation of "YHWH"? — Matt Crypto 00:31, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, well let's see... A bias against the Name? Against a certain Christian group that uses it a lot? I think that about sums it up. All that notwithstanding, we're talking about a controversial book which already has many people actively criticizing it and claiming that it has not been transmitted accurately to us down through the centuries. One major, glaring change that has been made to the Bible, (arguably the most significant) and interestingly, one that is easy to prove, is the fact of the replacement of the personal Name with impersonal titles. Just because information has been made somewhat obscure does not mean that it should not be included. It is significant. And it makes for a complete, well rounded, detailed reference work. Are you claiming the material is false? No, it is obviously factual material. Is it irrelevant? Not logically - it pertains to the main character of the Bible and it pertains to the name found most commonly throughout the scriptures by far! Is it unscholarly? No, it is a matter of widespread discussion and debate, and has been a matter addressed by most if not all translators of the scriptures. Translation of the scriptures, and the accuracy of what has been handed down to us, is a matter intrinsically related to any discussion of the Bible. Why? Because if the translation was not accurate, if modifications were made to the text over time, then the resulting work can be unsubstantiated and cannot be relied upon except as a curiosity. Some people, granted, hold this opinion and would want others to hold this opinion. I do not. And there is a host of solid fact supporting the reliability of the Bible, and the accuracy of the versions that have been handed down to us by sincere, dedicated scribes and copyists through the ages. This reference work, Wikipedia, is supposed to provide information that other works do not. If not this, then why allow for personal edits? In pursuit of that goal, and for the other reasons mentioned herein, I will replace the section about the Name. TTWSYF

Put it somewhere else, like Tetragrammaton. Let's distinguish between two types of significance. 1) Significance in someone's theology. Clearly, in your theology, this topic is very significant. That's fine. 2) Significance in the sense of how pertinant it is in providing a overview of the Bible, given all the diverse debates and issues that people have about it. It is the second type of significance that we're talking about here. Please try and see the large picture, and please don't assume that there's a hostile bias against your point of view. — Matt Crypto 10:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. Information about the name of God belongs in an article about the name of God. This is an overview of the book itself, when it was written, how old it is, versions, canons, chapters and verses, interpretations. It already mentions the main character, the tetragrammaton, and even spells out the name. More detailed information about word counts, etc. belongs in more detailed articles. Jayjg | (Talk) 23:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)