Jump to content

Talk:Bible/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Proposed text for WP:RS on Archaeology

Per Shirahadasha's suggestion above. I believe that this is a fair WP:NPOV representation of the conclusions reached by the cited archaeologists:

Extensive archaeological research and findings especially since the 1980s has led a consensus of several prominent archaeologists who have studied the record to reach the following conclusions: the archaeological record contradicts the Bible's main historical account given in Exodus,[1][2] and specifically these archaeologists conclude that the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the Land of Israel in a military campaign, did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel, there is no evidence of the existence of David's or Solomon's conquests, kingdom, or vast empire, and Jewish monotheism appeared in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.[1][2]

Please provide feedback on this representaion of the verifiable facts given in the reliable sources:

  • Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2001), [[The Bible Unearthed|The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts]], New York: Simon and Schuster, ISBN 0743223381 {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help).
  • Herzog, Ze'ev (October 29, 1999), Deconstructing the walls of Jericho, Ha'aretz{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 02:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't really think so.
  • "Extensive" is subjective.
  • "Consensus" of minimalists is just the view of minimalists. It would be more NPOV to simply have a section on the minimalist view, and that belongs in The Bible and history, rather than in this article.
  • The list of conclusions is also unnecessary. I don't see any reason to put the views of the minimalists into this article, because it belongs in The Bible and history and Biblical archaeology, but if you have to mention it, it's more than enough to say that the minimalist school of holds that no convincing evidence that would support the biblical historical narratives prior to about the 8th century CE has been found.
-LisaLiel (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's get the terminology straight. Neither Finkelstein or Herzog are minimalists. The minimalists, such as P.R. Davies and the Copenhagen School, question whether anything in the Bible account is reliable. In particular they question whether there was a period of monotheism at all in Israel or Judah before 587 BCE, suggesting the entire tradition is substantially shaped by the Persian culture during the exile, and only dates from centuries later.
That is not Finkelstein's position. He goes with the older more mainstream academic tradition, that the Deuteronomistic history in the Bible substantially reflects the ideology of the time of King Josiah (640-609 BCE); and there is material that is historically useful in the Bible at least from the story of Omride kings of Israel of the ninth century onwards, albeit presented through a very considerable ideological filter.
Herzog is really only saying in rather blunt terms what our article already says: there is no archaeological evidence of a conquest of the land and cities of Canaan of the kind recounted in the Book of Joshua. Finkelstein goes a bit further, noting that we now have a fairly clear picture of settlement patterns in the kingdom of Judah in the 8th, 9th and 10th centuries BCE, and saying that there is no archaeological evidence for a "golden age" under David and Solomon, and that finds previously associated with a Solomonic period - eg at Megiddo in the north - are actually later. A number of different carbon-dating surveys have subsequently been made by different teams since Finkelstein first made this thesis, and appear to support it. Jheald (talk) 08:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Random breakpoint

I agree with Lisa's points. Particularly the third--a litany of things they don't think happened is unnecessary. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Écrasez should present the proposed text here so that we can evaluate it to make sure POV statements are not made but that the point is stated in a factual matter. There's no point going 3RR on this (and Écrasez is well within that violation right now). Give us a chance to build a consensus on this. BTW, because NPOV is non-negociable, that does not mean you can add whatever you want and expect it to be accepted without discussion. Much of your wording is POV. They are unverifiable statements. Even if you have a source that says this or that, that in and of itself is not verification. I agree that this topic should be covered briefly in this article and extensively in an archo article, but the wording needs a lot of improvement. --Fcsuper (talk) 04:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Random breakpoint

I agree with much of the criticism above. Écrasez, you talked a lot about WP:NPOV, but you are not taking into account the section of that policy under the header WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Your addition mentions nothing about the opposing viewpoint (which does not come close to being dismissable per WP:FRINGE), and also I must remind you that you are presenting conclusions as fact, which they are not, and which goes against the very heart of the WP:NPOV policy. Now many people will tell you that the Bible itself gives more than enough clues why there is no archaeological evidence of the reign of David and Solomon in Jerusalem: the evidence was looted, therefore it is in Babylon, not Jerusalem, that archaeologists should be looking for such evidence (2 Kings 25:13-15). Ditto for earlier events. Furthermore, the word contradicts should not appear in your entry. As I said to you earlier, Finkelstein's data is inconclusive, and you should not portray it as unquestionably pointing to a conclusion, even if he himself does so. And don't mention a consensus where the "consensus" is that of one side of the issue. That gives the impression that there is no dissidence, when in fact there is unquestionably a dissidence to that "consensus". --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 10:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't loot stone walls, water systems, foundations of houses, spoil tips, broken pieces of pottery etc. The evidence for Jerusalem as a significant centre is there for the Middle Bronze Age (c. 2000-1550 BCE) and the later Iron Age II (c. 750-586 BCE). But in the 10th century BCE there is next to nothing.
In any case, the excerpt from Mazor is primarily talking about the conquest of Canaan, rather than supposedly Solomonic Jerusalem. As Dever has pointed out, most of the cities destroyed by Joshua simply weren't there. It's a narrative constructed in a much later period. Jheald (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
This is because what qualified as "cities" in these times were nothing like the cities built in later eras. Imagine someone comparing the biblical record with archaeology about 5000 years from now and concluding that Jerusalem did not exist in the year 1 on the grounds that there is no evidence of sprawling suburbs some 10 miles all around a city centre. Additionally, what complicates matters for archaeologists is the common middle eastern practice of rebuilding destroyed cities on top of their own rubble, often using the rubble itself as building materials. (This, in fact, has been reported to be done in Ezra Nehemiah 3:34.) Of course, none of what I'm discussing here, and none of what I'm responding to, should go in the article, as that would be off-topic anyway. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 02:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This is a valuable point. Above, Lisa wrote, "It's sufficient to say that this or that source has concluded that no material evidence has been found (not "does not exist", since you can't prove a negative." But science is more complicated than this - science progresses all the time through the discovery of a "negative," it is called falsification. An archeologist can hypothesize that something existed, and design research to test that hypothesis i.e. work out diagnostic artifacts and the appropriate pattern of digging to achieve the appropriate sample; if nothing shows up, the hypothesis has been falsified. I add two things to this point: first, it is especially important to lay out the chain of research that establishes an absense (For example, if the capital of an expansionist site were situated in this location, we would find x kind of evidence. However, x kind of evidence was not discovered. Instead, y kind of evidence suggest that ...). Second, even when a hypothesis if falsified the resulting knowledge is always provisional. We can talk about a preponderance of evidence, or continued confirmation of the conclusions ... my point, as I suggested earlier, is that the views Ecrasez is pointing to should be included in the article - but put in the context of archeological debates, not just including other views but the kinds of research and evidence that support those views - and the actual conclusions they reach which go far beyond "the Bible is not historically accurate" to "this is what archeologists now believe about the politics, society, economics, culture of that period etc. In short, this section needs expansion, but good scholarship is more nuanced than what has so far been proposed. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Écrasez would be well-advised to read the Wikipedia article on Israel Finkelstein before claiming that his views represent a consensus. I'm all for presenting Finkelstein's views in the article Biblical archaeology, but only if they are presented as one possible position (rather than absolute truth as was done), but, in the article Bible, which is supposed to give only an overview of archaeology anyway, I think there should be no more than a passing mention withoutgetting into conclusions (either for or against). --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Random breakpoint

Thank you all for your comments. I will respond briefly and propose a compromise.

  1. Extensive. The archaeological research is extensive: this was a major, major project in Israel to "dig up the title deeds" to the land, as is easily verifiable. So this accurate desriptor should stay in my opinion. If there's further objection, I'll cite it, but this one is real easy.
  2. Consensus. Finkelstein and Herzog arguably represent the majority consensus view of these archaeological findings, according to reliable sources. See Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (August 2002). "Review: "The Bible Unearthed": A Rejoinder". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 327: 63–73.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) The list of knowledgable scholars supporting these conclusions includes:
    1. Lily Avitz-Singer
    2. Alexander Fantalkin
    3. Norma Franklin
    4. Ayelet Gilboa
    5. Axel Knauf
    6. Stefan Munger
    7. Nadav Na’aman
    8. Michael Niemann
    9. Tali Ornan
    10. Benjamin Sass
    11. Ilan Sharon
    12. Christoph Uehlinger
    13. David Ussishkin
    14. John Woodhead
    15. Orna Zimhoni
  3. which Finckelstein argues is a majority. This WP:RS should be added as a citation supporting the consensus claim.
  4. Minimalists. Jheald addressed this. Neither Finkelstein nor Herzog are minimalists.
  5. "Litany of conclusions." The list of WP:RS conclusions is highly relevant to an article on the Bible. These conclusions may bother some editors, but they meet all the requirements of WP:NPOV. Not including the specifics of these conclusions would be weasel and silly, frankly.
  6. More archaeological, critical context. I agree that this is consistent with WP:NPOV, so long as it is WP:VF, WP:RS, not WP:UNDUE, etc., and adding this to the proposed edit would be welcome by me.
  7. "Contradicts" This is Herzog's word, not mine. And Herzog is WP:RS and a significant view, so this stays by WP:NPOV. Please cite your own WP:RS to balance this view, if you'd like.
  8. Wikipedia article on Israel Finkelstein. This is a wonderful example of an awful article that is almost completely unreliable, especially in the way that it misrepresents sources. For example, the article says

    [Finkelstein's] description of tenth century Jerusalem … has been strongly contested by many biblical scholars and archaeologists[3]

    yet source [3] is a shallow 300-word review of Finkelstein's book appearing a journal specializing in Zionist history and ideas by Raanan Eichler, a graduate student at a Jewish college specializing in Zionist history and ideas. This is not to say that Eichler is necessarily wrong, but it would be more convincing to cite a reliable source archaeologist like Ze'ev Herzog, who does portray Finkelstein's conclusions as a consensus among many prominent archaeologists. Eichler is entitled to his opinions, but offers nothing solid to back them up, and characterizing them as "strongly contested by many biblical scholars and archaeologists" is beyond the pale. The article itself should cite Lawrence Stager and a few others, which would at least be creditable. Perhaps another editor will go fix this.
  9. I acknowledge that the majority consensus archaeological conclusions expressed by Finkelstein and Herzog will not sit at all well with people of a Zionist, evangelical, or Biblical inerrantist bent, and their significant views should also be fairly represented in an article on the Bible; however, Finkelstein and Herzog's majority consensus conclusions are highly significant and relevant and must be fairly represented here. For those who object, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's "non-negotiable" WP:NPOV policy:

    All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. … The acronym NPOV does not mean "no points of view". The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it "POV".

While I agree that other text must be added to this basic representation to fairly represent the opposition, especially those of Lawrence Stager, everything I have read here indicates that the following proposed edit (with citations) is consistent in letter and spirit with all Wikipedia policies:

Extensive archaeological research and findings especially since the 1980s has led a majority consensus of several prominent archaeologists who have studied the record to reach the following conclusions: the archaeological record contradicts the Bible's main historical account given in Exodus,[1][2] and specifically these archaeologists conclude that the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the Land of Israel in a military campaign, did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel, there is no evidence of the existence of David's or Solomon's conquests, kingdom, or vast empire, and Jewish monotheism appeared in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.[1][2]

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Random breakpoint

Ecrasez, I am one who has called for more context but as I am not an expert in Biblical archeology, I am not the one to do it - but I think it is essential that anyone, including you, who expands this section must provide adequate context so as to comply with both NPOV and NOR. Another point: it is now evident to me that the significance of the archeological research to which you call attention has less to do with the Bible and more to do with Zionism. I respectfully suggest that you may gain more satisfaction, and contribute more to Wikipedia, by writing a good article on Nadia Abu el-Haj's research on this, as well as improving other articles on specific archeologists, archeological excavations, or notable books. In the meantime, it seems to me that none of what you have added contradicts with the very very concise account of archeology currently in the article. What we currently have is both accurate and NPOV. We shouldn't add to it in a way that compromises NPOV. And it seems to me that maintaining NPOV would require adding much more than what you propose, to the point where it would overwhelm the article itself. Which leads me to conclude that what we really need is a very good article on Biblical archeology that just links to this article. I hope you see I am trying to be constructive. It seems to me that Jheald and Ecrasez and other editors could avoid conflict, reverts, and excessive talk page discussion by working on other articles that are specifically on this topic. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have a basic problem with the original proposal: The source cited for the claim that Finkelstein's position is a majority view is this one: Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (August 2002). "Review: "The Bible Unearthed": A Rejoinder". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 327: 63–73.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) The problem here is that this is an article by Finkelstein. One irreducible requirement, no matter how things are sliced, is that no-one can be a reliable source on their own importance. Someone else has to review them and give an opinion on how important they are and how many other people agree with them. If a source doesn't talk about it, we can't make our own claims about a source's importance based on our own assessment, that would be original research. In order to say that someone represents the consensus of a field -- in order to call a person "important" or make a judgment call that throws more weight than simply calling the person a professor at a university and maybe mentioning a publication or two to establish cred - you need a reliable sourc that says that person is a big macher in order to claim a person is a big macher. If there's no source that says he's a towering giant and dominates the field, then Finkelstein has to be described as just a professor and his opinion as simply a professor of archaeology's opinion. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


(ec)Note also the article on Syro-Palestinian archaeology
French wikipedia has a series of articles on Archaeological data on the first Israelites, Archaeological data on David and Solomon, Archaeological data on the conquest of Canaan, Archaeological data on the Exodus and Moses. Perhaps these could be translated and expanded? They would also give room to set out at greater length the arguments of evangelical Biblical apologists such as Kenneth Kitchen and James Hoffmeier. Jheald (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Random breakpoint

Proposal edit (rough draft still)
Archaeological evidence does not support some of the Bible's historical accounts given in Exodus.[1][2] Specifically, accounts of Israelites in Egypt, wandering in the desert, and conquest the Land of Israel in a military campaign lack evidential support. Also unsupported are accounts regarding the land being passed on to 12 tribes of Israel, and David's or Solomon's conquests. Of particular note is that evidence suggest that Jewish monotheism appeared in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.[1][2] --Fcsuper (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not just archeological evidence - many Bible scholars argue from internal evidence and methods of comparative religion and history, that monotheism as we now know it in Judaism developed over a long time and did not take utlimate shape until the Babylonian Exile. My point is that we also need to be careful not to inflate the findings of archeology; some of these conslusions are based on diverse bodies of evidence and methods of research. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposal edit
Although many events in the Bible narrative have found plenty of archaeological support, some, like the presence of Israelites in Egypt, the wandering in the desert, and the military conquest of Canaan have not found satisfactory support yet. [1][2] There is also no extrabilical support of the land being passed on to 12 tribes.
I have removed the bit about the late appearance of monotheism because the Bible itself states that polytheism was omnipresent throughout the land of Israel and that worship of God has been halfhearted throughout that era, even during the reigns of David and Solomon (in fact, that's the reason why God allowed the deportation to Babylon), and Judaism, by its very nature, does not lend itself very well to archaeological support (for example, it forbids owning pretty much anything that could be regarded as an object of worship). --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Re Fcsuper and Blanchardb's suggestion: this is not a fair WP:NPOV representation of the majority consensus, whose conclusions clearly state that the archaeological record is inconsistent with the Bible, and not merely lacking in evidential support—there is an abundance of evidence, and none of it supports the Bible's account. Also, we are discussing the section Bible#Archaeological and historical research, which does not currently have a fair WP:NPOV representation of the argued majority consensus on this subject. I agree that internal analysis is appropriate, but that should live in another section. Also, about Slrubenstein's comments on Zionism above, while this subject is tangentially relevant there, the main intellectual and practical thrust of Zionism does not rest on the Bible's veracity. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 00:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you need consensus that Finkelstein's position does represent a consensus. And please do not confuse your point of view with a neutral point of view. I must admit that the fact you invoked WP:RS in your edit summary the very first time you tried to insert your information (that is, before you even knew you'd find opposition) is making me suspicious about your intentions here.--Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Amendment to my proposal
...archaeological support, some key events, like the presence...
--Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Écrasez, what are your views on Voltaire? --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of the material from Écrasez could go into the article on Biblical archaeology‎ which is a much better fit than in the Bible article. Facts must be properly cited (without editorializing) and conclusions must fit the facts. Specifically, the lack of proven archaeological artifacts does not prove that something did not exist nor does it prove that artifacts never will be found. Rlsheehan (talk) 13:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Ecrasez misses my point about Zionism. I never claimed that Zionism rests on Biblical veracity, and my comment was not intended to imply that. On the contrary, my point is that these debates among archeologists (minimalists and maximalists) are more influenced by debates about Zionism and their, and archeology's, relation to the nation-state, than by theological/religious debates or loyalties. The matter again is context. How many of these archeologists are driven ultimately to "prove" that the Bible is "right" or "wrong," and how many are driven by a desire to address claims about the historic relationship between the nation Israel and the territory where the current state of Israel is located? The above discussion suggests more the latter than the former, as does Abu el-Haj's book, which is why I think this issue is worth and article ... its own article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, Ecrasez seems to be ignoring my other point. As far as NPOV is concerned, what are the main points of view that need to be in this article. There are several, but one is that the Bible is historically accurate; another view is that it is not. My point is that there are many people who hold that the Bible is not historically accurate - certainly within the various non-Orthodox movements of Judaism as well as academia, and the reasons they have this view include archeological data but also other historical research, as well as (for some) theological discussions. In other words, this view - that the Bible is not historically accurate - did not originate with archeologists and is not an exclusively archeological view. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Former critic William Dever now says he's a minimalist, accepts Finkelstein's conclusions

In an interview conducted last year, archaeologist William Dever, one of Finkelstein's harshest critics originally, now accepts Finkelstein's conclusions that "archaeology throws [the Biblical account of Exodus] into great doubt":

“Then, about 15 years ago, in my archaeological work I began to write about ancient Israel. Originally I wrote to frustrate the Biblical minimalists; then I became one of them, more or less. The call of Abraham, the Promise of the Land, the migration to Canaan, the descent into Egypt, the Exodus, Moses and monotheism, the Law at Sinai, divine kingship—archaeology throws all of these into great doubt. My long experience in Israel and my growing uncertainty about the historicity of the Bible meant that was the end for me.” (My emph.) See Dever, William G. (2007). "Losing Faith: Who Did and Who Didn't, How Scholarship Affects Scholars" (PDF). Biblical Archaeology Review. 33 (2): 54. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

This WP:RS citation and the Finkelstein's response to Dever's original criticism cited above (in which he enumerates a long list of other supporters) should put to rest any reasonable doubt that Finkelstein's and Herzog's stated conclusions represent the majority consensus in their field about the Biblical account of the events in Exodus. For those who missed it above, see Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (August 2002). "Review: "The Bible Unearthed": A Rejoinder". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 327: 63–73.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link), which includes list of knowledgeable scholars supporting Finkelstein's conclusions: Lily Avitz-Singer, Alexander Fantalkin, Norma Franklin, Ayelet Gilboa, Axel Knauf, Stefan Munger, Nadav Na’aman, Michael Niemann, Tali Ornan, Benjamin Sass, Ilan Sharon, Christoph Uehlinger, David Ussishkin, John Woodhead, Orna Zimhoni.
A fair WP:NPOV representation of these conclusions must appear in Wikipedia's Bible article (as well as other related articles). I propose a merger of previous proposals:

Extensive archaeological evidence[1][2][3][4] has led a majority consensus of prominent archaeologists[1][2][3][4] to conclude that "archaeology throws [the Biblical account of Exodus] into great doubt."[4] Specifically, accounts of Israelite bondage in Egypt, wandering in the desert, and conquest the Land of Israel in a military campaign are not supported by archaeological evidence.[1][2][4] Also unsupported are accounts of the Land of Israel being passed on to the 12 tribes of Israel, and David's and Solomon's conquests and vast empire.[1][2][4] Of particular note is that the archaeological evidence indicates that Jewish monotheism appeared in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai.[1][2][4]

  1. Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2001), [[The Bible Unearthed|The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts]], New York: Simon and Schuster, ISBN 0743223381 {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help).
  2. Herzog, Ze'ev (October 29, 1999), Deconstructing the walls of Jericho, Ha'aretz{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).
  3. Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (August 2002). "Review: "The Bible Unearthed": A Rejoinder". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 327: 63–73.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  4. Dever, William G. (2007). "Losing Faith: Who Did and Who Didn't, How Scholarship Affects Scholars" (PDF). Biblical Archaeology Review. 33 (2): 54. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 15:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, this discussion still seems more relevant on the talk page of some archeology article. it is within an archeology article that the different points of view of archeologists is an issue. In this article, what is important are the different views of the Bible. This article already makes it clear that there are many people who reject the Bible as an historical document. It is enough to say that they do so because of the findings of textual critics, historians, and yes, archeologists. But that is the appropriate context for this article.
There should be archeology articles that explore in-depth the research by archeologists. In such articles I would expect that articles or books by Lily Avitz-Singer, Alexander Fantalkin, Norma Franklin, Ayelet Gilboa, Axel Knauf, Stefan Munger, Nadav Na’aman, Michael Niemann, Tali Ornan, Benjamin Sass, Ilan Sharon, Christoph Uehlinger, David Ussishkin, John Woodhead, and Orna Zimhoni - not an article mentioning them, but things they themselves have published.
By the way, if English is not your native language you would not know this but you can't say "majority consensus." The two words mean different things. You may well have a strong case for claims about the prevailing majority. just say that, then, and don't mix it up with "concensus" please. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
If you are attempting to imply that these facts aren't highly significant for Wikipedia's Bible article, well, that's just laughable. But I do agree that these facts are also highly relevant for several other Wikipedia articles too. As for the publications of the cited scholars, see Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (August 2002). "Review: "The Bible Unearthed": A Rejoinder". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 327: 63–73.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) And English is my first language, which is how I am familiar with the standard English usage and meaning of the phrase "majority consensus" (not "concensus" [sic]). Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
This seems like a perfect example of when faith meets science. I cannot see how it should not be used in the article. These current findings cast significant doubt on the factual basis of the Bible. Faith exists outside of science and just because many people have faith in the Bible does not mean we should not talk about its shortcomings. Ecrasez might be offensive in his use of language, but he has reputable references on his side and his edit is directly related to the topic of this article. --67.183.129.82 (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not implying that these facts are not significant for the article on the Bible, but given that most people do not consider the Bible to be a history book, and that there has been a very strong criticism against using the bible as a history book that has its origins in Spinoza and became academic convention by the late 19th century - looooooooooong before these facts came into existence - I would not say they are "highly" significant. Some people will reject these facts out of hand. Some people will be shocked by them. But many people will say, "Yes, so what else is new?" But I am not implying and definitely not saying explicitly that these facts are not significant for this article. What I am saying - and it is all I have been saying, and saying explicitly, so there is no need to look for any implied meaning, is that they need to be properly contextualized. Is the objective of these archeologists to determine whether the Bible is historically accurate or not? Well, I sure admit that this is possible but I do not think any archeologist in the US would get a grant if this is what they wrote on their research proposal. What was the objective of the research? We need to know, with reliable sources (and if they say, "the objective of this research was to prove or disprove x passage in the Bible, well, you get no opposition from me. But I know a lot about general archeology and what I know makes me ask, didn't they have other objectives? It is a reasonable question.) If the main point is to explain why people do not use the Bible as a historical document, again, this needs to be properly contextualized. Scholars have been making this claim since Spinoza and no archeologist is going to claim that his or her research proved the Bible wrong; at most they will claim that their research provides additional support for views already held by Biblical historians. Is this explicit enough? the word is not "insignificant." The word is C-O-N-T-E-X-T. (or, for you archeologists out there, "matrix"). This is not science versus faith. This is one person who seems to be forwarding the claims of one group of scientists as if they did not occur in the context of work by many, many more scientists (in the sense of wissenschaft) in other fields. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Two other things. I asked for citations for works by the other archeologists, especially if we are to use them as sources/authorities. I did not ask for another citation for Finkelstein. Research requires us to read more than one article, however good an article it may be. Also, I would say that the paltry 11 (eleven!!) google hits proves my point about English usage. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The citations you asked for are in the references of the paper I cited—this is an encyclopedia article, not a refereed journal. And I linked you to Google News (which date limits hits); a straight Google search for "majority consensus" yields over 41 thousand hits.
  • I'd suggest that the major information go into the Biblical archeology article. This Bible article would have a brief (one-paragraph) summary with a {{main|Biblical archaeology}} link for major information. I'd also suggest lowering the tone somewhat, including reporting Finkelstein's view as Finkelstein's view rather than as fact, indicating his degree of support in a way that sticks close to the sources, and describint things in a relatively low-key manner. ("According to archaeologist Israel Finkelstein, archaeologists have been consistently unable, in decades of searches and excavations, to find evidence of large-scale habitation, structures, and culture that would have been needed to support a major Exodus-type migration, Jerusalem as the capital of a substantial monarchy, and other key elements described in the Biblical narratives as occurring in the 10th centure BCE or before. Professor Finkelstein indicated that archaeologists have been unable to find evidence of substantial Israelite cities or culture prior to about the 8th century BCE. Accordingly, Finkelstein concluded that the archaeological evidence is inconsistent with these narratives having occurred and that the best reading of the evidence is that they did not. Finkelstein's view has been supported by archaeologists including William Dever..."). Note that to give Finkelstein consensus status or similar, there at the very least needs to be a third-party source who says he has this level of support. In many areas where there is disagreement between academics and theologians (e.g. Creation-evolution controversy), sources stating that a certain view is the consensus view within the academic world are pretty easy to come by. With consensus status as with anything else, if we're unable to find evidence we'd expect to find if a proposition were true, it may mean the proposition isn't. Since that's the very point at issue, it's not unreasonable to insist on it here. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 17:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Shirahadasha, thanks for the suggestions. Many of these will be useful. As for "describing things in a relatively low-key manner," I have described them in precisely the terms used by the authorities, which is what the fair representation in WP:NPOV demands. Also, your text suggests that this is mostly Finkelstein (using the to-be-avoided passive voice), whereas the WP:RS I've provided shown that these conclusions are widely accepted. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Shirahadasha, I've implemented a version of this that incorporates most, if not all, your helpful suggestions. I made sure to say that these are the conclusions of the cited archaeologists, which isn't as clear as it should be in the my proposed text above, so I modified this as well. Please see the page. Thanks again. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Écrasez, The statement should just be the facts. Going into which archaeologist says this or that is over qualitification of the facts when the sources themselves should make this clear. Also, use of the word "extensive" in this context is POV. There is no other way to look at this. It is opinion of research, not a statement of fact about it. The section needs more trimming and clarity. I will cut overqualifications and keep the language NPOV. --Fcsuper (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


OK, it's cleaner, more readable, and is fairly NPOV now. I like the fact the information has been included. I do feel this is way too much discussion about it, though. This was a fairly simply matter. I'd like more input on the introduction paragraphs, as I feel these are in much worse shape (see top section of this page). --Fcsuper (talk) 23:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it's a lot tighter now. Let me read and digest the lead comments you refer to and I'll attempt a contribution when I feel the inspiration. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Écrasez, I removed one of your sources on the grounds that it is nothing more than an exercise in head counting which is irrelevant to the topic anyway. However, I would like you to insert the titles of the works which myself and the other two editors who went after me have left behind. If you don't, one might claim that these sources are ambiguous, therefore invalid. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This debate is obviously relevant: it appears to have a not insignificant impact on Dever. It's an appropriate and relevant citation ans should stay. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Then it is in the article about Dever that this statement should go. You gave no one any reason here to include it anywhere else. Please ask for consensus before you add it again. As for monotheism, anyone with any knowledge of the Bible will tell you it is a no-brainer why no evidence of monotheism can be found for pre-Exilic times. Therefore, no sources are required. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 00:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me put it this way: any mention of Dever's (or anyone else's) motivations is POV in this article by its very nature. WP:RELEVANCE, WP:ROC. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 01:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Deletion of Sourced WP:NPOV Archaeological Conclusions, Dating of Monotheism

I'd like to avoid an edit war about this, so I've requested this RfC. Blanchardb is deleting WP:NPOV reliable source facts from the Bible. See these links for Blanchardb (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki):

  1. link
  2. link
  3. link
  4. link
  5. link

This user has already been warned about "willy nilly" deletions by the admin Shirahadasha before on this talk page here. We've also discussed this issue at length on this talk page; Blanchardb is deleting text from a WP:CONSENSUS discussion based on inputs from me, Fcsuper, and Shirahadasha. For the last deletion, see here. The deleted text says:

[Also unsupported are the accounts of the land being passed on to the 12 tribes of Israel, and David's and Solomon's conquests] and vast empire. Of particular note is that the archaeological evidence indicates that Jewish monotheism appeared in the waning period of the monarchy and not at Mount Sinai. … Accordingly, many archaeologists have concluded that the evidence is inconsistent with the Biblical narratives having occurred and that the best reading of the evidence is that they did not.[3][1][4]

as well as a reference that says:

Other archaeologists who have published scholarly journal articles supporting these conclusions are cited in Finkelstein & Silberman 2002, pp. 66–68 harvnb error: multiple targets (7×): CITEREFFinkelsteinSilberman2002 (help): Lily Avitz-Singer, Alexander Fantalkin, Norma Franklin, Ayelet Gilboa, Axel Knauf, Stefan Munger, Nadav Na’aman, Michael Niemann, Tali Ornan, Benjamin Sass, Ilan Sharon, Christoph Uehlinger, David Ussishkin, John Woodhead, Orna Zimhoni, which Israel Finkelstein argues represents a majority.

These verifiable facts are all cited with the references:

  1. Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (2001), [[The Bible Unearthed|The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts]], New York: Simon and Schuster, ISBN 0743223381 {{citation}}: URL–wikilink conflict (help).
  2. Herzog, Ze'ev (October 29, 1999), Deconstructing the walls of Jericho, Ha'aretz{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link).
  3. Finkelstein, Israel; Silberman, Neil Asher (August 2002). "Review: "The Bible Unearthed": A Rejoinder". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. 327: 63–73.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  4. Dever, William G. (2007). "Losing Faith: Who Did and Who Didn't, How Scholarship Affects Scholars" (PDF). Biblical Archaeology Review. 33 (2): 54. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Blanchardb has offered no reasons consistent with Wikipedia policy for deleting these facts. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 02:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

As per comments on this Talk page, I have moved much of the discussion (with minor edits) to the Biblical Archaeology page where it belongs. Since the page is fully referenced as a Main Article, only a brief overview of the suject is appropriate on the broader Bible page. Rlsheehan (talk) 03:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I must say, I don't understand why it needs to be included here in so much details, it is already discussed on Biblical Archaeology.
And in any case, it should not be included until the requested Rfc is over, not the other way around. FFMG (talk) 12:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The article already states,
The documentary hypothesis is important in the field of biblical studies not only because it claims that the Torah was written by different people at different times—generally long after the events it describes—[36] but it also proposed what was at the time a radically new way of reading the Bible. Many proponents of the documentary hypothesis view the Bible more as a body of literature than a work of history, believing that the historical value of the text lies not in its account of the events that it describes, but in what critics can infer about the times in which the authors lived (as critics may read Hamlet to learn about seventeenth-century England, but will not read it to learn about seventh-century Denmark).
Isn't it enough simply to say that recent archeological research has only confirmed this view (Shirahadasha crafted quite a fine, concise statement I have no problem with) and leave all the details about debates among archeologists and the specifics about their findings for articles on, well, archeology? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
The statement that Shirahadasha crafted, are you referring to what was in his post of 17:17 on the 25th? (Just so I can be clear). If so, it seems like we using that for the archaeology section of this article would essentially mean that we have the views of one archaelogist, Finkelstein, presented. That doesn't particularly make sense to me. Rather than focusing on the views of on archaelogist, we should give a broad overview of what the (biblical) archaeological community as a whole thinks about things. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, 17:17 25th - I liked Shirahadasha's statement. Sure it applies to one archeologist but a very notable one and one whos eviews have great support. But to be clear I meant to say I support two things, and perhaps thre: First, what IU just said above, a smal edit in the Documentary Hypothesis section about archeological research confirming the broad eloements of the critical approcah. I think it would be good to have a brief statemtnt about what the majority of archeologists believe, and then the specific version by Shirahadaha. I think most archeologists are fare closer to Finkelstein than to the viw that the Hexateuch at least is a historically reliable document. I just think there are straightforwaard ways we can say that archeological research largely supports an existing POV. And then use th actual archeology articles to explore the debates among archeologists in detail, including el-Haj's book on the politics of archeology in Israel. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
This discussion suggests high interest in biblical archeology. The appropriate place for this improvement is the article on Biblical Archeology (I agree that it needs improvement). This Bible article should only have an overview of what biblical archeology is without getting into specific issues. Rlsheehan (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, this article should only have a brief overview of biblical archeology and let readers go to the main article on that subject for discussions and possible conclusions. The Nomadist Theory should be moved to Biblical Archeology or perhaps Jewish history. It also needs bo have some balance for a NPOV. Let's not ride the RfC too much longer. Rlsheehan (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the question being asked is whether this article should contain information about Biblical archaelogy, particularly those viewpoints that tend to challenge the literal accuracy of the history. The article as a whole seems pretty good to me. It seems to me that any reasonable article on the Bible needs to have at least summaries of the types of investigation that have been done on it, both literary and historical. The current text is fine, as far as it goes. I'm not sufficiently current on the research to be clear whether there are more recent approaches that should be included, but I suspect so. I think there should be at least a summary of the archaeological issues, including characterizations of the minimalist position and others. Surely people reading the article should know that there has been a lot of work on archaelogy, which can have a major impact on our assessment of the historical sections. It's quite in keeping with Wikipedia style to have brief summarizes of material presented in more detail in other articles. Hedrick (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This section has several problems. First, it presents some selective expert opinions which are not necessarily the consensus of all biblical archaeologists. This is a very conrtoversial topic with a broad range of positions. To correct this present NPOV problem, proper balance must be presented. Second, the discussion of this does not belong here in the article on the Bible. It could be in The Bible and history, Biblical Archeology or perhaps Jewish history. Rlsheehan (talk) 19:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I intervened to attempt to avert an edit war, not becaused I endorsed a particular approach to organizing the articles. It would be fine if there were only a summary in this article per WP:SUMMARY, so long as this is agreed to. The difficulty with presenting a "consensus view" is that there are various disputes involved, and there is some danger of declaring a consenus prematurely. In these circumstances, we need sources to support a claim of a consensus view on disputed matters. In the absence of such sources, I don't think it's a bad idea to cite well-known exponents of the different views. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 09:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I've already written what I believe to be the "consensus view" just after Écrasez l'Infâme got blocked for - you guessed it - edit warring. From his talk page alone, I figured that guy was an edit war waiting to happen, and you did the best you could. (By the way, he has not edited since his block expired.) I also pointed out the inadequacy of the section on archaeology in general in another thread further down.
However, if Finkelstein's view is deemed to be a minority opinion, please feel free to delete all of my work. I want to see this article become a Featured Article, not a propaganda tool. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Some good is coming out of this situation

Regardless of how one feels about Écrasez's position with regard to biblical archaeology, the fact remains that the status quo on archaeology is unacceptable. The article mentions practically nothing about post-exilic archaeology, which is a major flaw, even for an article that is supposed to give only an overview. For example, there is nothing on the Dead Sea Scrolls, nothing about the Intertestamentary period, nothing about the thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament (yest, that falls under archaeology's field of expertise), etc. I feel that the status quo is just as unacceptable as Écrasez's edits. Correcting this flaw should be a priority in the coming weeks. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Write it out

Could we all donate a few verses so we could write out the entire Bible? --Marshall T. Williams (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Not here. If that belongs anywhere, it's Wikisource. —C.Fred (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it is against policy to do that sort of thing here. As C.Fred stated, you can do it in Wikisource, which exists for that very purpose. It would only be a matter of copying and pasting material from a copyright-free translation of the Bible (such as the KJV). -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 18:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikisource?. What is that?.--SkyWalker (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Origins....

I have been doing a lot of reading, however I have not been able to find out a couple things about the Bible. Maybe one of you out there in the virtual world can point me in the right direction.

Who gathered all of the books of the Bible together?

Who did the editing?

Who decided in what order that the Bible would be bound in?

What date was the Bible introduced as the Bible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rklhughes (talk • contribs) 16:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Start with the articles Documentary hypothesis and Biblical canon and after you have read them follow links to related or more specificic articles, Slrubenstein | Talk 23:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I figured the best place to respond was your talk page. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Some very good, relatively new, historical research literature

  • Bruce J. Malina: Windows on the World of Jesus: Time Travel to Ancient Judea. Westminster John Knox Press: Louisville (Kentucky) 1993
  • Bruce J. Malina: The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. 3rd edition, Westminster John Knox Press Louisville (Kentucky) 2001
  • E. P. Sanders: The Historical Figure of Jesus Penguin (Non-Classics) 1996
  • Ekkehard W. Stegemann and Wolfgang Stegemann: The Jesus Movement: A Social History of Its First Century. Augsburg Fortress Publishers: Minneapolis 1999, new ed. (paperback) 2001
  • Wolfgang Stegemann, Bruce J. Malina, and Gerd Theissen: The Social Setting of Jesus and the Gospels Augsburg Fortress Publishers: Minneapolis 2002 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.20.24 (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)



Nomadist Theory

As stated previously, the section on Nomadist Theory does not really belong here in the Bible. It presents new material which has a much better fit with The Bible and history, Biblical Archeology, Jewish history or History of Ancient Israel and Judah. It also has a POV problem which needs to be balanced. It relates to the ongoing debate of minimalist vs maximist theories. I plan to move it to an appropriate article for further discussion: I suggest Bibleical Archeology. I agree that it should not be removed from Wikipedia, just placed in the right place with POV balanced. Rlsheehan (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's move it to the proper article and worry about POV later. Also, let's pray that our friend Écrasez l'Infâme will not object to this consensus. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The material seems to me entirely on topic, and should stay. We don't do WP:POVFORKs here. Each article is supposed to be POV-balanced and comprehensive in its own right. The question of how far Biblical narrative may reflect historical reality surely deserves the 10 lines it currently gets in this article. Jheald (talk) 08:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
No one mentioned anything about POV forking here. Biblical archaeology is a topic so vast that it should have an article of its own, and discussing biblical archaeology is not the same as discussing the Bible itself, so this is more a matter of WP:ROC. When we move POV-biased text per WP:ROC from one article to another, it will remain just as biased in its new home and must be worked on all the same. And nothing stops us from working on it at its new location.
Now I agree that biblical archaeology should be mentioned in this article, but I'd rather have nothing than the current text that concentrates on one particular aspect of biblical archaeology. But the text we do have should be part of the article on archaeology, where it is very relevant. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I have doubts about the whole section. Only one sentence relates to the title of the subsection, and the rest is very poorly written and the accurate parts of it duplicate material elsewhere in this article and developed more fully in other articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

This section has been moved to biblical archaeology for a better fit. Editors can address POV problems and other improvements at that location. Rlsheehan (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Since: (1) it seems to me that an article on a book which, at least in part, purports to give a historical narrative, ought to give an overview of where research stands into that historicity; (2) this article has contained such a discussion for a considerable length of time; and (3) in Wikipedia:Summary style, it is normal to give a short summary of the content of the article linked, not just two lines saying it exists; for all these reasons I'm substantially restoring the section (minus the subheading "nomadist theory", which is the one thing I think does not fit).
The two paragraphs seem to me to give a fairly accurate snapshot of the archaeological picture, though one could argue that the words "so far" in "Archaeological evidence has so far failed to support..." might be tendentious. Jheald (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This material has been included for a while because a request for comment essentially locked it while active discussion took place. This section is controversial and includes material not discussed on the referenced articles. If this section stays, it must correct a serious POV problem with some balance and further discussion. Rlsheehan (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

????

Who discovered the original bible and when? And if anybody knows, Where is the ORIGINAL bible? mÆniac Ask! 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

If you read the article, you will learn that there is no such thing as an original Bible, though there were originals of the 66 books that compose it (duh!). Those are lost, and, in all likelihood, destroyed. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 10:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, obviously, what I said above for the 66 "universally recognized" canonical books goes for the 7 Roman Catholic deuterocanonicals as well. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
There are only 5 universally recognised books - the Samaritans accept only the Torah. PiCo (talk) 08:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
So? NPOV is interested in multiple points of view, not lowest common denomenators. The Samaritans and Jews have different Bibles. That some books are in common does not make those books more interesting except perhaps to a historian of religion - and that may be a notable POV but it is just one among many. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction paragraph again...too much repeating

The second and third paragraphs of the introducion are explanatory (redundant) to the first paragraph and redundant to the body of the article. They should be removed to simply the intro and/or make room for a scientific or secular consideration of the bible. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 14:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reorganized the first three paragraphs into two, eliminating said repetition. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

why is this article locked? 59.92.187.96 (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Because of too much unconstructive editing by people trying to push an either pro- or anti-Christian agenda. But it is locked only to unregistered users. If you create an account for yourself, you will be able to edit the article. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 17:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Right now, it's locked out to reg users like me. Anyway, the intro is still not good. The intro is still trying too hard to be its own article. It goes into nuances of bible structure and doesn't really cover what is discussed in the article itself. All references to differences of the bible can be summed up with the simple sentence that already appears in the first paragraph. References specific Jewish and Christian traditions need only one further sentence each. The structure of the bible is covered quiet well by the body of the article and does not need to be rewritten in the intro. This will make room to cover other areas actually discussed in the article! — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 00:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

An intorduction should introduce the whole article. That is what this intro does. Someone can read just the intro - and it is short, just three paragraphs - and get all the most important points of the article. That is a damn good introduction! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a horrible introduction. It doesn't do what you say it does. It does not describe the article. It goes off on a tangent about one particular point (types of bibles) and it does so in a rather messy way, meandering from one type to another. All of that can be summed up in one sentence, which is already there, "The exact composition of the Bible is dependent on the religious traditions of specific denominations." All the other text about composition after that is superfluous. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 21:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

How about adding "Bible" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). 1911.? --Gister (talk) 16:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Hebrew book titles come from the first words in the respective texts.

breshit is first word of genesis. But shemot is second word of exodus. vayikra is first word of leviticus. bemidbar is fifth word of numbers. devarim is most of the second word of deuteronomy, because the actual second word is ha-devarim -- "the numbers".

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible

Very useful, and a unique link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matheuslacerdaf (talk • contribs) 19:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia is not a directory. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


I'd support links that provide access to many versions of the bible, but no more individual bible sources. — fcsuper (How's That?, That's How!) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 21:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Deuterocanonical Books (Apocrypha) being 'included' in some faiths? Should this not be 'excluded' in some faiths?

Here is the original sentence "Some groups within Christianity include additional books as part one or both of these sections of their sacred writings – most prominent among which are the biblical apocrypha or deuterocanonical books."''''

This may be splitting hairs here, but the Catholic church is the basis upon which Christianity is built. That is fact. It seems to me that the line should read that 'some faiths EXCLUDE some books in their faith'

Sorry but it seems to imply that Catholics are adding things to the bible when in fact it is Protestants and Evangelicals who are excluding books from the original bible.

I'm not looking to start a 'Catholic is better than Protestant than Evangelical' argument here as it is futile and not important to this discussion, but it is simple fact that Catholicism was first in Christianity and therefore any alterations to what is included or not included in a Christian bible must be measured from the version Catholics use as it was the original Christian bible used by the first organized practicing Christians.

Manny75586 (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. The original Bible contained neither Deuterocanonical books nor the Christian Testament. Which version came first in Christianity is not relevant to which version of the Bible was first. -LisaLiel (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
One compromise would be to say "Protestants excluded .... from the Christian canon." This would be accurate since you are specifying who and are providing a frame of reference. Otherwise, I would agree with Lisa: the canonization of the Bible started as a process of deciding what to include, or one could write about debates over whet to include or exclude, but it is not like there was a thing everyone agreed on called "the Bible" and then books were taken out of it; there were all these books circulating and a process arose by which some were selected for inclusion in a new thing, "the Bible." Slrubenstein | Talk 18:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Given that the Catholics put the Deuterocanonicals as part of the Old Testament even though no notable Jewish faction regards them as sacred, I think it would be safe and accurate to say they were added. In any case, their inclusion has always been controversial, and while Jerome included them in the Vulgate, he did so only reluctantly. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
But Catholicism is a different religion from Judaism. The Church was not adding to the Jewish canon, they were creating their own canon. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Gender and language

Hello, I changed the inclusive language link to gender-neutral language, because the former term is a redirect to [[Political correctness], which has negative connotations. I did this because I felt that those connotations should be avoided to maintain a neutral point of view. I know it's a touchy subject. I'm also aware that there are differences between translations like the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version or the New International Version and Today's New International Version, but I have not looked deeply into the matter. LovesMacs (talk) 05:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Psalms or Psalm

I couldnt figure out how to edit it. so maybe someone else will know how. please just change the title for the book of Psalm (the correct spelling) from Psalms. there is no "s" on the end of the title.

thank you today is the 12th day of the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mexico Smith (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Although I don't speak Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic, I did consult 4 different Bible translations (King James Bible, New International Version, New American Bible, Revised Standard Version) to confirm that in English, this book is traditionally called the Book of Psalms, and sometimes referred to as the Psalter. Each division in the book is called a psalm (for example, Psalm 23). LovesMacs (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
It is even plural in the original. Mexico Smith is just uninformed. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The oral torah

"According to some Jews during the Hellenistic period, such as the Sadducees only a minimal oral tradition of interpreting the words of the Torah existed, which did not extend into extended biblical interpretation. They argued against the Rabbis in mostly legal matters, threatening the very existence of Judaism."

The first sentence in this paragraph doesn't make much sense. Is it "according to some Jews in the..." or "according to some, Jews in the...". It's very unclear as currently written - perhaps there should be a comma after Sadducees?gearoidmm (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Good point. It is according to some (as opposed to all) Jews. And these were Jews living during (or in) the Hellenistic period. Does this make things clearer? If so, edit as you see fit! "Threatening the very existence of Judaism is an unsourced editorial comment that can go. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20
  1. ^ a b c d e Cite error: The named reference Herzog was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b c d Cite error: The named reference Finkelstein was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Finkelstein2001 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference Dever2007 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bible/Archive_13&oldid=1144080410"