Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KJV/Workshop/Withdrawn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] The KJV is dodgy in light of modern scholarship
2) Most modern scholarship believes that many passages in the King James Version were not originally part of the Bible but were forged additions from the mediaeval era or dark ages, such as the Comma Johanneum, and the traditional ending to Mark 16. Many modern translations leave these texts out or mark them in some way that identifies the view that modern scholarship has of them, as demonstrated by the New Revised Standard Version, which uses an alternate ending to Mark.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Content issue. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by parties:
- Agreed, but unfortunately there is no translation that is fully informed by modern scholarship which is not also copyrighted. The KJV, while out of date, is historically the most influential English translation, and is still the best known one. I would also disagree that the KJV is particularly popular among conservative Christians, they have their own problems with it. - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Well, thats one good reason not to include the source text then, but to provide external links to legitimate copies of the copyrighted version. On your second assertion, please read King James Only. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 23:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, but unfortunately there is no translation that is fully informed by modern scholarship which is not also copyrighted. The KJV, while out of date, is historically the most influential English translation, and is still the best known one. I would also disagree that the KJV is particularly popular among conservative Christians, they have their own problems with it. - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Gosh this is convoluted. As one who holds a PhD in the subject, I could write an essay on it. But, with due respect, I'd simply say that Arbcom is not qualified to answer this question. The statement at the moment is facually incorrect. The traditional ending to Mark, although not in some early Greek manuscripts in in others. Most scholars do not believe it to be original, but it has been in the 'Bible' since well before 'the dark ages' it may well date from the first or at latest second century. Actually, all translations I am aware of include it (although some will do so indicating the problems). This actually would be a strong reason to use the text in an article and comment on the appropriate schollariship (and yes, that can still be done citing the KJV text). --Doc ask? 23:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- The question is only whether it is dodgy, and not whether it is false or true. As you point out, the traditional ending is not in most ancient manuscripts of Mark, and most scholars believe it to not be the original ending, this alone should indicate that most scholars don't view it as 100% the original form, i.e. a bit dodgy. This should be a simple point to agree with? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 23:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the KJV is wrong to suggest that passage is authentic (although it is ancient). But all translations are flawed (=dodgy?), and since any article on the subject would doubtless make clear the divergant views, I don't see your point. Perhaps the KJV wouldn't be the best to illustrate this - again we need a case-by-case basis (as with any article) not meta-rulings. --Doc ask? 23:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- No, it is important that this refers to the KJV, because that is the version that SimonP has exclusively quoted from in the chapter articles, and always included in the verse articles. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I think the KJV is wrong to suggest that passage is authentic (although it is ancient). But all translations are flawed (=dodgy?), and since any article on the subject would doubtless make clear the divergant views, I don't see your point. Perhaps the KJV wouldn't be the best to illustrate this - again we need a case-by-case basis (as with any article) not meta-rulings. --Doc ask? 23:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- The question is only whether it is dodgy, and not whether it is false or true. As you point out, the traditional ending is not in most ancient manuscripts of Mark, and most scholars believe it to not be the original ending, this alone should indicate that most scholars don't view it as 100% the original form, i.e. a bit dodgy. This should be a simple point to agree with? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 23:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The NRSV is one of the most neutral and most academically supported
4) The New Revised Standard Version is non-denominational, being officially praised by the Orthodox, Catholic, Anglican, and several other Protestant churches, as well as being supported by scholars.
- Comment by Arbitrators:
- Content issue; withdrawn.
- Comment by parties:
- The point of mentioning this is to point out that SimonP isn't using the most neutral/academically supported version, despite it being well known. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 16:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would be delighted to use the NRSV, and would toss the rather hopeless WEB in a second, but we can't because the NRSV is copyrighted. - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- It might be interesting to contact them and see what they say about it though. We are an educational resource, and we aren't planning on reproducing the entire bible, therefore there is a possibility they would be helpful. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Fair use allows you to use very small portions of it. Given the size of the entire bible, very small portions constitute quite a lot. Certainly it could be used for a couple of verses. And the NRSV isn't the only version. There are over 450 translations, most out of copyright, so in your 200 verse articles, we could use 1 each, and still have 2 translations in each article, and never use one more than any other, and not have copyright issues because fair use would allow one or two verses out of the entire thing to be used. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 23:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- It might be interesting to contact them and see what they say about it though. We are an educational resource, and we aren't planning on reproducing the entire bible, therefore there is a possibility they would be helpful. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 04:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I would be delighted to use the NRSV, and would toss the rather hopeless WEB in a second, but we can't because the NRSV is copyrighted. - SimonP 04:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- Comment by others:
- Actually, the NRSV is my translation of choice. But, respectfuly, I don't think Arbcom are qualified to endorse a particular Bible translation. --Doc ask? 00:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's my point. We shouldn't endorse a particular translation, especially not one that's so dodgy (KJV) in light of the NRSV (the "official correction" to the KJV), so we shouldn't include it in all the articles. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 23:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- No one is endorsing any translation. But if in an individual case a quotation would benefit the article, then the KJV is a rational choice. Although if someone uses a different (copyright free) translation, then fine. Anything contravertial can be commented on in the article. Sometimes the article will be better without a full quotation, occassionaly more than one translation may be beneficial. Let's look at each article on a case-by-case basis.--Doc ask? 00:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- The KJV is not a rational choice. See elsewhere. It is no more rational than exclusively using proprietary Microsoft references when we talk about software in general terms, even though Microsoft is popular (in the sense of being most used). --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually that is exactly what we do. See an article like Menu bar for example. There we have two examples, a Mac one and a Windows one. There is great controversy over operating systems, but I don't think anyone thinks that this article must have an example from every operating system that has ever existed. - SimonP 01:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- There isn't great controversy over menu bars, there is over several passages in the bible. Menu bar has a Mac example and a Windows one - thats the two major rival operating systems; so if you support having the two main rival groups rather than just examples from one side of the fence, why do you only have two conservative protestant translations, and ignore the catholic ones and scholarly ones? --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 19:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually that is exactly what we do. See an article like Menu bar for example. There we have two examples, a Mac one and a Windows one. There is great controversy over operating systems, but I don't think anyone thinks that this article must have an example from every operating system that has ever existed. - SimonP 01:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- The KJV is not a rational choice. See elsewhere. It is no more rational than exclusively using proprietary Microsoft references when we talk about software in general terms, even though Microsoft is popular (in the sense of being most used). --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 01:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- No one is endorsing any translation. But if in an individual case a quotation would benefit the article, then the KJV is a rational choice. Although if someone uses a different (copyright free) translation, then fine. Anything contravertial can be commented on in the article. Sometimes the article will be better without a full quotation, occassionaly more than one translation may be beneficial. Let's look at each article on a case-by-case basis.--Doc ask? 00:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
- That's my point. We shouldn't endorse a particular translation, especially not one that's so dodgy (KJV) in light of the NRSV (the "official correction" to the KJV), so we shouldn't include it in all the articles. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 23:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
