Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since this WikiProject's #Goals, /General, /Strategy, and /Strategy talk pages have deprecated, I'm archiving them here as a way to start revamping this WikiProject. --J. J. 20:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Goals

  1. Unify the presentations of the biblical canon (Cf. Apocrypha, Biblical canon, Books of the Bible, Bible and Tanakh, Septuagint, Old Testament, New Testament). I like the table in "Biblical Canon", but it may not be the best way to present the information.
  2. Unify presentation of the individual books of the Bible.
  3. Sidebars in the various books of the Tanakh use nifty Tanakh templates, but this assumes the Jewish ordering of the books and "hides" the deuterocanonicals. Is a solution possible without creating a monster?
Before going too far too fast with these goals, I think it is important to point out that the participants in a parallel wikipedia project have taken the exact opposite approach. Please read:

Not everyone agrees with your stated goal that unification of articles is a positive thing at all. On the contrary, the space and pluralism of Wikipedia make it possible to develope topical encyclopedias (along the lines of "Encyclopedia Judaica" and/or "The Catholic Encyclopedia"). Let's try not to run into a conflict between two overlapping projects. Dovi 17:52, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Dovi, even assuming we want two copies of some articles, this is not the case! This project wouldn't have been created if all we had was "Tanakh" for the Jewish view and "Old Testament" for the Christian view. The fact of the matter is that Tanakh contains an awful lot of comparsions with the Chrisitian views, "Old Testament" contains an awful lot of comparisons with the Jewish views, and there is the Bible page, and at least 3 pages dedicated to the comparison alone! That's having the same information in 7 pages! Gadykozma 18:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
We don't want to step on each other's feet, but we need to make the information available to the people who need it. A parallel series of Bible articles is probably the best thing for a fervant Jew or a fervant Christian, but maybe not for "the man on the street" who wants an overview -- he might end up reading two largely overlapping pages just to get the few nuggets of difference (in certain cases)....
Maybe each article should have a general section (of what we can agree on) and sections for Jewish interpretation and Christian (when necessary Cath, Prot, Orth) interpretation. We could theoretically put a Jewish infobox in the Jewish section and a Christian one in the Christian section, so that those readers can browse the Bible in order.
In any case, the canon article have got to be fixed somehow... -- Mpolo 18:49, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
I agree with Dovi; it may be extremely difficult to reconcile the two projects. The Jewish view and understanding of the Tanakh diverges widely from the Christian view of the Old Testament, not to mention all the other issues such as which books actually belong in the Bible. Jayjg 19:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I see the need for Tanakh and Old Testament. They each need to link to one another, etc., but it makes things clearer to separate them. However, realistically, how much difference would there be between Book of Ruth (Tanakh) and Book of Ruth (Old Testament) to make it worth having a disambiguation page at Book of Ruth to point to the two? If the Jewish community really feels that these two articles would be different enough to merit separation, then maybe the "Goals" need to be revised above. (They were off the top of my head anyway.)
I think that Goal #1 has to be addressed though. We have way too many pages saying the same thing and then linking to each other. They probably wouldn't collapse into only one page, in any case. I made some musings on this on the /General page, which might be a better spot for discussion anyway (or on the Talk page). -- Mpolo 19:51, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)
For the record, I also think it is useful to have both Tanakh and Old Testament — I just think that both pages should be trimmed of the comparisons, and just give a link to Bible and Tanakh or somesuch. Gadykozma 23:54, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Alternative goals

Let's see if we can get some consensus about what needs to be done...

Here's my take:

  1. Unify the presentations of the biblical canon (Cf. Apocrypha, Biblical canon, Books of the Bible, Bible and Tanakh, Septuagint, Old Testament, New Testament). I like the table in "Biblical Canon", but it may not be the best way to present the information. It may be necessary to keep some repetition, but the current situation is not ideal.
  2. Work with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism to determine the best way to present the individual Biblical books.
    1. For most books, there is a large portion of the information that completely overlaps between Jews, Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox. Having that information repeated on 4 pages seems counterproductive.
    2. Each tradition mentioned above has specific insights into the books, with the three main Christian strands very often coinciding, though not always, though can probably be more easily combined into one presentation than the Jewish interpretation.
    3. The Jewish interpretation should be available to those reading the Christian interpretation, and vice versa. Suggestions for how to do this in /Strategy.
  3. Sidebars in the various books of the Tanakh use nifty Tanakh templates, but this assumes the Jewish ordering of the books and "hides" the deuterocanonicals. Perhaps the ideal is to relegate these to the Jewish sections or pages. Mpolo 09:13, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

New comment at /General. (I think more people watch this page than that.) Mpolo 09:38, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

One of the reasons that I would suggest having both a However, realistically, how much difference would there be between Book of Ruth (Tanakh) and Book of Ruth (Old Testament) because Jewish theologians generally cite other Jewish theologians and vice versa... Luther's ideas on the Book of Ruth would be little influenced by the Jewish thinkers of his day. Also most Protestant Christians rely on versions of the bible that have been translated from Hebrew to Greek to English (or other)and thus words like "virgin"/young girl, messiah, Son of Man etc change the reading of the individual books interly. If they read the same, there wouldn't be so much fuss. Virtualalphamale 014:50, Dec 14, 2005 (UTC)

/General

I'm ultimately pretty neutral about how we end up doing this, but it affects so many people's work that it can't be done without some sort of consensus. Some random thoughts:

  1. All discussion of what canon is in Biblical Canon
  2. List of books accounting for as many mainstream possibilities at Books of the Bible. Individual pages or notes (where appropriate) about other canons (LDS, Ethiopian Oriental Orthodox, etc.)
  3. NPoV the infobox somehow. This may be impossible without making it unwieldy. I'm not offended by the Ketuvim, etc., boxes, but they "hide" information that I would consider related -- no link to Book of Tobit with the rest of the (what I call) historical books, etc. -- Mpolo 13:35, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Well, there hasn't been a lot of movement (read none) on this, probably due to the Jewish interested parties having Rosh Hashanah and Sukkoth... If there is no major objection, I plan to do the following in the next day or two:

  1. Rework Biblical canon. The discussion of the Tanakh canon is already in Tanakh, so I would propose making that a summary section, moving any extra detail to the Tanakh article. Once that article is ready, Tanakh will need a bit of modification to point to "Biblical canon" for the details on the Christian POV.
  2. Rework Apocrypha, checking data, etc.
  3. Designate Books of the Bible as the place for comparative tables, removing them from the other articles (that is, Tanakh keeps its list, since that is only for the Tanakh, but the table in Apocrypha, and perhaps a couple of others, would get removed and replaced by a link to this one. Would there be a better name for that page?
  4. Wait for a while on "what to do about individual books of the Bible/Tanakh"

Is that O.K. by everyone? -- Mpolo 09:36, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Seems reasonable so far. Jayjg 17:29, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Any plans to do anything with the Deuterocanon article? Wesley 17:11, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Argh! Another one. Yeah, that one needs to be worked out alongside Apocrypha. It's probably worth having the two articles, but will have to see how they best work together... It'll probably be Thursday before I do anything drastic, though. Mpolo 19:04, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

I have done #1. I left the discussion of the Tanakh canon in Biblical canon and put a link to that discussion in Tanakh, rather than the other way around, as I had proposed above. Mpolo 10:14, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)

/Strategy

Possible strategies for individual Bible/Tanakh books

(Please add at will in the appropriate sections. This is after "sleeping on it" a night, but is still mostly "gut feeligns". Unattributed lines were added by Mpolo 09:30, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC))

Wholly separate pages

The Judaism project seems to tend to favor complete separation, with links to the parallel pages. A naming strategy has not been put forward, but would probably be something like Book of Ruth (Tanakh) and Book of Ruth (Old Testament) (or Jewish and Christian, or...)

Advantages

  1. There is no stepping on toes, which often occurs when trying to present the "other person's" viewpoint.
  2. The writers are partially freed from NPOV concerns. The pages shouldn't turn into proselytism, but they can safely avoid saying "in contrast to the Christian theory that...." and the like.
  3. Jewish and Christian sidebars can be created for the respective pages, respecting the various traditions.
  4. Useful for specifically Jewish and Christian users, who are more interested in the opinions of their own traditions.

Disadvantages

  1. The casual reader seeking a book goes through extra clicks. (Finds Book of Ruth, which for neutrality has to be a disambiguation for the two versions.)
  2. Large overlap in material (Wikipedia is not paper, so not necessarily a problem, but for the casual reader could be a source of frustration in having to read largely the same material 2-4 times to get an overview of all positions.)

One page per book

Others seem to favor combining any pair of pages that cover more or less the same material. Here there would be an introductory section describing the contents of the book and the conclusions of Bible criticism, with subsections for each of the major viewpoints on the "meaning" of the book.

Advantages

  1. The casual reader finds all information on one page.
  2. Comparison and contrast of the points of view is facilitated.
  3. Less information repetition

Disadvantages

  1. Consensus on the page will be harder to achieve
  2. Danger of edit wars as persons try to present opinions they don't agree with, but think that they understand
  3. May encourage less development of the sections

Mixed approach

The other possibility I see is very similar. At Book of Ruth, for example, we would have the common information -- summary of the contents, dating, critical scholarship. This would be followed by links to the tradition-specific pages at Book of Ruth (Tanakh) and Book of Ruth (Old Testament) (or similar), perhaps including a short summary on the main page.

Advantages

  1. The casual reader find the most important information on one page.
  2. Links to the contrasting points of view are available.
  3. Less information repetition

Disadvantages

  1. Specifically Jewish and Christian readers are forced to read two articles to get their tradition's full say on the book.
  2. Danger of lots of "red links" if one group is less diligent than the other
  3. Comparison and contrast require multiple tabs or browser instances

/Strategy talk

Mixed approach "the common information -- summary of the contents, dating, critical scholarship"

Do you really think that the two viewpoints hold these things in common? For example, about Song of Songs/Song of Solomon (on which they can't even agree on a name)? Jayjg 14:32, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, the books themselves have got the same content (with minor exceptions) and presumably, all will have a range of theories on dating and critical scholarship, which are probably going to overlap considerably. Naming is difficult in a few cases. With Song of Songs/Song of Solomon/Canticle of Canticles (to add the trad. Catholic name), I'd have to honestly say that I don't know which name is traditionally Jewish, traditionally Protestant, etc. It appears from the article that Song of Solomon is Protestant, and that the Hebrew title is Song of Songs, yet the Ketuvim list has Song of Solomon, so that I have no idea what name is preferred by Jewish Bibles. The standard Catholic Bible for the Liturgy in the U.S. has Song of Songs. I would have thought that redirects would be sufficient for naming, since the alternative names would be in the introduction. Maybe I'm just idealistic here.
Obviously, there are differences between the viewpoints. But this doesn't change the fact that there are even more common points, due to the fact that the same material is being discussed. A Christian discussion of the allegorical aspects of Genesis would be out of place in a general treatment of the book. Saying that the book covers creation, the Fall, and the Patriarchs must still be common to everyone. Saying that there exist various theories about the writing (from authorship by Moses and Joshua to indirect authorship by Moses to the four documentary tradition theory) is still pretty neutral, because we are reporting the studies of various scientists, and unless I'm sorely mistaken (which has been known to happen), there are both Christian and Jewish supporters of all these possibilities.
If there can be no common ground whatsoever on the Bible (which I would find rather depressing), we still have to resolve the question of nomenclature so that the "factions" can split apart and get on with producing an encyclopedia that is useful for all.
And what can we do to resolve the canon problem? Seven competing pages offering sometimes contradictory or confusing information seems counterproductive. Maybe a possibility is having Biblical Canon with an overview of the books contained in each canon, and links to separate discussions of Biblical Canon (Tanakh), Biblical Canon (Old Testament) to explain the "why" for each group. There was also a suggestion to strip Tanakh and Old Testament of much of their descriptions of each other, relegating that discussion to Bible and Tanakh or similar. How do you feel about that? -- Mpolo 15:23, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

I'm in favor of the unified approach for those sections which merit individual attention (see talk on main page). It allows someone without existing knowledge to avoid getting POV through omission. The disadvantage "Consensus on the page will be harder to achieve" is a poor reason to (effectivly) fork. - brenneman(t)(c) 00:25, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Bible stubs

I've been sorting through reli-stubs (very depressing thing to do). At the start I tagged a number of New Testament items as {{Bible-stub}}, and was surprised to find that I got 'This Hebrew Bible-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it'.

Now, I've no problems with a seperate Hebrew Bible/OT category, but if we have a 'Hebrew Bible' one, should we have a 'New Testament' - or perhaps an 'early Christianity' one? The 'Christianity' stub category is IMO too broad. Comments? --Doc (?) 15:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Issues

I have a couple of issues with Wikipedia's Bible coverage that I thought I would bring up here. Firstly: Easton's Bible Dictionary is a monstrosity. It is simply not appropriate to base wikipedia articles on Easton's Bible Dictionary. Perhaps this should be stated somewhere. Some sort of list of articles based on that book would also be helpful in terms of knowing articles that are almost sure to need serious revision. The worst are articles on non-Biblical subjects, like Babylonian kings and so forth. It is simply embarrassing that, say, our article on Amel-Marduk originally said that he released Jehoiachin because of Daniel's advice.

Secondly, and perhaps tangentially relatedly, it seems to me that there need to be some sort of guidelines as to what weight to give secular scholarship vs. traditional interpretations vs. modern apologetics. For a specific dispute over this, see my argument with Kuratowski's Ghost at Talk:Book of Esther. It seems to me that articles on primarily Biblical subjects ought to give the traditional view first. Scholarly views should follow. Apologetics (by which I mean - the arguments of the faithful in defending the traditional views against the supposed assaults of modern scholarship) should either be avoided, or marked clearly as such when they are significant enough to warrant mention. For articles on primarily non-Biblical subjects (e.g. Kings of Assyria or Babylon or Persia mentioned in the Bible, and the like), modern scholarly views ought to take precedence, with traditional views relegated to some short section towards the end somewhere. Apologetics ought not appear in these articles at all. So, the Book of Esther, to take the example I've been arguing about of late, article should discuss first that traditionally it is seen as a historical account of events in the reign of Xerxes I. We should then say that modern scholarship generally does not believe the story in Esther to be historical, both because of the generic markers within the work itself and because of the impossibility of corroborating any of it with what is known of the history of the Persian period. Apologetics - attempts to demonstrate, contra modern scholars, that the story really is historical - should be discussed only briefly, if at all. The Xerxes I article should mention nothing about the Esther story save a brief reference towards the end that Xerxes is traditionally identified with the King Ahasuerus of the Book of Esther, but that historians have doubts as to the historical veracity of that book. Does anybody have any thoughts on this, though? john k 21:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

List of minor Biblical figures

Greetings. In response to the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uel, I've started a List of minor Biblical figures. Would anyone here be interested in helping to fill it out? It should contain information on persons mentioned in the Bible, but lacking enough information to justify an individual article. Cheers!  BD2412 talk 13:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Saints for others who may be interested in helping out with this. --J. J. 18:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fiery Furnace

I'd like to try to clean up and improve the pages about the story of the fiery furnace. The story of the fiery furnance has a lot of importance in the Jewish and Christian traditions, and had has a lot of cultural impact; Wikipedia ought to have better information about it. I've started by poking at the pages and suggesting some merges; I'd appreciate any help from project members on whatever relating to this subject, but specifically to help avoid sectarian bias in the articles and include a lot of solid information about many perspectives. Please leave any comments on the talk page of fiery furnace. Thanks! -- Tetraminoe 14:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Stable versions#Certification gang

would you like to create certified articles about the bible? -- Zondor 03:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Bible Article discussons

There are a number of Bible article centralised discussion which have been initiated by User:-Ril- (many repeats of ond wars). Anyone interested in this project might like to contribute. They are at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/200 verses of Matthew Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Verses of John 20 Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Whole bible chapter text. --Doc ask? 18:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Category_talk:Midian#Vote

Please take a look at this discussion and weigh in with your opinion. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Bible

I didn`t know there was a project on the Bible. I was looking for a portal and there wasn`t one. So I followed the instructions and built one. I hope it can be utilized in your project. Donnie Love 04:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Bible coverage

Is actually very thin. I've been working on Matthew 1:9 which has been very interesting, but really there should be at least an article on each chapter in Matthew, and on each pericope. There is the material available. Can we perhaps start a bible collaberation of the week to fill some of these gaps - the missing chapters in Matthew would be a good start. Rich Farmbrough 16:03 19 March 2006 (UTC).

Wouldn't it be more encyclopedic to fill out the articles at List of New Testament stories and List of Hebrew Bible stories (and some parts of the apocrypha have extra narratives as well)? I've only ever seen religiously motivated people write things about chapters as a whole lump, and never an encyclopedia? Clinkophonist 17:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Help merge articles

In relation to the following arbitration case, which is nearing completion:

And in relation to the following completed centralised discussions:

Some assistance is requested, once the arbitration case is closed, in merging together the following articles

And any other such articles that may currently exist

I have already prepared example merges of some of these articles

For titles check out List of New Testament stories (many are currently redlinks)

--Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The validity of the general consensus is actually highly disputed. Please only merge verses if that is a better way of organising existing content in an individual case. --Doc ask? 20:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Doesnt look terribly disputed to me, the only objectors seem to be those obsessed with the bible. Clinkophonist 12:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I'll have a go at a few of those, but it will take a while. Clinkophonist 12:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the 'only objectors' are just about everyone working on Bible articles. Merge if you like, but do not lose any content for ideological 'anti-Bible' reasons. --Doc ask? 12:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I would love your help.

I recently started a new wiki over at wikicities which is on the subject of christianity. Christianity Knowledge Base is the site.

The goal is to have a knowledgebase on christianity from a distinctly "C(hristian)POV" rather than the NPOV. This would go far beyond what is allowed on Wikipedia. Unfortunately, for example, there is a limit to how honorably and magnificently the Lord can be represented at WP.

Christianity Knowledge Base is not meant to be a mere Christian Encyclopedia, but to foster a real sense of community. I'd like to include things like current events, news, stories, and anything that would add to both an understanding of Christianity, but also its enjoyment. I'm looking for help to build a resource that could really enrich the lives of Christians.

I know you are busy but I am actively seeking new sysops/admins to help me build this site up, and I would be positively thrilled if you could contribute in any capacity whatsoever. nsandwich 05:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think there is one already. Its called something like "bible wiki". Clinkophonist 12:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

The Bible Wiki is actively trying not to be "CPOV", but instead "NPOV", or, more accurately, "NOR". Unfortunately most of the material we are using to seed the articles doesn't really meet the standards we want to achieve, so there's still a long way to go. --Salvadors 10:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Testament Apocrypha

Does anyone have much familiarity with the Old Testament Apocrypha? The articles for it are a bit stubby, and the Book of Enoch article, one of the few that isn't just a stub, could do with a lot of tidying up in the "content" section.

Category:Old Testament Apocrypha has a list of articles, but many aren't more than a few sentences, and there are quite a few articles missing.

Ideally there should be something like a summary like New Testament apocrypha only Old Testament apocrypha. I can make a start on that if noone else does (but Id prefer to flesh out the OT apocrypha articles). Clinkophonist 12:49, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Content forking and the Bible

Id like to start a discussion about Content forking in Bible Articles.

The situation is this: Does having an article about John 20, Mark 15, Matthew 27, and Luke 23, in four separate places, constitute content forking of the death of Jesus, and Passion, articles, for example?

Its well known that the Gospels frequently duplicate the content of each other, especially the Synoptic Gospels (hence the name), and so Mark x will frequently be about exactly the same content as Luke y and Matthew z. Discussing the same content in three separate places strikes me as daft, and offers every opportunity for someone to add their own bias into one of the articles without being spotted. And this is not even including the fact that there are named articles also discussing exactly the same content.

Nativity of Jesus discusses the birth of Jesus, for example. But so does Matthew something and Luke something-else. Should all three exist separately when they discuss the same thing?

Now Luke A, Mark C, and Matthew B, might discuss multiple topics, like the Parable of the Sower AND the Parable of the Mustard Seed and maybe the Rejection of Jesus. But they still duplicate the content of those three articles, without being as comprehensive, and offering a greater opportunity for bias - by allowing an editor to pretend the other Gospels all 100% agree and say exactly the same thing. And retaining Luke A, Mark C, and Matthew B as little more than jumped up tables of content isn't as good as having an actual table of content at Gospel of Luke, Gospel of Mark, etc.

Thats my opinion, whats yours? Clinkophonist 13:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles are content forked when the original article gets too long and needs to be cut down for the sake of readibility and kindness to those of us on slow modems. We should, of course, avoid outright duplication as much as possible, although summaries of main articles are appropriate.
Articles on particular Bible chapters are somewhat duplicative of articles on Biblical episodes, but not entirely. Biblical episodes do not always divide evenly into chapters. The creation account continues into chaper 2 of Genesis, and Jesus expounding on the law begins at Matthew 5:17, not Matthew 5:1, just to name two examples. Personally, I favor articles on Biblical accounts to articles based on Biblical chapters. We can always link to Wikisource or BibleGateway for the actual text of the Bible.
That's the way we've been doing it at the Jesus wikiproject, anyway. I haven't been involved in this project. I'll get off my soapbox now. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 16:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Clinkophonist, I share your concern. In cases where they are truly about the same episode, perhaps they could redirect to the article on that episode. I remember when the articles John 20:13 - John 20:18 or so were all separate articles, but duplicated a lot of the same content in order to place each verse in context. It looks like that's been fixed now by having them redirect to Resurrection appearances of Jesus. This approach seems much better, and one that could probably be applied to many other cases. Wesley 17:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that all of this talk about article forking brings up a bigger issue: As a rule of thumb, should articles on the Bible on Wikipedia be based upon Book/Chapter/Verse reference (or similar method), or strictly by pericope? --Steve Caruso 03:41, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as efficiency (not neccessarily readability), the best way is to create many base pericope articles that are summarized and linked by the more general book/chapter articles. Eg with the nativity, the bulk of content is contained in Nativity of Jesus. Luke x contains a brief summary of only the content in Luke, as do the other gospels respectively.
"should articles on the Bible on Wikipedia be based upon Book/Chapter/Verse reference (or similar method), or strictly by pericope?" Good question! I'd say that articles should work the way the Bible works with the brain: the book/chapter/verses work as an outline to structure the ideas it contains. When you think of the nativity, you don't think of Matthew 2 and Luke 1 (proof: you can't think of it off the top of your head) but you think of the idea behind it. Book/chapter/verses are the references, ie, redirects, labels, doorways, links, indixes. Of course, every pericope article should always contain a "backwards" link to the chapter(/book) article.
Eg, Someone browsing for the Lesson of the widow's mite won't think to look up Lesson of the widow's mite but will probably look for the book/chapter reference. However, we should remember that many page hits come from search engines which will better find pericope articles than book/chapter pages.
However, the problem comes when trying organize all the pericopes. It isn't practical (or readable!) to create an article (or even a name) for every idea, especially when the idea exists only in one book/chapter. In these cases, content would stay in the book/chapter articles.
Evidence for the effiencey of is in the Windows file system (NTFS); an index is maintained by Windows that lists every file name and its location but the file itself is somewhere else on the harddrive. But when the file is very small or empty Windows just stores the entire file in the index itself. This reduces redunancy and disk space.
So I'm advocating a system balancing the pericope vs book/chapter model. Content should exist in the book/chapter model until/unless it grows either too large or redundant in which case it secceeds into the pericope model. But that's just my opinion. Whatever the case, I think we really need to create an official standard. --Ephilei 19:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Odes of Solomon vs. Book of Odes

I noticed on the Odes disambiguation page that there were two different books called Odes. I was curious if these two books were actually the same book. So after googling for a bit, I found the full text of Odes of Solomon [1]. All I could find for the Boof of Odes was this [2]. The former has 42 odes, the latter 14. The former is 1-2nd century CE, while the latter is found in the LXX. All this information seems to suggest that they are two different books (though I cannot explain why I cannot find the full text online for the latter). All that said, it seems like the Odes of Solomon article confuses the two different books. Most of the information seems to be about the Book of Odes (such as the references to Moses, the PRayer of Manasseh, the Gloria in Excelsis, which are not included in the online translation of Odes of Solomon). I have no idea what is going on, so I was wondering if anybody knew more about this. --Andrew c 18:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Include incomplete versions?

I've just created Black Bible Chronicles, but I hesitate to add it to the list of Miscellaneous Bible translations and/or Modern English Bible translations#Highly dynamic translations since it's not a complete translation. How should we accomodate for loose or incomplete translations such as this one? A similar example would be something like children's Bibles with partial translations. --J. J. 16:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the Black Bible is the perfect candidate for the miscilaneous translations list. :) --DjSamwise 23:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Do we include translations like the briefly famous Bible in Geordie that was produced in the early 90s in the UK? Clinkophonist 01:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Reorganizing this project

I've been looking through some of the bigger WikiProjects and have learned a few things. This project quickly splintered into several pages; while we've had members added to the group, it's not clear what we should do when we join.

I've started by archiving the old /General and /Strategy pages which were only really used the first couple of months that the project was created (2004). I've also moved the majority of the Goals discussion from the main page to this same archive. At the same time, I revised the goals to be up to date with current practices. I've also created a simple banner for talk pages.

I hope this is a good start for reorganizing the project. There are several other ways to improve the project page, as well as parts of the project itself, so I've started with a few suggestions in the new Tasks section.

Thanks for the reorganisation. Please don't use a banner though - these things are just clutter and I personally hate them. --Doc ask? 22:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome! Banner's aren't that big, and I think they're quite helpful to help publicize the project. Anyone else hate banners? --J. J. 02:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that new members don't know how to contribute, being a new member who hasn't contributed at all! Perhaps a todo list or "places to help" page would help. --Ephilei 07:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Help develop Scripture Database website

I've been conceptualizing a Scripture Database website for several years now. I've finally gotten around to publishing a rough draft of the site online. It is wiki-based and would make a good compliment to Wikipedia scripture pages. Please use my dedicated talk page to discuss. --J. J. 19:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Bible abbreviations

Are there standard abbreviations of the Bible, or just commonly known ones? The Douai Bible is probably one of the hardest to nail down since it has so many variants to its name. D-R seems to be the most commonly used. If there isn't a Template:Bible translation infobox (which includes an abbr. field) on the Bible's article, I think it would make sense to start adding the abbreviation to introductory paragraphs. --J. J. 18:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

As an extension (and partial answer) to this question, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion#Latest in biblical terminology. --J. J. 15:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

36000 non existing articles

You might be interested in:

Clinkophonist 19:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

On trivia and chapters

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1 Corinthians 13 (2nd Nomination) concerns an article that is just a list of trivia.

More generally, is it right to have articles listing only trivia just because the article title is that of an unnotable chapter in the bible? I.e. should there be distinct articles about each and every chapter in the entire bible, even if some of those articles are only ever going to be able to list frivoulous trivia, or are going to fork content better covered in numerous other Wikipedia articles, or should we only include notable chapters (if any exist)? Clinkophonist 15:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Great question. No, there shouldn't be articles on every chapter, as Wikipedia:Bible verses shows. That's why people have started sites like Bible Wiki (NPOV) and Wikible, among other Christian wikis. I'm particularly a fan of the two I've just mentioned as they seem to have the best Bible information. --J. J. 03:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
Calling all theologians and Bible scholars....

Key articles for Wikipedia 1.0

Hello! We at the Work via WikiProjects team for Wikipedia 1.0 would like you to identify the "key articles" from your project that should be included in a small CD release due to their importance, regardless of quality. We will use that information to assess which articles should be nominated for Version 0.5 and later versions. Hopefully it will help you identify which articles are the most important for the project to work on. As well, please add to your Philosophy/Religion WikiProject article table any articles of high quality. If you are interested in developing a worklist such as this one for your WikiProject, or having a bot generate a worklist automatically for you, please contact us. Please feel free to post your suggestions right here. Thanks! Walkerma 06:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the week?

Perhaps we should start considering a collaboration of the week?

I nominate 1 Corinthians 13.Or, just merge it with agape. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 08:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

{{Portal:Bible/Featured chapter/Template}}

You can now add the selected Bible chapter from Portal:Bible to your user page using {{Portal:Bible/Featured chapter/Template}}. Enjoy! BigDT 17:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedians, Seminarians and Theologians please help

In the article, Biblical literalism invented terms are being passed as established doctrine with no basis in scholarly refference (or any refference really). This article is being used as prooftext for other articles so it's kinda screwing up discussions on what really are differing doctrines.. I could use a little help from seasoned wikipedians who have some sweet skills. Thanks. Peace. --DjSamwise 01:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The Bible needs help

Hi, the article The Bible needs alot of help to bring it up to par to be considered a good or featured article. Please consider joining the discussion to help figure out what to do with this important article. --Home Computer 21:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Revised Standard Version

Hi everyone. I've taken the Revised Standard Version to Featured article review, which means it may lose Featured status if it is not brought up to standard. It can be found here. There's a lot of work to be done on it, but I'm hoping there will be interested editors. Marskell 11:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I wrote most of the article in the beginning. I'll take a look at it when I can. My WikiPlate is full now. Hoshie 23:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Mercy seat

I have become involved in a dispute with a new editor on the article Mercy seat, which was the lid of the Ark of the Covenant in Solomon's Temple. It played an important role in Yom Kippur sacrifices in the Temple, and as a metaphor in Christian theology. I would appreciate input from editors experienced in writing about Biblical matters. FreplySpang 00:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup (or worse) needed

Hi folks. I just stumbled onto John 1:1, which seems to need some real help, and perhaps deletion. I'm not really one to do it, but maybe you folks are? I don't know what you all have decided in the way of stylistic standards, but I hope something can be done to improve this article.

It was created about a month ago by someone who seems to have a strong JW focus (it's not terribly POV, but it's fixated on the debate about the JW "the Word was a god" interpretation). This one editor (a new one I assume- still a red name) remains the major substantial contributor to the article. Maybe it should just be deleted? I'm not sure. It's not exactly OR, I don't think, and probably is at least slightly notable... It was prodded once, but that was removed without much discussion. Thanks- Staecker 19:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Book of Ezekiel

The article Book of Ezekiel needs some help. There are some OR-ish sections that somebody else named e.g. as "Unsourced commentary apparently by Wikipedians". I don't know what the standard approach to these book-of-the-Bible articles is, but it needs some reworking to fit or outright pruning. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Bible/Archive_2&oldid=1080292226"