Talk:New Testament/2005

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] "(in Christian context)"

What other context is there for "Greek Scriptures"? Is the phrase "Greek Scriptures" used in any other way or context? Jayjg (talk) 18:19, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

OK, in this case I misunderstood the word 'scripture', in Dutch 'scripture' is translated with the same word as 'script'. However, your way of reverting is quite non-wiki and I ask you to stop that annoying behaviour inmediately. Jcbos 21:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
OK, thanks for explaining. In English they are quite different. However, your way of inserting text without prior Talk: discussion is quite non-wiki and I ask you to stop that annoying behaviour inmediately. Jayjg (talk) 21:48, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Is "Christian Bible" a pleonasm, or not?

Around March 7, 2005 User:Jcbos tried to remove "Christian" in the first line of this article on the grounds of it being a pleonasm. This has been reverted immediately. On the Dutch Wikipedia a huge debate started after I inserted (a translation of) "Christian" immediately before (a translation of) "Bible" in the first sentence of the artikle about the New Testament. Quite a lot of people do state their on that discussion page that "Bible" in religious context always refers to the Holy Scriptures of the Christians. Really, that was stated in these absolute terms, notwithstanding any reference I made to "Hebrew Bible". Even some people raised the question: "Is there another Bible than the Christian Bible?" Gebruiker:Dedalus 09:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Or, might it be a peculiarity of the english language that Bible could also mean something else than Christian Bible? Could NPOV differ among different languages? What is the overall Wikipedia policy for this? What would be the proper place for discussion of that last question? Gebruiker:Dedalus 09:17, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This has been debated at length. Most editors on English Wikipedia appear to think that "Christian" serves as a disambiguation for Bible. You'll find the discussion at Talk:Bible. Jayjg (talk) 17:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It simply depends on the context, both in dutch and english, even though the connotations of the word in dutch are different from those in english. The informal vote/poll on NL wikipedia was quite unanimous, in that in the context of the article from which it was removed, it was almost certainly a pleonasm. Intuitions of native speakers of english will tend to be quite different from those of native speakers of dutch on this matter, so any decision here will not apply there and vice versa. This applies more generally to most words in either language. Flyingbird 02:00, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A poll has been open on Talk:Bible over this controversy for over a week. The poll closed yesterday. Votes are counted. The effect of the poll is that 'Christian' should not be removed right before 'Bible' in the article. Gebruiker:Dedalus 07:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] POV

This article is extremly POV and pro-christian. It claims that there is one "new testement" when each church has a different version, with different origins. It present items of religious dogma as fact.--Jirate 14:52, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific, please? Perhaps give some examples? Jayjg (talk) 15:48, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
King James v Good News v RC etc.--Jirate 17:33, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
You mean there are different English translations of the Greek Scriptures? Obviously that's true, but could you possibly give an example where the article has become POV because of this? Jayjg (talk) 18:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
They are not different translations they often stem from different books. The RC bible does not come from the greek but secondary latin. Each version is different to suit the various religions. They are not the same book at all, it PR to claim that they are.--Jirate 20:58, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
That point is covered in extenso in Bible translations. Which passage in New Testament claims they are the same? Where is the PR?? Gebruiker:Dedalus 21:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm as confused as you are. Irate, could you point to a specific sentence or passage you disagree with? Jayjg (talk) 21:20, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It PR because it is claiming that all christians use the same book, they don't. It's like claiming that West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet are the same, simple because they have common origins. It PR because Christians like to think they all beleive the same thing and gain strngth from that, when in reality they have as much in common with Jews and Muslims than various sects have in common with each other. Look at the first line of the article, it states what christians claim as fact, when the dates of some books are unclear as is even the birth of Jesus. The King James bible was written by the state to make the state important, it ripped of the tyndall version and is allegdly one of the best translations. Though you don't hear catholics asking for it a lot.--Jirate 11:54, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
It is your interpretation of (the first line) of the article 'that all christinas use the same book'. There is no such explicit claim in the article, however. Should we insert after Christian Bible something like 'which exists in many different translations?' Your other point relates to 'when the dates of some books are unclear as is even the birth of Jesus'. The article does not mention (in the first line) the birth date or birth year of Jesus - it only states that those books were written after the birth of Jesus, that is, it says those books were not written before the birth of Jesus. All these books do refer to the life or dead of Jesus, so they can not be written before the birth of Jesus. How could the article be rewritten to accommodate your point of view? It is somewhat POV to claim one translation better than another. Gebruiker:Dedalus 13:31, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"many different translations, some with debatable neutarity" would do.--Jirate 21:49, 2005 Mar 18 (UTC)
The various English translations of the Bible are quite a bit more similar to on another than West Side Story and Romeo and Juliet. Regardless, can you please quote a specific sentence which you think is POV, and explain why? So far I haven't been able to find any of your claims. Jayjg (talk) 18:15, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Different translations are covered in Bible translations. So this article needs a link to that article. The canon lists 27 books. The article doesn't mention the books outside the canon. Is that Jirates problem? Gebruiker:Dedalus 20:18, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This article already links to Bible translations, under "See also". As for your question, I'm not sure, perhaps User:Irate can explain. Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The Authorship section already ends with links to Gospel of Thomas and New Testament apocrypha. For completeness sake I included these two links in the See also section. I can not find a POV problem anymore. How to agree on removing the NPOV-template? Gebruiker:Dedalus 20:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think we'll have to wait for User:Irate to explain his issues; so far he hasn't been specific enough for me to understand what is bothering him. If there is no response in a day or so, we can assume his issues have been settled. Jayjg (talk) 20:44, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I really don't understand the problem. As far as I know already beginning in the 4th century there is a worldwide consensus about which books are in the New Testament. Between the translations there is much to little difference to call them different New Testaments. They are just different translations of the same New Testament, sometimes translations of a translation of the New Testament. When people refer to the New Testament, they will not mean one specific translantion. So I'm curious about the real point of Irate. Jcbos 00:38, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Historicity

I think there needs to be a section the evaluates the historical merit of the New Testament MSS, from both sides of the debate. If the Historicity section I added was a POV, you should of seen it before I edited all the real POV out of it. I added examples of scholors who do not find the New Testament reliable, the point is that this is the test for historical reliability, Bibliographical Evidence, Internal Evidence, and External Evidence. Puting the debate of the Historicity of the New Testament into this kind of a structure puts it all into a context where true dissention can occur. Jayig, if you thought it was POV, it could have been edited to include more examples on the other side of the debate. It was not submited as a completed work, but only a work in progress toward becoming complete. My final goal is a comprehensive and detailed report of all the facts from all points of view. Rclose 22:28, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Unless I missed them, there are no footnotes for sources anywhere in this article. Some of the information is quite specific and requires further research and verification, and yet there's no direction on where the author arrived at his information. For instance in section 5) the letters refering to the books of the NT, are they originals or copies? The dates are quite specific, so how were these documents dated? Without listing the source the whole section is of questionable value.

[edit] Good

Very well written article. Good job.

[edit] Paul Wrote Hebrews?

Under the section on language, it says:

"...and there is another contention that Paul wrote the Hebrews in Hebrew, which was translated into Greek by Luke."

Last time I checked the exact author of Hebrews was unknown. Some feel it is Paul, some Apollos, some someone else entirely. Not only that but the phrase "Paul wrote the Hebrews in Hebrew" is grammatically incorrect, assuming that it is referring to the book and not the people. It should either be "Paul wrote Hebrews in Hebrew" or "Paul wrote the letter/epistle to the Hebrews in Hebrew." I'd make the correction(s) but I'd like input from other people who've looked at the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by C0bra (talk • contribs) 2005-11-14 19:34:02.

That sentence doesn't say that Paul wrote Hebrews. It says some people contend he did. The word "the" does need to go, though. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:55, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
We are back at these mysterious 'some people' - cite exactly whom or remove it. Traditionally Hebrews has been attributed to Paul - most notably by the Authorised Version headings - but the tradition goes back to Partistic times. However, it was also disputed from the earliest times, and no credible scholar argues for that position today (even most conservative-evangelicals reject it). --Doc ask? 20:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
The sentence is not a disputation of authorship, it is a disputation of language. To rephrase: "there is a contention that Paul wrote to the Hebrews in the Hebrew language, which was then tranlsated into the Greek language by Luke." It's even in the language section. If someone wants to go into the authorship debate then it should be in a separate section and not packed into another. --c0bra 15:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] favor

I have just added a new section to Judaism and Christianity on "love." It is just a stub of a section, hopefully others will add more about the Jewish notion. But I know that my characterization of the Christian notion is at best wildly incomplete. Perhaps among the contributors to this page there are some who could go over it and add whatever additional material, detail, nuance, explanation they think necessary. I am very concerned about not misrepresenting, or doing justice to, the Christian point of view. I also added a long quote from Maimonides to the section on Heaven and Hell; in fact, I did a rewrite a week or two ago. I know the Jewish position is well-represented but again I am concerned that in the process the Christian view may appear misrepresented or at least underrepresented. So, I'd be grateful if someone checked and made sure the Christian view(s) are accurately and sufficiently represented. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Religioustolerance.org

This article uses the religioustolerance.org website as either a reference or a link. Please see the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org as to whether Wikipedia should cite the religioustolerance.org website, jguk 14:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)