Talk:Bible

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bible article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Philrelig article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 25 October 2006. The result of discussion was Speedy keep.

Archives:

Contents

[edit] Inclusive Language

Tightened NPOV of tone a bit, removing language that might be perceived as advocacy and providing a more neutral tone while (hopefully) leaving content essentially the same. Also, if anyone has a source available it would be very helpful to report what percent of bibles sold use gender-neutral language versus what don't. It might be useful for NPOV purposes to report something about why people who use each approach prefer it for balance. The current language speaks exclusively about secular developments and opinions. Might be useful to bring in what the people who actually develop and use Bible translations think and why they use the approaches they use. If people in different denominations have e.g. theological reasons for prefering one or approach to another, these might be relevant explanatory background. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think one can find a serious biblical scholar that uses gender neutral language, because that isn't what the Greek or Hebrew text states. Therefore, it is not a true translation to use gender neutral language. However, many people prefer Bibles with this language, because it fits their views. Also, there are different types of inclusive language: vertical and horizontal. poopsix 09:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] contradictions

There are many contradictions in the bible, where it will say one thing and turn around and say something completely different. Such as in Deuteronomy 4:2, where god says that nothing of the laws he lays down in the old testament shall be changed. Yet, around comes Jesus in the new testament forming a "new convenant" and suddenly all these rules from the old testament do not apply (stoning your child, making a rapist pay and marry your daughter if he deflowers her, the killing of ALL male prisoners and taking of their women; I could literally go on with all these rules incompatible with today's morals). If the bible is the word of god, and the word of god is infallible, why would their be such contradictions in his divine word? I think this is something that can be added to the criticism section.

Heh, nevermind I found out that there are several articles dedicated to bible criticism alone.

[edit] fiction

i think the bible belongs in the fiction, or mythological category? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.247.228 (talk) 19:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

From the Jewish POV it should be in the section on laws and judicial systems.--Mrg3105 03:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
It is of course not the business of Wikipedia to push either viewpoint. See WP:NPOV and WP:SOAP. Best, --Shirahadasha 17:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Old Testament

I felt the need for a new thread in discussion. It is not logical to call any part of TaNaKh 'Old Testament' because Christianity has replaced it with something which they recognise as their dogmatic guidance. Christianity does not recognise any part fo the TaNaKh as a true testament, and do not obey any part of it, and this needs to be clearly spelled out in the article.--Mrg3105 03:05, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Although there is some truth to what you've said here, perhaps this observation is a bit harsh. While some Christians do believe that the so-called Old Testament has been replaced, there are others who hold it to be divinely inspired. To say that Christianity as a whole does not recognize any part of the TaNaKh is an overstatement. As to whether they obey any part of it, I will admit that many of us Christians have disobeyed some of its laws, but there are also Jewish people who have done the same thing. To put a statement in the article that Christians do not at all recognize the TaNaKh would be both an over-simplification and a very POV-pushing invitation for argument. Ijkopl 19:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New section, "Textual Criticism"

I added this new section - taking in material from a smaller existing section and covering much of the same ground, but more fully. The existing section was called "Criticism of the Bible", which I feel was a bit loaded - it's the text that's being criticised, not the bible itself. It tends to concentrate on the OT rather than the New, because that's the area I know more about - I recognise that this is a weakness, but I don't have the knowledge to write anything about NT criticism. The section adopts a historical approach, and I've tried to set out the major stages in the development of biblical criticism, and some of the major names. For comment. PiCo 05:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advocacy of the bible

I deleted the section headed Advocacy of the Bible - the complete section read as follows: Christian apologists advocate a high view of the Bible and sometimes advocate the doctrine of Biblical inerrancy. It doesn't tell the reader anything worth knowing. PiCo 06:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say, right move. I can't see that section becoming anything other than a POV fork. Pastordavid 06:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talmudic Tradition

Moved the following text to Talk and renamed the remainder "Criticism by early western scholars":

The Jewish tradition, later adopted by Christian scholars, was that the various texts were composed by the authors with whom their traditional titles are associated - the book of Joshua by Joshua, the books of Samuel by Samuel, and so on - acting under divine inspiration. The tradition can be traced to the 5th century AD and the composition of the Jerusalem Talmud. The Talmudic view was questioned from the very beginning, with attention focussing specifically on the Pentateuch, (the first five books of the Christian Old Testament), ascribed by the tradition to Moses.

The claim that Jews only regarded Moses as the author of the Torah from the 5th century on or this is a peculiarity of the Jerusalem Talmud is unsourced and contradicts numerous statements by Talmudic figures (and biblical figures such as Malachi and Nehemiah) believed to have lived much earlier. Further, since the Jewish tradition is adequately explained in its own section, this section simply creates either redundant text or a POV fork. --Shirahadasha 17:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Chnaged the title again to Early Criticism, as it's not really very descriptive to call it Western. Id like to keep something about the tradition of authorship - this was the background against which textual criticism (the subject of this section) developed, and it's not restricted to the Jewish tradition (Christian textual critics were frequently imprisoned for questioning the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch). PiCo 05:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] problems I see with this article

"The word "Bible" refers to the canonical collections of sacred writings of Judaism and Christianity." This is often not true. Many "Bible"s contain appocrypha not considered cannocial. It seems as if several definitions have been fused together rather than clearly explored. The word "Bible" is used to mean different things from the Jewish and Christian perspective other than what is stated. What was the criteria for determining the opening definition? Most common world wide usage? Most commonly held opinion on Wiki? On the internet? In scholarship?

"The Christian Bible..." what book store or library refers to the Christian collection of books as "the Christian Bible" and not simlpy "the Bible" is this simply a pov oversight?

Further down, In the "Inclusive language" section, What serious scholar advocates rewriting all of scripture to remove all gender refferences from the Bible and more importantly, who cares when it's the extreme minority making it inappropriate for this article? --68.22.19.194 20:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

When a person calls a book the Bible, that person is referring to what he or she considers to be canonical. Granted, not everyone considers the apocraphal/duetero-canonical/inter-testamental books to be canonical -- That is considered in the article. Yes, Jews and Christians do mean different things when they talk about the Bible -- thus the distinction between the Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible. As to how the opening paragraph was formed, it was formed by consensus. Editors, representing the many different understandings of the word "Bible," agreed on the current wording. As to the "Inclusive Language" section, there the article is only documenting a phenomena related to the Bible. It is not a question of whether we agree or not -- it is happening. Wikipedia cares because it is a verifiable, notable, fact. -- Pastordavid 22:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no correct definition of the Bible. Different groups have had different versions over two thousand years and Wiki cannot decide which is right. IT can report what most people accept, and should also mention other versions as well. They are all part of the story. -dabe57

I agree. The definition listed here should accurately & encyclopedicly refelct what those definitions are. --68.22.19.194 18:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, in articles on religion, Wikipedia generally regards different religious groups as representing different subjects, each of value in its own right, rather than merely different opinions on a single subject. Thus, rather than thinking of "the Bible" as being one subject with majority and minority views, Wikipedia's approach has sections on each major group's version of the Bible treating them as subjects of their own. This is why there are separate sections on the (Jewish) Hebrew Bible and the (Christian) Old Testament. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes I also think separating and commenting on the varying points of view is encyclopedic and appropriate here. --68.22.19.194 15:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I also added the concept that to the various Christians the word Bible may include approcrypha in the opening definition, as per the discussion above, the majority portion of Christians use such Bibles. If the word appocrypha is not appropriate, please suggest the appropriate wording for books considered canocial by some and not by other in Christianity. Thank you. --68.22.19.194 15:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I removed the "Christian" Old Testament refference from the Hebrew definition and placed it inside the Christian definition. --69.244.153.46 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted para from the lead

I've been asked to rstore this para (previously the final para) from the lead, which I deleted as too trivial:

The word Bible is sometimes used to denote a comprehensive collection on an number of topics, such as the Home Builder's Bible. In American vernacular the word Bible is commonly used as a descriptive word for other religous sacred books, such as referring to the Quaran as the Muslim Bible.

The reason given in the request for a restore was that it's normal to include popular useages in any Wiki article. I'm in two minds. The first sentence of the para is already in the lead - it mentions the use of the word Bible to mean any authoritative text. The second is more of a problem. I think calling the Quran a Bible is likely to be fairly offensive to Muslims (imagine the erverse happening on an Islamic website). Anyway, I'd like some help making the decision. Thanks. PiCo 03:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello at the very least there needs to be a link to the disambig page. Perhaps to suit all people a sentance such as, "this article pertains to the word Bible as used by Jewish and Christian religions. For other uses see: (Bible disambig page link)" Hope this suggestion helps. --68.22.19.194 17:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] how many heart words mentioned in the HolyBible

vouta —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.84.54.149 (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Unsigned request

Hello. I like to help on this page from time to time. I don't care for signing in or getting extremely invoved in heated debates. Suddenly I am locked from editing this page. Could that be changed? Thank you. --68.22.19.194 17:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro reversions to a solid definition

What happened to our definition? Finally There were separated, appropriate, clear definitions for the word Bible, chronologically listed (as per the article) and then an edit war reverts it to a convoluted definition that mixes definitions rather than separate for clarification.. What was wrong with the definition we've had for the past week that we had to revert? --69.244.153.46 01:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

In other words, shouldn't we remove the words "Christian and" from the first paragraph? A Jewish definition is appropriate, as is a Christian definition, in separate places. --69.244.153.46 01:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A/an historical

I noticed that Afaprof01 changed two instances of "a historical" to "an historical". Afaprof01's comment: ("an" historical because the /h/ is nearly always dropped. But not "an history.") As a native English speaker, I had trouble following this reasoning. One would say "a historical" in natural speech, so why would it not be written this way? Can anyone provide an authoritative link to substantiate this change? --Strangerer 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Characterization of research on violence

Moved this material to the talk page. The source given here is a local newspaper account of a scientific paper. The newspaper reaches conclusions which are extremely unlikely to have been reached by any legitimate scientist -- for example, that takers of a written test "responded with increased aggression on a subsequent measurement" and hence that the study measured a correlation between certain bible passages and violence. Whoa here. Any reasonable scientist would never present such a chain of inference. Did these people really behave more aggressively, or did they have higher scores on a test whose scores the researchers believed to correlate with violence? Test-taking is not an aggressive act -- the idea of "aggression on a...measurement" is likely a mistake by the reporter, not anything the researchers (or any self-respecting scientist) would actually say. Similarly, the reporters never discuss the nature of the link, if any, between test scores and violence which caused the researchers to believe there was a relationship between the two. The fact a substantial chain of inference is bypassed and the results are presented as if a direct rather than a very indirect relationship was found. This difficulty, among others suggests that this report of the study isn't reliable. I'm not against reporting this material, but we need a reliable account, and we may need a reference to the scientific article itself to have one. If a reference to the actual scientific paper can be produced, I'd be quite willing to accept this content, since it will be then be possible to verify if Wikipedia is describing the nature and conclusions of the research accurately. Failing that, a major paper like the New York Times would likely be more careful about describing the conclusions involved than a local one, so if there is a reference to coverage by such a paper that might be acceptable as well. Again, the purpose is not to prevent the research from being discussed, it's too ensure the research's actual conclusions are being described reliably and can be verified. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

===Biblical violence and importance of context===
A recent study by four researchers suggests a positive relationship between exposure to scriptural violence, said to be condoned by God, and increased real-life aggression. 205 male and 285 female students at two different universities were shown isolated Old Testament passages containing references to violent acts such as rape, beatings and murder. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~bbushman/BRDKB07.pdf
Half of the survey group was then shown a passage from the bible without additional context which indicating that God sanctioned violent retribution. That half responded with increased aggression in a subsequent measurement. overall, the study concluded that People who believe that God sanctions violence are more likely than others to behave aggressively themselves. http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,660199036,00.html
The lead researcher, Brad J. Bushman of Insitute for Social Research in University of Michigan (also researches other effects of violence, such as violence in Video Games[1]), sees the study as reinforcing the need to read scripture with an understanding of its historical context and a desire to hear what God is trying to teach. Otherwise, reading a violent passage in isolation could elicit aggressive tendencies. Such out-of-context reading is not only related to bible; this also related to any violence commited in the name-of-deity (such as religious extremeist), which is commonly conducted when a single violent episode is taken out of its overall context. However, he said that instead of avoiding reading the scriptures (or the violent media altogether), read those that teach moral lessons or that are balanced with descriptions of victims’ suffering or the aggressor’s remorse, which can teach important lessons and have legitimate merit. Furthermore, in his quotations, he believed that overall speaking, a well-rounded religion has actually played a role in curbing violence.
I see that the original article has been found and identified. Give me a courtesy 24 hours and I'll double-check the article and put the material back edited if I think the research hasn't been accurately described. I'd note that in addition to saying more about the nature of the instrument used and why the researchers believe it to correlate with aggression, we'd also need to, for example, clarify that these passages are ones that these researchers characterize as violent -- Wikipedia can't present interpretations of the Bible as fact, and hence can't present as fact that these passages are violent, or that the acts they describe are crimes. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for doing this, as I think this is an important piece of research, that showed that when read out of context, bibles, or any scrupture for that matter, can induce violence, but when read properly can be helpful. In any case, i think this can be move to Criticism of the Bible, under ethic section. George Leung 04:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
EDIT Also, the researcher seems to had researched on many violence in media, particularly violence in video game. Thus, on this note, I think his points are valid. as the saying goes, Only Nixon could go to China. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by George Leung (talk • contribs) 04:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC).
The sources did check out -- this was a published paper. I've added the content back in under a general header of sociological research and with some toning down of the claims inferable from this research. Best, --Shirahadasha 05:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Even if true, I don't see how this ridiculousness is appropriate to an encyclopedia article about the Bible. The article should explain and describe the Bible, not report dubious social science study results. john k 06:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with johnk - this material is pretty marginal, and shouldn't be included. PiCo 06:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Should be kept, it is definitely relevant, sourced, and notable.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 19:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Documentary hypothesis

The article already mention JEPD, perhaps Lostcaeser you want a quote from Wellhausen clarifying that these refer to human authors or groups of authors and not four different divinities? What do you think was the point of higher criticism? --Slrubenstein | Talk 13:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Lostcaeser is correct. The sentence "The documentary hypothesis is important in the field of Biblical studies not only because it claims that the Bible was written entirely by people, and not by God" presupposes that the Documentary Hypothesis is a denial of the inspiration of Scripture, and that's simply not the case. The DH is believed by TONS of people who ALSO believe that Scripture is inspired; in fact, that's probably the majority opinion of priests and pastors. Having four human authors doesn't discount inspiration any more than having one human author would.
In addition, while the paragraph in question has some useful stuff in it, overall, it's a mess, and I would excise that first clause, and rewrite the rest. Carlo 13:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
To say that people wrote the bible in no way necessarily excludes divine authorship. The doc hypothesis itself aims to replace the theory that Moses wrote the text in question, but that was never seperated from the view that the text is of divine authorship. That's what inspiration means - men were inspired by God to write what God wanted (to put it simply). How does it matter excatly how many people or exactly what process the authorship went through? I just don't see it, sorry. Lostcaesar 13:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

You cannot deny the fact that there are many critical scholars who believe the Bible was written entirely by people. Whether or not they were divinely inspired is a theological and not a historical question. You cannot exclude this point of view from the article, that violates NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Of COURSE many scholars don't believe in divine inspiration, but that doesn't have a thing to do with the DH. The DH is a theory about its human authorship, not divine inspiration. You are producing a paragraph that declares that it IS a statement about divine inspiration. It isn't. Carlo 12:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cfortunato, let us take each other at good faith. I am reverting your revert, and I am telling you that it is my intention to report that according to higher criticisms the authors of the Bible were all human beings, and my intention is to make no theological claims whatsoever. Feel free to reword what I wrote so it satisfies you that it makes no theological claims one way or the other and I will be satisfied. But do not just delete what I wrote especially when I provided reliable verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's get one thing clear: the DH is exactly a hypothesis that the Bible was written by men, not God, and that it was written for human reasons, not divine. In other words, the DH does away with the concept of divine inspiration. 19th century German theologians were inclined to obfuscate this, being creatures of their times; post-Wellhausen scholars do not. If you want to believe that the four (or more) authors of the Torah were inspierd by God to write what He wanted written, then you have to believe some rather peculiar outcomes, such as Yahweh revealing His name for the first time ever to Moses (in Exodus) after multiple characters have shown full awareness that Yahweh is his name (in Genesis) - and not just one first revelation of the name, but two! God appears to be no respecter of the arithmetic that the rest of us need to repect. Other instances of human, rather than Divine, confusion, include the matter of whether Noah took one pair of each animal into the Ark or seven pairs (of the clean animals only, of course - no confusion over two pairs of then unclean); how Isaac got his name (three mutually exclusive versions of that); and just what happened at Meribah (was God stanfding on the rock, or was he not?) The instances go on and on, and can't be reconciled withi9n a framework that accepts multiple authorship while trying to keep the idea of Divine inspiration. (Although they can be sort-of reconciled if you reject the DH entirely). PiCo 13:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
You cannot deny the fact that there are many critical scholars who believe the Bible was written entirely by people. Whether or not they were divinely inspired is a theological and not a historical question. You cannot exclude this point of view from the article, that violates NPOV.
If the question is theological and not historical, then these scholars' determinations do not say one way or another about inspiration, by definition. Now about human authorship, all sides, including those of biblical inerrancy and inspiration, hold that humans wrote the bible. The DH replaces Moses with other anonymous people – that's all. It’s a false dichotomy to say that human and divine authorship conflicts.
You have said, in your edits, that this means the Bible was "written by men and not by God"; then, here, you say " my intention is to make no theological claims whatsoever".
Lostcaesar 16:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It goes further than that. Scholars who work within the documentary hypothesis argue that what these anonymous authors wrote (and the theological claims assumed by or promoted by what they wrote) makes sense in the context of when they wrote - specifically, the political,economic, and social conditions in which they wrote - and not divine authority or revelation. It is true that one can accept some of the claims of Higher Criticism and still believe in divine revelation, but that is only a superficial use of DH - it takes only themost formal aspect of their work and ignores the vast bulk of the content of their work. We still come back to this: there are a number of scholars working within the framework of higher criticism who see divine revelation as irrelevant to their analysis of the Bibleand interpretation of Biblical passages. As I said before, this is a recognized, verifiable view and you cannot exclude it from Wikipedia just because you do not like it. If you think that this view can be more clearly represented, that is FINE. But you cannot just delete the view, that violates NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein - I am a bit confused. Would you like the article to talk about the theology of inspiration, or not? If you would, and I am not necessarily against that, then why do you think the section on the DH is the best place to do that? But, on the other hand, if you do not want the article to talk about the theology of inspiration, then I cannot see why you would objet to such deletions, considering that it is merely the omission of this matter. What I object to, for the record, is the unequivocal statement that the DH excludes inspiration, since I cannot see why that should be the case. What I would say, if I were to say anything on the matter, is that the DH and critical scholarship in general shows a willingness to examine the human dimension of the authorship of the texts. It may be noted, if you wish, that some critical scholars do not believe in divine inspiration / biblical inerrancy. What I think is untenable, however, is for you, on the one hand, to present a dichotomy between biblical critical methods and theological statements (saying that you will discuss the former and not the latter), but on the other hand to present disbelief in inspiration / inerrancy as a conclusion of biblical criticism. Not only need one not reject inerrancy as an assumption in order to do critical examination of the texts (though some critical scholars do this, whilst some do not), but furthermore rejection of inerrancy is in no way a necessary conclusion of biblical criticism. This latter point sounds more like a commentary on the spiritual journey of individuals (who happen to be scholars). Lostcaesar 17:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
"Let's get one thing clear: the DH is exactly a hypothesis that the Bible was written by men, not God, and that it was written for human reasons, not divine. "
It is NOT. That statement is FALSE. And it is falsified by the fact that MOST CLERGY BELIEVE IN THE DH. Clear enough? Call your Roman Catholic Church, and ask the priest if he believes in both the DH and divine inspiration. MOST Christians believe in BOTH. The DH is a theory about how the Torah was compiled - NOT a theory about whether or not God inspired the compilers. The second question isn't a question for scholarship AT ALL. And, logically, IF God could have inspired a SINGLE human author, he could just as well have inspired the Yahwist, Elohist, Priest Deuteronomist AND Redactor.
There are obviously people ON THIS THREAD who believe in both, which proves the paragraph is FALSE, and has no place in this article. Carlo 17:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth. David Weiss HaLivni spent his life attempting to reconcile the documentary hypothesis with traditional revelation. In his book Revelation Restored, he came up with the proposition that the Torah was originally given to Moses on Mount Sinai, but it subsequently became lost, and had to restored by a redactor who compiled a numbered of disparate versions. He regarded Ezra as this redactor. Under this intermediate version, which basically represents the view of the Union for Traditional Judaism and the more traditional wing of Conservative Judaism, there was a revelation, and the existing Scripture is the best available evidence of that revelation, and different versions no more invalidate its divinity than the need to select and redact different versions of the Oral Law described in the Talmud. The question of the status of the Torah was expressly addressed in a series of opinions on the subject of Homosexuality and Judaism (See Conservative Halakha#Homosexuality). The most small-c conservative view, by Joel Roth, stated that:

That, then, brings us to the following issue: Assuming that the type of biblical scholarship we have all been taught is correct, does that mean that the Torah is, in fact, not Divine and legally infallible? I believe that it does not mean that. [1]

Joel Roth's opinion -- accepted by a majority of Conservative Judaism's Committee on Jewish Law and Standards -- proceeded to specifically cite HaLivni as a person who had managed to successfully reconcile the Divinity and infallibility of the Torah with "the type of biblical scholarship we have all been taught". This is not necessarily my own view, but as one of the official views of Conservative Judaism adapted by the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (as well as HaLivni's Union for Traditional Judaism) it is necessarily a notable one.

It seems that HaLivni is simply one of a substantial number of people who accept multiple authors and redaction, but who do not accept certain academic claims about the motives behind these multiple individuals, yet claim to be following the Documentary hypothesis. Are you saying that what they are doing simply isn't the Documentary Hypothesis? Are you saying that their claims that it is are unreliably sourced? --Shirahadasha 18:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a note: Slrubinstein has rewritten the paragraph, and I have no objection to it as it stands. I made a small change which I think is more accurate (changing "the Entire Bible" to "the Torah"), but it's completely objective and informative now, as far as I'm concerned. Carlo 23:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Carlo, what most clergy (or rabbis) believe, and what most Christians (or Jews) believe, is irrelevant. These are groups of people who by definition take a God-centred view, and cannot abandon belief in the Bible as being in some sense God's word. Their positions are no doubt sincere, but they are wilfully misunderstanding the DH. Nevertheless, and oddly enough, I can accept the current text. That said, the section isn't complete: it's headed Textual Criticism, but deals almost exclusively with the DH, which is a critique of the Torah alone. Where's the rest of the scholarly critique of the Bible - no mention of the Deuteronomic History, the Court History, the prophets, etc etc etc. The section needs a major revamp. PiCo 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
They have all been to seminary, they all have Doctorates or Master's Degrees, and have received an enormous amount of education on the Torah, quite a bit of it from a secular standpoint, including the methods of higher criticism, and have passed a test that makes the Bar Exam look simple. Perhaps it is YOU who misunderstands the DH. Carlo 21:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
It's you who don't understand the difference between textual criticism and theology. As for the difficulty of their examinations, it pales into insignificance beside that passed by the highest rank of ayatollah in Iran - but the ayatollahs aren't genuine scholars either. PiCo 04:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Perhaps it might be helpful to focus more on the content of the article. Thanks, --Shirahadasha 04:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

No one would question that there are people who believe in both the DH and divine inspiration (and I have no objection to including that view). But there are also many people who not only believe in the DH and reject divine inspiration, but who see the DH as a serious threat to religious orthodoxy. That view should also be in the article. And there are many scholars who work within the DH (not Rabbis Weiss halivni and Roth, whoa re very well-resepcted Talmud scholars and I do not dismiss their views which are relevant to this article - but they are not Biblical historians, my point being they do not exemplify the views of biblical historians) and see divine revelation as irrelevant. And this view too muct be represented in the article. [User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | Talk 11:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

So you would like to talk about the theology of inspiration, then. Do you think the DH section the right place to do this? Lostcaesar 12:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, just meake it clear that these historians interpret the Bible by looking at influences on the authors of the texts, and do not include divine revelation as one of thos influences. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be helpful to unbundle the ideas and provide individual claims for separate consideration, along with supporting arguments and evidence. --Shirahadasha 04:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Want to remind folks that the purpose is not to debate the merits of the various positions, simply to identify notable positions that need to be presented in the article in a neutral way. Best, --Shirahadasha 04:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are very constructive, Shirahadacha. My only concern is this: that the views of the major propmonents of the DH/Higher Criticism, and the views of Biblical historians not making any theological claims, be expressed in a clear and distinct way. I think it is perfectly reasonable to include sections laying out the views of different religious movements, theologicans, and clergy (do you know Elliot Dorff's book, Conservative Judaism: Our Ancestors to our Descendents or something like that - he has a breif schematization of distinct Jewish responses that may be useful though of course it is neither exhaustive nor detailed). Slrubenstein | Talk 11:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have 2 problems with the current version of the Dh section of the article. The first is that a couple of paragbrpahs have been dropped - those following the opening sentence abt the encyclical De Spritu Afflatus. Those paragrpahs are important - that encyclical was a major step opening up Catholic scholarship to textual criticism, and it needs to be explained in full. Second, the material on Jewish theological responses to the DH is not, in fact, theological responses to the DH or to modern textual criticism - textual criticism isn't mentioned, just some theological poisitions which seem to have been reached on a priori grounds. This material doesn't belong in this section. (I don't know where it does belong, but not here.) PiCo 04:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I could write up a little thing on the Catholic position concerning Biblical scholarship if we wish to have such a section. Perhaps we should create a section dedicated to biblical inspiration / inerrance. Lostcaesar 07:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
PiCo, no paragraphs have been dropped: I just moved the statement about the encyclical to a later section. Second, the theological statements concerning Jewish positions really are responses to the DH (among other things). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WRT this section, it appears to currently imply that some scholars read Hamlet to learn about 7th century Denmark. Perhaps the language here could be tightened? john k 05:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4 Maccabbees

I removed it from the list of Eastern Orthodox Apocrypha. I know of no church that uses it, and my NRSV, which gives a pretty detailed rundown of such things, lists no church that uses it, but simply says it appears in an appendix to the LXX. IF anyone can actually show a church using it, add it back. Carlo 04:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha:An Ecumenical Study Bible simply states that it is included as an appendix in the Greek Bible. jonathon 21:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commentaries

One of the major English commentaries is not listed at the bottom under commentaries. Kretzmann's Popular Commentary is used by thousands of Christians world-wide. It has been in use since the '20's and is still popular today amoung moderate to conservative Lutherans. The online link is http://www.kretzmannproject.org . Could someone who has the cred & status to add it to the list please add it? 192.160.64.49 21:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/b/Talk%7EBible_751f.html"