Talk:Bible

Citation check restart

In Etymology: Stagg was #5, but I removed him as an unsuitable reference. PBS is now #5 and it is verified as a correct citation.

1. 6 is Bruce and it is now verified as correct
2. 7 had the names written in backwards order, but the ref is verified.
3. 8 is the Catholic Encyclopedia, and it is verified and correct.

Development and history:

1. 9 is Carr, and is verified as correctly referencing the two sentences immediately prior including the quote. The first two sentences are non-controversial common knowledge so they can be stated in wiki voice.
2. 10 is another bundled list, which automatically claims every one of the refs cited support this sentence. They probably do, and I have no issue with the content. I feel confident it's a true statement, but because verification of the references in this article has been raised as being the significant issue for failure of the GAN, I feel compelled to check that every one actually does say this sentence. It has "Hayes 2012, ch. 1; Brown 2010, Intro.; Bandstra 2009, pp. 7–9; Gravett et al. 2008, pp. 41, 59; Harris & Platzner 2008, pp. 21–22; Riches 2000, pp. chs. 2 and 3." and why so many are necessary is beyond me. This will probably take awhile. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

1. 10 The sentence being supported is The Bible was written and compiled by many people, most of whom are unknown, from a variety of disparate cultures.

• Hayes supports the first part - The Bible was written and compiled by many people - on page 68, but I did not find the rest of the sentence in Hayes.
• Raymond Brown says 'intro', but there is no section titled introduction in this book. There's a forward, and since I was able to access the whole book on the Archive, I was able to read the entire section. I have been unable to find any part of this sentence in the foreward.
• Bandstra, the first part of the sentence is on page 9, as the citation says, "a variety of authors" is on the bottom of page 7-top of 8, though a variety of cultures is not.

I haven't found "most of whom are unknown" anywhere yet. On the face of it, it seems like a common enough statement that it hardly needs verifying, yet it has these multiple citations, and the way the citations are bundled means that, in wiki-world, every claim is supposedly supported in every source listed. The fact I can't find that with an ordinary search is a problem. If one source supports the first part of the sentence, and another source supports the second, and another the third, that's perfectly legit - but there must be notes explaining what supports what. That is the wiki-way. This must be addressed, and it should be addressed by the individual editor who put them together and reverted a replacement.

Levich Since you are the one who raised the issue originally, and since you have repeated your concern here again that The second-biggest problem is that we've lost WP:V, because prose has been changed without changing the sources, and since, when I questioned those same sources, you are also the one who demonstrated that they were still verifiably correct, and since these are your references, and since you own the books, it would be fair and reasonable and demonstrate good faith if you would simply check those at # 14, 21, 25, 32, 36, 49, and 50 and show that they are or aren't still valid. You said you can't vouch for them anymore, then you demonstrated that you can by doing so in the above exchange. Prose was shortened in response to GAN, but no meaning was changed. If they were valid when you placed them, they most likely still are, but it would be good if you would show that or demonstrate how they are not, so they can be fixed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I feel like a broken record. I've already said: those bundled cites all come from my March 2021 rewrite of the Development and Textual history sections. They were paragraph-level citations, which cited the entire paragraphs that they followed. I verified them all when I wrote them. About a year later, you came along and changed them. It's up to you to check that the changes you made maintained text-source integrity. I will not volunteer my time to do this for you, especially when I warned you about this seven months ago, while you were doing it, that we were going to end up losing text-source integrity.

More to the point, the easy way to fix this is to just restore the old Development (Special:Permalink/1065614835#Development) and Textual history (Special:Permalink/1065614835#Textual history) sections. I still do not see why the current, combined section (Special:Permalink/1096822285#Development and history), is better than what was there before. You haven't yet explained how the current section is an improvement on the two old sections, or what your goal was in rewriting it. I am minded to launch an RFC proposal to restore the old sections, but I'd like to hear from you (or any other page watchers) first. Levivich^[block] 15:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Levivich First, you wouldn't be doing it for me. You would be doing it for the article and for Wikipedia. You would be doing it because you are the one who has said there might be a problem with text-source integrity caused by the rewrite. You would be doing it because I don't think it's likely that's correct. I could certainly be wrong, but then so could you. You would be doing it because that needs resolution in order for the article to go forward rather than backward. You would do it because if I do it, I will replace the bundles with single references that are more easily verified by an ordinary reader.

Second, I don't think it's likely the problem you think might exist actually does exist, because a simple distillation of prose from Considered to be scriptures (sacred, authoritative religious texts), the books were compiled by different religious communities into various biblical canons (official collections of scriptures). to The religious texts were compiled by different religious communities into various official collections doesn't alter meaning and wouldn't invalidate the source.

Third, as demonstrated above by locating the paragraph you thought was missing, which is now the fifth paragraph in the combined section, most of the paragraphs your bundle supports are unchanged; text and source were just relocated, together, which would also have no impact on their validity. On that basis, going backwards to a former version would not improve text-source integrity.

For myself, I can't see that going backwards would solve the problem of the elephant in the room. It isn't necessary to repeat that these are bundled references. That by itself isn't the problem. Bundled references, that are used as these are, support everything that's said. Every reference has every claim. I won't relink to WP's page. I know you are familiar with where WP explains that. But when a bundled citation for an entire paragraph is, instead, a summary of different points made by different sources, which is what you have said these are, there needs to be a way for the reader to find out which source supports which statement. WP has a provision for that. Individual citations for each claim should be in Notes. There are no Notes on any of these bundled refs. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I see that absence as a verification problem. A problem that pre-existed any changes made to this article. Therefore, it is a problem that a restoration of a former version would not fix.

Thank you for asking about the reasons for combining sections. According to the GA reviewer, 'Development' and 'Textual history' repeated too many of the same things, had technical terms that were unexplained, and assumed a level of knowledge about this topic the average reader might not have. Both sections. They were too long, too complicated, but still left things out. Combining the sections made it possible to remove repetitions, shorten the overall length, and explain more, using simpler terms. Going back to before would restore the problems the reviewers recognized.

Perhaps an RFC on whether or not the bundled source can be seen as verifiable, since it's a summary without notes on what supports what, would also be useful. I don't know that we can do that for wiki-policy, but I suppose we could ask whether others think wiki-policy has been followed sufficiently for verifiability. Certainly do an RFC if you don't agree the combined sections address the issues the reviewers raised.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The GA review started on May 30. Special:Permalink/1090453361 is what the article looked like then. Yes, there were two sections, and yes, they were duplicative. But my question is why is the rewrite of those two sections, done in January and February, an improvement? Forget about the GA in May, I'm talking about changes made in January. You're still not really addressing the core of my question: What was wrong with the Development and Textual history sections before you rewrote them? what was wrong with the January version? Why did you rewrite them? What was the purpose, what was the improvement made? Levivich^[block] 17:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

But what difference does the January version make now? You asked about the current version: You haven't yet explained how the current section is an improvement on the two old sections, or what your goal was in rewriting it The current version is a direct result of the reviewer's observations - which it seems like we both agree were fair. What the reviewer said was wrong was actually what was wrong. That was why I rewrote those sections. The purpose was as I said above. The reviewers saw this article as insufficient in its coverage of a humongous and important topic: it needed more at the same time it needed less. That is also what I saw when I first started work here, so I thought they were both right and cooperated accordingly. They also criticized the organization, and kept asking for additional sections. That's all there is. There were no other reasons or motives. I am genuinely sorry you are still so distressed by changes being made to this article. I kind of had no real choice. It had nothing to do with the accuracy of your content. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok I'll try again. I'm asking you why you rewrote the sections in January and February. It makes a difference because I'm about to propose restoring these sections in an RFC, but I'd like to hear your reasoning before I do so, because you may have had good reasons that I am not appreciating, but I don't know what they are.

To be clear, I am not asking you why you rewrote the section in May at the GA. I'm asking you about why you made the edits you made in January and February.

Just as a reminder, I reverted your bold edits to these sections on February 8, months before the GA: Special:Diff/1070686468/1070697768. You reverted me and reinstated your bold edits: Special:Diff/1070701524. So to be very specific, my question is, why did you make that edit, reverting my reversion and reinstating your changes? Why is Special:Diff/1070701524 an improvement over what was there before? Levivich^[block] 18:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This is all moot. Why beat a dead horse? The January version, the February version, whatever, it doesn't matter anymore. They have all been changed into the current version, which should be kept because it addresses legitimate issues. Let it go. Please. Let's move on to what's needed now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not moot. What are the "legitimate issues" that Special:Diff/1070701524 addresses, is what I'm asking. Levivich^[block] 18:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This is going in circles. There is too much ownership. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

• Still on number 10, "most [authors] are unknown" is not in Gravett.
• Ahh, found it on page 39 of Harris and Platzner. YAY!
• Since I have now found two sources that support two of the claims, I will edit to reflect that and hope I won't get reverted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes it's in Gravett, pp. 58-59:

  In evaluating the Hebrew Bible as a source for history, historians frequently attempt to determine the time and place of the text’s authorship. For modern literary works, that process is fairly straightforward, often as simple as finding the copyright information on the work’s title page. But the Hebrew Bible lacks such a convenient system. The books of the Torah, for example, have no named author ... The Psalms often feature notes, called superscriptions, that seem to name an author (e.g., “Psalm of David”), but these were added long after the psalm’s composition. Indeed, the superscriptions may really indicate the psalm is in a style associated with David rather than being his literary expression. Some books in the Hebrew Bible clearly name an author; the book of Jeremiah claims the prophet Jeremiah composed the book during the reigns of Josiah, Jehoiakim, and Zedekiah (Jer 1:2–3). But closer examination reveals that the book of Jeremiah emerged over a long period and includes a great deal of material that describes Jeremiah in the third person. According to the book of Jeremiah itself (e.g., Jer 36:1–4, 32), Jeremiah first spoke his message before others collected and wrote the words we now read. In short, one author did not write the books in the Hebrew Bible at one particular moment. These books result from a lengthy process, a process that began (as the book of Jeremiah indicates) with oral composition.

  You're not seriously suggesting that, in the case of a bundled cite, because you verified two of them, you're going to remove the rest? Huh? We should select cites based on what are the best cites for the text, not based on which ones you personally happened to have read. Levivich^[block] 18:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Ah, I searched authors, unknown, anonymous, and so on, assuming that any form of those terms would also show up. It usually does. Authorship. I did not see that. Thank you for finding it. This helps. So, you tell me what is reasonable in this circumstance. You assert a lack of text-source integrity, then when I try to replace the refs with those I can and have actually verified and can list page numbers for, in. order to insure that integrity, you want them to stay as they are. I know your solution is to go backwards, but that has been proposed in the past, and no one else supported that approach. We have to find a way forward. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  What I think is reasonable in this circumstance is that if you want to verify citations, you actually read the cited source, not just text search it, because text searching isn't good enough. Citation #10 specifically cites Gravette p. 59; it should not have been difficult to find if you actually read that page (or the one before it, since the relevant passage starts at the end of page 58). Still, you should be reading the cited page and adjacent pages, before you ask someone else to spend any time verifying it. Because, for a third time now in just a few days, I have posted quotes verifying things that I already said I checked and verified in response to you asserting they fail verification. This is not a pattern that can continue.

  What I also think is reasonable is, if you want to verify citations, that you start with the citations that you added, and only then go to the citations that others added. But that's your call.

  Mostly, though, what I think is reasonable is to restore the older version. No one else supported that approach because there is no one else here except you and me. That's why I'm planning to propose it via an RFC. But I'm first waiting for you to articulate why you oppose restoring the prior version. Levivich^[block] 18:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, please remember not to make personal accusations and assumptions. When did you say you had checked and verified the current validity of these references? Weren't you the one who said all the newer versions of this article lacked text-source integrity? How can both things be correct?

  I didn't start with anybody's sources. I started at #1. Then I went to #2. And so on.

  No one else supported a rollback approach back in the wayback when you proposed it months ago. I suppose it's archived, and I could find it, but I don't care enough to go look. None of this is pertinent to where things are now. I oppose a rollback because all that will do is restore old problems that have since been dealt with and lose all the work that others - not just me - have contributed to this article. Going backwards is not progress. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  What are the old problems that have since been dealt with? What old problems did your edit at Special:Diff/1070701524 deal with? Levivich^[block] 19:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

  That's February. Let it go. Deal with now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Jenhawk asked for my input here, so here it is. Forgive me if I'm missing details (I'm often bad at following talk-page conversations), but I gather Levivich is advocating a reverting these sections to a version from January, before Jenhawk began reworking the article, because those citations had been thoroughly checked. Correct?

My problem with Levivich's argument, and it looks like Jenhawk has also seen it, is that the citations from those versions aren't good at maintaining text-source integrity because they bundle so many sources together. Without access to all the sources in question, it's not feasible to tell which sources support which statement. I'll give an example. I once tried to spot-check Cleopatra during its (successful) FAC. Much of the text was written based on two sources, one of which I was able to obtain, the other of which I was not. The nominator, who had largely rewritten the article for FAC, had structured the citations in such a way that a sentence would often be supported by two citations, one to each of the two major sources. I often checked the book I had and found that it supported part of the sentence but not the other. I could only assume that the other source covered the rest. In this case it was a safe bet because the nominator had a very long and distinguished FAC track record, but in an article like this one, with a long history of collaborative work and a lot of contentiousness, that's not going to be good enough.

Obviously, when a claim is contentious, it's often better to have more than one source so as to demonstrate that the claim has broad support, but that works best if the sources are saying the same thing. If you have to check each of the sources to fully support all the text the group of citations covers, it actually weakens verifiability. In the version Levivich wants to return to, the last paragraph of the Development section, covering a pretty wide range of topics, is supported by a single bundled citation incorporating eight sources! I'm simply not convinced that this is the best way to maintain verifiability. A. Parrot (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. My suggesting reverting to an older version has nothing to do with paragraph- or sentence-level citations, or bundled citations. (FYI, those paragraph-level citations cite the entire paragraph; every source supports every statement.) I agree that we don't need eight sources for the statements in the paragraph. When I added them, I wasn't sure which ones were best, I wanted to show the statements in wikivoice were well-supported, and I figured at some point I or someone else would reduce the number of cites by looking at which sources were best for which statements.

I think Special:Permalink/1065614835#Development and Special:Permalink/1065614835#Textual history (the Jan 14 versions) are better than the current version, Special:Permalink/1096822285#Development and history. I think the prose is clearer. It's shorter. It's better-cited (because it contains multiple citations for the statements). There are more statements in wikivoice and fewer attributed statements. The level of detail is more appropriate to a broad summary.

But I'm not sure this whole discussion about the prior version of these sections is worthwhile, because I actually think the best thing to do is to have neither the old sections nor the new section, but rather to distribute both development and textual history to the sub-sections about the various major canons of the Bible (Hebrew Bible, Protestant Bible, Catholic Bible, etc.). Levivich^[block] 23:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Levivich and A. Parrot Yes, thank you. It is my opinion that there needs to be a development and history section, and that redistribution would not be an overall improvement. It would end up recreating that duplication we tried to get rid of.

I also think that fewer attributed statements is not better. Many of the statements in these various paragraphs are non-controversial and common knowledge in this area - though not necessarily for the ordinary reader - so they still need to be referenced, and in some cases, attributed. This is still a controversial topic overall.

Also, no previous version is better-cited (because it contains multiple citations for the statements) for all the reasons previously discussed.

Since those bundled citations can't be easily verified, and since Levivich agrees we don't need eight sources for the statements in the paragraph, I would like to break up the bundle and have single citations for each separate sentence. There is no real difference in the quality of any one of those 8 sources verses another. There is no "best" source. They are all equally good sources, and it doesn't matter which is used, but surely one or two actually connected to a single statement, with page numbers, would be better than the way it is.

I would like to move forward by doing that, in every use of this bundled group, in order to establish text-source integrity which has been questioned. Part of that issue has, from the first, revolved around these bundled sources. Part of A. Parrot's comment is that text-source integrity about these bundled sources cannot be assumed. Since Levivich has claimed their continued use after revision caused a lack of it, it would seem there is agreement on that point. And since everyone agrees that text-source integrity absolutely must be established, it seems to me that problematic citations should be removed and replaced with more easily verified ones.

I do agree the whole discussion of prior versions is not worthwhile. Let's move forward from where we are. Unless there is consensus that elimination of the development section and its redistribution is necessary, (which would still not fix the referencing problem), I will do the work, fix the refs, and leave the rest. Can we establish some consensus on this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Third reboot

I cannot find a source for "most of whom are unknown" but I'm sure there is one out there. Can anyone provide that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Hayes 2012, ch. 1; Brown 2010, Intro.; Bandstra 2009, pp. 7–9; Gravett et al. 2008, pp. 41, 59; Harris & Platzner 2008, pp. 21–22; Riches 2000 (now 2nd ed., 2022), pp. chs. 2 and 3, and Barton's "The Bible: The Most Influential Book in the World", but I forget year and page numbers, I think I may have mentioned it here already. I'll take a look later at reducing the cites for that sentence down to three. Levivich^[block] 20:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

One is sufficient, please, with a page number.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Multiple sources are better than one for statements in wikivoice, and ebooks don't have page numbers. I posted some sources and quotes last week at #"Some" authors unknown or "most"?. That citation is now down to three sources. Levivich^[block] 05:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I had an entire response to your previous post - the one this replaced - and I have just deleted it. Perhaps this is a kind of progress. And I am glad of it. Why use ebooks that don't have page numbers? You have plenty of sources with page numbers to choose from. Multiple sources are not always the best choice; more is not always better. Sometimes less is more. One reference that is easily verified is better than 8 no one can find or read. If you want three, that's fine, but that does put you back in the realm of connecting them to the statements they support, with page numbers. Always with the page numbers! I have learned that the hard way. Thank you for making the effort to bring this article forward. I do genuinely appreciate it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

1. 10 has now been fully verified by Levivich.
2. 11 is Riches, and I cannot get access beyond page 7. Levivich will you verify this quote is word for word correct? Reviewers will not accept it as accurate if there is one word, one comma, anything at all that varies in any way from the source. I don't need to see it myself if you can verify it, but in this one-by-one check list, it needs to be stated that it is fully accurate.
3. 12 is Lim p.47; I added page 7 for papyrus
4. 13 is Hendell and Joosten; multiple page #s all correct
5. 14 is the bundled 8; Levivich will you edit down and either have one source per sentence or put in a note which source, with page numbers, supports which sentence please? Then these can be validated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Please stop pinging me and asking me to verify sources for you that I have already verified. I already told you I verified all of these sources when I added them in 2021. They were verified at that point. If you've made changes since then, you need to check yourself that the changes are verified, don't make changes and then ask me to verify for you. And seriously, stop pinging me here so often (it seems like a daily occurrence) and asking me to do this and that. I don't work for you, and I don't want you to be a part of my daily wiki-life. Levivich^[block] 16:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow. Okay then. As you wish. I take this as a declaration that I can make the changes necessary without you reverting them. Will do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

1. 14 is now Lim, and it's verified.
2. 15 is Wegner and verified
3. 16 is also Wegner, also verified
4. 17 is Wegner, also verified
5. 18 is Vander Kam and Flint, added 2 pages, now verified as correct
6. 19 is Wegner pages 62 - 63, correct
7. 20 is also rechecked and verified
8. 21 is another entire paragraph (the one described above as missing) cited to the bundled 8 with no notes. The first sentence is "Considered to be scriptures (sacred, authoritative religious texts), the books were compiled by different religious communities into various biblical canons (official collections of scriptures)." It is now Hayes and verified as correct
9. 22 is also Hayes and # 23 is Lim and they are all verified.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

1. 24 through 27 are Segal and Dorival, Harl & Munnich; Lavidas and Dines are all correct.
2. 28 is Hauser, Watson & Kaufman, p 201; 30, can't verify 201, but 30 - 31 say the same thing; adding 301, removing 201: verified Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Overview books about the Bible

Trying to put together a list of 21st-century books that provide an overview of the entire Bible (as opposed to some specific sub-topic like Hebrew Bible or New Testament). This is what I have so far (all of which I believe are already in the article, and most of which were, oddly, written by someone named John):

• John Riches (2022), The Bible: a Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press
• John Barton (2019), A History of the Bible, Viking Press
• The New Cambridge History of the Bible (2012-2016), Cambridge University Press
• John W. Rogerson (2012), An Introduction to the Bible, Equinox Publishing
• John Barton (2010), The Bible: The Basics, Routledge

Does anyone have any books to add to this list? Thanks in advance, Levivich^[block] 19:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

A few from Oxford University Press:

• Michael Coogan (2020), The Bible: What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford UP
• Bart Ehrman (2017), The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction, Oxford UP
• J. W. Rogerson and Judith Lieu (2006), The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, Oxford UP A. Parrot (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

TOC Analysis

Source TOCs

Expand to view the source tables of contents

Legend: Development - Origins, authorship, texts/manuscripts, production, translation, transmission, and canonization of the Bible Context - the historical context in which the Bible was written; the influence of the outside world upon the Bible Genres - literary genres of the Bible (biblical genre) Theology - Religious teachings/instruction/interpretation of the Bible (Biblical theology) Criticism - methods of scholarly study of the Bible (biblical criticism) Influence - The influence of the Bible on the outside world John Barton (2010), The Bible: The Basics, Routledge Ch. 1: The Bible in the modern world Reading the Bible as Scripture (Truth, Relevance, Profundity, Consistency, Conformity with Christian Belief) Critical Reading (A Literary Approach, Neutrality) A Compromise? (Truth, Relevance, Profundity, Consistency, Conformity with Christian Belief) The Bible as a Cultural Artefact (Literary Influence, Reception History, Political Influence) Ch. 2: The Nature of the Bible The Biblical Canon ('Old Testament' or 'Hebrew Bible'?, Order of the Old Testament Books, The New Testament) The Transmission of the Bible (The Old Testament, The New Testament, Textual Criticism) Ancient Translations (The Targums, The Septuagint, The Vulgate) Modern Translations (Early Modern Translations, More Recent Translations) Attitude towards Translation The Origins of the Bible: The New Testament (Three Stages in the Growth of the New Testament, Pseudonymity, Place of Origin) The Origins of the Bible: Hebrew Bible (Three Stages in Composition of Narrative Books, Other Books, Late Datings) Non-Canonical Literature (Old Testament Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, New Testament Apocrypha) Note: The Name of God Ch. 3: Major genres Narrative Prophecy and Apocalyptic Law Psalmody Wisdom Gospels The Letters (Epistles) Ch. 4: Religious themes The Nature of God The Figure of Jesus Evil in the World Eschatology Ethics Faith and Grace Ch. 5: The Bible and History History and the Hebrew Bible History and the New Testament Ch. 6: The Social World of the Bible Pre-Exilic Israel Post-Exilic Yehud and the Diaspora The Period of the New Testament Early Christianity Social and Religious Customs Ch. 7: Biblical Interpretation Today Form Criticism Redaction Criticism Structuralism Poststructuralism Newer Literary Approaches Canonical Criticism Advocacy Readings The Future of Biblical Interpretation John W. Rogerson (2012), An Introduction to the Bible, Equinox Publishing Ch. 1: What Is the Bible? Introduction Textual Questions Linguistic Differences Doctrinal Issues Ch. 2: How Biblical Writers Wrote (no subsections) Ch. 3: The Making of the Old Testament Historical Writings (The Tetrateuch, The Deuteronomistic History, The Chronicler's History) Laws (Civil Laws, Ceremonial Laws) Prophetic Literature Psalms 'Wisdom' Literature (The Book of Job, Ecclesiastes) Other Writings (Apocalyptic, Love Poetry, Novelistic Writings, Laments) The Making of the Old Testament as a Whole Ch. 4: The Making of the Apocrypha 'Historical' Writings (1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 1 Esdras) Psalms (The Prayer of Manasseh, Psalm 151) 'Wisdom' Literature (Baruch, 4 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, The Wisdom of Jesus ben Sirach (Ecclesiasticus, also often cited as Sirach)) Apocalyptic Novelistic Writings (Tobit, Judith, Additions to Esther, Additions to Daniel) The Making of the Apocrypha as a Whole Ch. 5: The Making of the New Testament The Pauline Letters (1 Thessalonians, Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, Philippians, Philemon) The Deutero-Pauline Letters (Colossians, Ephesians, 2 Thessalonians) The Pastoral Letters The Church in Syria (?) (Mark, 1 Peter) The Church in Antioch (?) (Matthew) The Lukan History The Church in Ephesus (John; 1, 2 and 3 John; Revelation) Miscellaneous (Jude and 2 Peter; Hebrews) The Making of the New Testament as a Whole Ch. 6: The Canon of the Bible Introduction The Jewish Canon The Septuagint The Vulgate The New Testament Printing Conclusion Ch. 7: The Study of the Bible The Old Testament, with Special Reference to Scientific Matters and to Biblical Criticism The Apocrypha The New Testament Fundamentalism Recent Developments Ch. 8: The Use of the Bible (no subsections) Michael Coogan (2021), The Bible: What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford University Press Ch. 1: Bible and Bibles What is the Bible? What is a canon and why is it important? What is the Bible in Judaism? What are the Apocrypha? What are the Pseudepigrapha? What is the Bible in Christianity? What is the New Testament? Why is the Protestant Old Testament different from that of Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians? Ch. 2: Languages, Texts, and Translations What languages was the Bible written in? How many translations of the Bible are there? What are the oldest translations of the Bible? How do translators work? What is a literal translation? What is dynamic equivalence? What is textual criticism? What are some important English translations of the Bible? Should translations of the Bible use inclusive language? Why is translation so difficult? Ch. 3: The Contents of the Bible What are the books of the Bible? How were the books of the Bible named? Why is genre important? What are the principal genres in the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament? Which books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament are narrative history? Which books of the Hebrew Bible/Old Testament are historical fiction? Does the Bible contain myths? Where are laws found in the Bible? Where are hymns and prayers found in the Bible? What is wisdom literature? What are proverbs? What is prophetic literature? What is apocalyptic literature? What are the principal genres in the New Testament? What is a gospel? What is the genre of Acts of Apostles? What are the “letters” in the New Testament? What is the book of Revelation? Ch. 4: Authors and Authorship Who wrote the Bible? Why does it matter who wrote the books of the Bible? How did the belief that Moses was the author of the Torah originate? Did David write the psalms and other poems attributed to him? Did Solomon write all the books attributed to him? Did the prophets write the books named after them? Who wrote the books of the Apocrypha? Who wrote the books of the New Testament? When was the Bible written? Ch. 5: The Contexts of the Bible Why is it important to study the contexts in which the biblical writers lived? What is the Fertile Crescent? What is the Levant? What is the topography of Israel? How does historical geography help us understand the Bible? Are all the places mentioned in the Bible real places? What is the history of the ancient Near East? Which major biblical characters are mentioned in contemporaneous nonbiblical sources? How were the writers of the Hebrew Bible influenced by texts from other cultures? How were the writers of the Apocrypha influenced by texts from other cultures? How were the writers of the New Testament influenced by texts from other cultures? How does archaeology enhance our understanding of the Bible? Does archaeology prove the Bible? Ch. 6: Interpretive Strategies What are interpretive strategies? What is a concordance? What is source criticism? How does source criticism work in the Torah/Pentateuch? Is source criticism used in studying other parts of the Hebrew Bible? How does source criticism work in the Gospels? What preceded Q? What is the Gospel of Thomas and why is it important? How does the Gospel of John differ from the Synoptic Gospels, and why? What is form criticism? What are infancy narratives and how can they be interpreted? What are the passion narratives and how can they be interpreted? What is tradition criticism? What is redaction criticism? What is the Deuteronomistic History? What is canonical criticism? What are cultural and ideological criticisms? What other methods do scholars use in interpreting the Bible? Ch. 7: The Uses of the Bible What is reception history? What is the reception history of the book of Job? How have people tried to edit the Bible? How has the Bible been used in liturgical services? Which Jewish holy days are based on the Bible? Which Christian holy days are based on the Bible? How is Sabbath observance based on the Bible? What rituals are based on the Bible? What later religious movements are based on the Bible? How has the Bible been used in politics? How has the Bible influenced jurisprudence? Why do people swear on the Bible? How else has the Bible been used in ordinary life? How has the Bible influenced scientific understanding? How has the Bible influenced the practice of medicine? Ch. 8: Biblical Concepts What do I mean by “biblical concepts”? Who is Yahweh? What other names and titles does Yahweh have? How did monotheism develop? What did early Christians mean when they called Jesus “son of God”? What does “son of man” mean? What is a messiah? When will the Messiah come? What significance does the title “son of David” have? What is a covenant, and which are the most important covenants? What is the “new covenant”? What is righteousness? What is theodicy? What were biblical writers’ views about life after death? What did early Christians believe about Jesus’s resurrection? Does the Bible have a central theme? Ch. 9: Biblical Values What are the Bible’s highest values? Who is a neighbor? How else can one show love for one’s neighbor? Is the command to love one’s neighbor consistently observed in the Bible? What does the Bible say about same-sex relationships? What about the sin of Sodom? What does the Bible say about transgender persons? What was the status of women in ancient Israel? What does the New Testament say about the status of women? What are the biblical writers’ views about marriage and divorce? What does the Bible say about abortion? What does the Bible say about slavery? What does the Bible say about capital punishment? Is the New Testament anti-Semitic? Can only believers fully understand the Bible? Does the Bible still have authority? John Riches (2022), The Bible: a Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press Ch. 1: The Bible in the modern world: classic or sacred text? (no subsections) Ch. 2: How the biblical books were written Orality and literacy The Bible’s literary world Literary allusions within the Bible A living oral and literary tradition Ch. 3: The making of the Bible The many names of the Bible The making of the Jewish canon: the Hebrew Bible and its Greek version The formation of the Hebrew Bible The Greek translation: the Septuagint The Christian Old Testament The Christian New Testament What’s the use of a canon? Ch. 4: Translation, production, and distribution of the Bible Bible production Ch. 5: Jewish and Christian readings of the Binding of Isaac The Akedah The rich afterlife of the biblical texts Ch. 6: Galatians through history Paul’s argument in Galatians The reception of Galatians: the Law New life in the Spirit: new forms of spirituality Ch. 7: The Bible and its critics The Church under attack: challenges from within The Church under attack: challenges from without The Enlightenment and the rise of historical criticism Criticism and creative readings Ch. 8: The Bible in the post-colonial world The Bible in Latin America The Bible in Africa Post-independence African readings Use and abuse Ch. 9: The Bible in politics Allegiance to the state: oaths and arms-bearing Gender politics The Bible as political authority Ch. 10: The Bible in high and popular culture Biblical retellings: the Bible in music Biblical images in art Biblical symbolism_ the Bible in metaphor and concept The root of culture Conclusion (no subsections) John W. Rogerson and Judith Lieu (2006), The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, Oxford University Press Part I: On The Discipline Section 1. History Of The Discipline In The Last Seventy Years Old Testament New Testament Section 2. The Impact Of Other Disciplines Upon Biblical Scholarship Archaeology Ancient Near Eastern Studies: Mesopotamia Ancient Near Eastern Studies: Egypt Qumran Studies Study Of The Graeco-Roman World Diaspora And Rabbinic Judaism Part II Languages, Translation, And Textual Transmission Of The Bible Language And Translation Of The Old Testament Language, Translation, Versions, And Text Of The Apocrypha Language And Translation Of The New Testament Ancient Versions And Textual Transmission Of The Old Testament Textual Transmission And Versions Of The New Testament Part III Historical And Social Study Of The Bible Section 1. Background And Context Introduction: General Problems Of Studying The Text Of The Bible In Order To Reconstruct History And Social Background Israel To The End Of The Persian Period: History, Social, Political, And Economic Background Israel From The Rise Of Hellenism To 70 Ce The Life And Teaching Of Jesus And The Rise Of Christianity Section 2. Institutions Of The Old And New Testaments Priesthood, Temple(S), And Sacrifice Law In The Old Testament Scribes And Synagogues Movements Section 3. Genres Of The Old And New Testaments Prophecy Apocalyptic Wisdom Novella Gospels Letters Part IV The Composition Of The Bible The Growth Of The Old Testament The Growth Of The Apocrypha The Growth Of The New Testament Authors, Books, And Readers In The Ancient World Part V Methods In Biblical Scholarship Archaeology Textual Criticism Form, Source, And Redaction Criticism Rhetorical And New Literary Criticism Feminist Criticism And Related Aspects Social, Political, And Ideological Criticism Part VI The Interpretation Of The Bible Old Testament Theology New Testament Theology Biblical Theology The Bible In Ethics Jewish Interpretation Of The Bible Part VII The Authority Of The Bible Canon Fundamentalism(S) Historical Criticism And The Authority Of The Bible John Barton (2019), A History of the Bible, Viking Press Introduction: The Bible Today Introduction The Cultural Bible The Bible in Faith Communities Ancient and Modern Outline of the Book [of Barton's book, not the Bible] Part One: The Old Testament Ch. 1: Ancient Israel: History and Language The Biblical Story Modern Reconstructions The Term 'Old Testament' The Language of the Old Testament Ch. 2: Hebrew Narrative Three Styles of Hebrew Narrative Interweaving The Primary History and other Narratives The Purpose of the Hebrew Narrative Ch. 3: Law and Wisdom Wisdom In The Hebrew Bible And In The Ancient Near East Sceptical Wisdom Personified Wisdom Hebrew Law In Its Ancient Near Eastern Context The Ten Commandments Motivations For Good Conduct The Canonization Of The Law The Personification Of Torah Ch. 4: Prophecy Prophets And Their Books The Growth Of Isaiah The Editing Of The Books The Finished Form Ch. 5: Poems and Psalms Poems And Psalms The Psalms The Use Of The Psalms Liturgical Interpretation Of The Psalms The Order Of The Psalms Themes In The Psalms Jewish And Christian Readings Of The Psalms Part Two: The New Testament Ch. 6: Christian Beginnings The Historical Context Hellenism Josephus Philo Language Sects And Parties Christian Writings: Three Stages Ch. 7: Letters Paul And The Resurrection Jesus As Son Of God In Paul Church Order Paul And The Acts Of The Apostles Paul And Justification By Faith Authorship Ch. 8: Gospels The Synoptic Gospels The Synoptic Problem When, Where And For Whom Were The Gospels Written? John The Purpose Of The Gospels Four Gospels Part Three: The Bible and Its Texts Ch. 9: From Books to Scripture Agreement About The Hebrew Scriptures ‘Defiling The Hands’ Early Stages In The Formation Of The Hebrew Bible Scripture And Canon: The Apocrypha Jewish And Christian Perceptions Of The Bible Canonical And Non-Canonical Books? Ch. 10: Christians and Their Books Irenaeus And The New Testament As Historical Record Scrolls And Codices The New Testament As Scripture The Old Testament As A Christian Book Harmonization Nomina Sacra The New Testament In The Second Century Ch. 11: Official and Unofficial Texts Defining The Canon The Excluded Books The Apostolic Fathers Other Non-Canonical Texts Ch. 12: Biblical Manuscripts Biblical Manuscripts The New Testament The Hebrew Bible Textual Variation And The Original Text Part Four: The Meanings of the Bible Ch. 13: The Theme of the Bible Christian Reading Of The Bible Jewish Readings Of The Bible Reconciling Jewish And Christian Readings? Interpretation Of The Hebrew Bible In Judaism Old And New Reading The New Testament The Quest For A Theme In The Bible Ch. 14: Rabbis and Church Fathers Rabbinic Principles Of Interpretation Christian Modes Of Interpretation Origen As A Biblical Scholar The School Of Antioch Biblical Interpretation In The West The Fathers’ Approach Ch. 15: The Middle Ages The Bible As A Book Interpreting The Bible: Christian Approaches Commentaries And The Gloss Jewish Commentary The Bible In East And West Ch. 16: The Reformation and Its Readings Anticipations Of The Reformation Luther's Reformation The Reformed Tradition Sola Scriptura Bibles Ch. 17: Since the Enlightenment Spinoza After Spinoza Semler Reimarus And Strauss Vatke, Wellhausen And Baur The Bible And Science Modern Biblical Study Ch. 18: Translating the Bible Greek Translations Of The Hebrew Bible Aramaic Translations Latin Translations Other Translations Reformation Translations Modern Translations Some Points Of Contention Conclusion: The Bible and Faith Conclusion: The Bible And Faith Faith And The Bible Biblical Genres Pseudonymity Two Testaments? Inspiration Textual Fluidity Scripture And Tradition The Indispensability Of The Bible Bart D. Ehrman (2017), The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction, Oxford University Press Introduction Why Study the Bible? Ch. 1: What Is the Bible? What Is the Bible? Putting the Bible on the Map Ch. 2: Why Is the Bible So Hard to Understand? Challenges of Studying the Bible Our Literary Approach Excursus: Our Approaches to the Bible Our Historical Approach Ch. 3: The Book of Genesis The Famous Stories of the Book of Genesis Ch. 4: Who Wrote the Pentateuch? The Traditional View Oral Traditions and Cultural Parallels Ch. 5: From Egypt to Mount Sinai: Exodus and Leviticus The Book of Exodus The Law of Moses (Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers) Ch. 6: From Mount Sinai to the Promised Land: Numbers and Deuteronomy The Book of Numbers in a Nutshell The Book of Deuteronomy Ch. 7: The Deuteronomistic History: Joshua and Judges The Deuteronomistic History The Book of Joshua The Book of Judges Ch. 8: The Books of Samuel and Kings 1 and 2 Samuel 1 and 2 Kings Ch. 9: Early Israelite Prophets: Amos and Isaiah The Rise of the Prophets Amos of Tekoa Isaiah of Jerusalem Ch. 10: Other Pre-exilic Prophets: Hosea, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Jeremiah, and Habakkuk Hosea Micah Nahum Zephaniah Jeremiah Habakkuk Ch. 11: The Historians of Exile and Return: Ezra, Nehemiah, and Beyond Ezra and Nehemiah The Later History of Judea Ch. 12: The Exilic and Post-Exilic Prophets Ezekiel 1 Second Isaiah Joel Obadiah Haggai Zechariah Third Isaiah Malachi Ch. 13: The Poets of Ancient Israel The Nature of Hebrew Poetry The Book of Psalms The Book of Lamentations The Song of Songs Ch. 14: Storytellers in Ancient Israel Ruth Esther Jonah Daniel 1-6 1 and 2 Chronicles Ch. 15: The Wisdom Literature Introduction to the Wisdom Literature Proverbs Job Ecclesiastes Ch. 16: Jewish Apocalyptic Literature and the Apocrypha The Rise of Jewish Apocalypticism Other Jewish Literature of the Period: The Deuterocanonical or Apocryphal Books Ch. 17: The World of Jesus and His Followers One Remarkable Life The Greco-Roman World Judaism in the Time of Jesus Putting the New Testament and Early Christianity on the Map Ch. 18: The Synoptic Problem and the Gospel of Mark The Storyline of the Synoptic Gospels The Synoptic Problem The Gospels as Biographies The Gospel of Mark Ch. 19: The Gospels of Matthew and Luke The Gospel of Matthew The Gospel of Luke The Synoptic Gospels and the Problem of History Ch. 20: The Gospel of John and the Later Gospels The Gospel of John The Other Gospels Ch. 21: The Historical Jesus Problems with Our Sources Jesus the Apocalyptic Prophet Ch. 22: The Life of the Apostle Paul Problems in the Study of Paul A Brief Biography of Paul Ch. 23: The Letters of Paul 1 Thessalonians 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Philippians Philemon Romans Ch. 24: The Acts of the Apostles Paul During and After the New Testament The Acts of the Apostles Ch. 25: In the Wake of Paul: The Deutero-Pauline Letters 2 Thessalonians Colossians Ephesians The Pastoral Epistles Ch. 26: The General Epistles and the Book of Revelation The Letter to the Hebrews The Letter of James 1 Peter 2 Peter 1, 2, and 3 John Jude The Apocalypse of John Excursus One: Jews and Christians in the Ancient World Excursus Two: The Persecution of the Early Christians Excursus Three: Orthodoxy and Heresy in Earliest Christianity

TOC discussion

Above are the tables of contents (TOC) from the books listed in #Overview books about the Bible. I have colorized them according to broad categories, which are listed in the "Legend". (Everyone should be able to expand the collapsed section to see the TOCs, and then expand the individual TOC parts/chapters to see sub-parts/sub-chapters. Please let me know if it's not rendering for anyone and I'll try to fix it. No guarantees about this being usable on mobile.)

A few preliminary notes:

• I didn't colorize Ehrman 2017 because I do not have access to it, only to the table of contents, but I listed it anyway.
• I did not list the table of contents for the New Cambridge History, because it's a 5,000-page 4-volume series, because it's a multi-author work (dozens of scholars submitting a chapter), and because, being a history, it's just ordered more or less chronologically; I'm not sure it will help enough for our purposes to be worth the effort given its size.
• The color scheme isn't perfect; there are some bits and pieces of one category in other categories. For example, Rogerson 2012 discusses genre (green) along with development (pink) in several chapters, but I've just gone with pink for those chapters. Barton 2019 Part Four, which is mostly theology (orange), also includes some information about development (pink), but I've colored the whole thing orange. Barton 2019 Chapter 6 is mostly development (pink) but also includes some context (yellow); I've just colored it pink. The truth is, not every chapter of every book fits neatly into one of these categories I've applied, which is why I'm bringing this here for input.
• Parts/chapters that have multiple colors are expanded by default.
• Some parts/chapters/sections I did not color because I just didn't know how to categorize them. For example, Barton 2010 Chapter 5 is about the historicity of the Bible; I wasn't sure what to do with that in terms of categories, as it seems to be the only work on this list to dedicate a chapter to historicity.

What these books have in common is that they are written by bona fide biblical scholars, published in the 21st century, by academic publishers (except for Viking Press, which is mainstream), and they provide an overview of the entire Bible--Old and New. I think by looking at how these books (and any others we might add to the list) organize the information, how they categorize/sub-categorize topics, how much space or weight they give to various sub-topics and sub-sub-topics... all of this can inform how we structure our article, Bible.

However, before even looking at our article's TOC, I first wanted to share my analysis of the sources' TOCs, to see what others thought. Some specific questions:

1. Are the categories selected correctly? Should some categories be split? Removed? New categories added?
2. Are the categories applied correctly? Should some parts/chapters/sections have their colors changed?

Any and all feedback welcome. I think if we can analyze the TOCs to our satisfaction, we can then apply that to our article's TOC to see what changes should be made. Levivich^[block] 23:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Wow, this is incredibly helpful - a genuine step forward in every possible way. Thank you so much. I totally and completely love your 6 categories in Legend: Development - Origins, authorship, texts/manuscripts, production, translation, transmission, and canonization of the Bible; Context - the historical context in which the Bible was written; the influence of the outside world upon the Bible; Genres - literary genres of the Bible (biblical genre); Theology - Religious teachings/instruction/interpretation of the Bible (Biblical theology); Criticism - methods of scholarly study of the Bible (biblical criticism); Influence - The influence of the Bible on the outside world This rearrangement would dramatically improve the entire article imo. If you are ready to tackle this, I will leave you to it. If you want any help with anything, ping me at any time for any aspect of anything you would like me to do. You have my complete support. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:50, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Great! I'll probably post a proposed TOC here for comment before rearranging the article. Levivich^[block] 20:13, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Proposed outlines

Proposed outline 1

• Development

  Table comparing the books of Jewish/Catholic/Protestant Bible

  • Hebrew Bible
    • HB context, origins, authorship (inc. HB pseudographia)
      • Pre-exile
      • Post-exile
    • HB canonization
      • Torah
      • Nevi'im
      • Ketuvim
    • HB translation/transmission/manuscript witnesses
      • Targums
      • Septuagint
      • Samaritan Pentateuch
      • Masoretic text
      • Dead Sea Scrolls
    • HB apocrypha/deuterocannonical
  • New Testament
    • NT context, origins, authorship (inc. NT pseudographia)
      • Gospels
      • Pauline epistles
      • Catholic epistles
    • NT canonization
      • Councils
      • Schism
      • Reformation
    • NT translation/transmission/manuscript witnesses
      • Papyrus to codex
      • Vulgate
      • KJV
    • NT apocrypha
• Genres
  • Narrative
  • Law
  • Wisdom
  • Prophecy
  • Poems
  • Gospels
  • Letters
  • Apocalyptic
  • Myths
  • Prayers
  • Proverbs
• Theology
  • Organization TBD; might be topical (nature of God, nature of evil, etc.), canonical (Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, etc.), or chronological (ancient, middle ages, post-enlightenment, etc.)
  • Fundamentalism should probably be discussed here?
• Study of the Bible (criticism)
  • Textual criticism
  • Form criticism
  • Source criticism
  • Redaction criticism
  • Structuralism
  • Poststructuralism
  • Rhetorical criticism
  • Literary criticism
  • Canonical criticism
  • Historical criticism
  • Tradition criticism
  • Social/political/cultural/ideological criticism
  • Feminist criticism
  • Biblical archaeology
• Influence
  • Literature
  • Politics
  • Jurisprudence
  • Science and medicine
  • Ethics
  • Art/music/culture

This is really a first attempt, so it's pretty rough and inexact. I do not intend that every item on this outline be a separate section with a section heading; some of the sub-topics should be grouped, etc.; the exact sub-headings can be figured out later. But I wanted to list the types of information that would be conveyed in each section, with a real focus on the top-level divisions. Thoughts? Levivich^[block] 17:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

As I think about it more, I think the heading "Development" should be dropped, and everything under it promoted up one level in the outline. Levivich (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Dare I take silence as consensus? :-D Levivich (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Your ambition is admirable and exactly what this article needs. However, this is the kind of article that no matter how much it is watched, will only get bigger—the size is already a bit above the recommended (11592 words vs recommended 10000), and I suspect the relative overwhelm of your new proposal's perceived size has led others to avoid comment here. Thus, while I agree that each topic would not have its own subsection, it should be considered in advance how to group the Genre and Study categories into more manageable big-topic divisions. Looking optimistically, the development is on the edge of impossibly long in the proposed form, so such information will need to be treated extremely to the point. Aza24 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion Aza24 is right on the mark. It will be a difficult and time consuming almost total rewrite in order to make what’s here-which was requested-more concise. The requested part matters because taking it out would likely result in being asked to put it back down the road. I also admire the willingness to make that kind of effort on behalf of WP. I support your desire to improve this article and am sorry we could not reach more agreement on what that involved previously. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

All good points, thanks. I'm working with on condensing the overall outline and fleshing out the lvl 3 subheadings and if I think I've made progress I'll post a second proposed outline here. Levivich (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2022

184.19.116.192 (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Please list this book as mythological as every other religion except other current mainstream religions have been dismissed and listed as mythological!

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Reasoning provided is not correct. Quran, for example, is not listed as mythological. Additionally WP does not take a stance on the validity of religious beliefs - it only reports what both adherents and non-adherents have to say. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

remove this?

I am thinking this sentence should be removed because it is not about the Bible: According to historian Shulamith Shahar, "[s]ome historians hold that the Church played a considerable part in fostering the inferior status of women in medieval society in general" by providing a "moral justification" for male superiority and by accepting practices such as wife-beating. Thoughts?

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it seems to say more about the Church than the Bible. There are better sources for discussion of the Bible's influence on the status of women. Levivich 22:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the earth may be rotating backwards, but you and I are in agreement, so I can probably assume no one else will argue against it. I will go ahead and remove it. Biblical teachings on women are a very mixed bag - both repressive and supportive. Do you have any thoughts on how much of that should be included? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

(...and everyone thinks climate change is caused by pollution...) I don't have thoughts on that yet, mostly because I haven't looked at the sources to see how much/what they say about the topic, but at some point I'll get there. Levivich 20:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Ha ha!! You have a sense of humor! I had no idea! That's awesome! This is cool, let me know when I can help. I do care about this article, so I want to, and even though we have disagreed on sources, I think we have agreed on much more, and that has usually been where content alone is concerned. No humor intended! I will happily wait and follow your lead here, as it seems that will lessen conflict - and produce humor - which totally rocks! Thank you.

Also, imo, all the recent edits by everyone are improvements. It's looking good! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

"Biblija" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Biblija and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Biblija until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 01:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)