Talk:Biblical canon
Latest comment: 1 month ago by 2600:8802:5501:47E0:6D72:59F8:286B:194 in topic Resources for this article very limited
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biblical canon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/Polemics at the Reference desk. |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text and/or other creative content from Luther's canon was copied or moved into Biblical canon with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Old Testament Chart??
editWhat the hell happened to the Old Testament chart that showed the difference of canon between the various churches under different denominations? Now all is left is the tewahedo canon and Roman Catholic canon? 142.181.49.145 (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- As far as I'm aware, the other denominations were removed for being "unsourced", however I think adding sources would be a better course of action than deleting hours of information gathering and replacing it with two canons that no almost one is comparing. WikiWilliard (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- If necessary, go to the Development of the New Testament canon and Development of the Old Testament canon for surviving tables, though the information is slightly different. WikiWilliard (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I think adding sources would be a better course of action
: feel free to add sourced information (WP:BURDEN).than deleting hours of information
: WP:CHEWINGGUM. Veverve (talk) 05:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)- Although I understand the that this is perhaps not how you view it, having a simple marker that a section is unsourced is better than making an entire section almost entirely useless, but sourced. Casual readers may not care that information is unsourced, however readers who might are capable of finding sources, and perhaps adding to the article. Most Wikipedia articles are largely unsourced, or have unsourced sections, that doesn't mean they need to be deleted altogether; just that sources should be added in the foreseeable future. Adding sources for this, I daresay, would be easier if the information was already there. Rather than someone less familiar with Wikipedia's editing software having to create a new row, they could instead read a how-to and add easy-to-find sources such as the NIV Bible or the NRSV. WikiWilliard (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Casual readers may not care that information is unsourced
: but one of WP's pilar is WP:V, and we must follow WP's guidelines on what an encyclopedia is. As for the rest, if people could source information like those, I dare to think they would have done it during the years this unsourced content was present on WP articles. See also User:Edward-Woodrow/Unsourced content should be deleted. Veverve (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- Although I understand the that this is perhaps not how you view it, having a simple marker that a section is unsourced is better than making an entire section almost entirely useless, but sourced. Casual readers may not care that information is unsourced, however readers who might are capable of finding sources, and perhaps adding to the article. Most Wikipedia articles are largely unsourced, or have unsourced sections, that doesn't mean they need to be deleted altogether; just that sources should be added in the foreseeable future. Adding sources for this, I daresay, would be easier if the information was already there. Rather than someone less familiar with Wikipedia's editing software having to create a new row, they could instead read a how-to and add easy-to-find sources such as the NIV Bible or the NRSV. WikiWilliard (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
- See #The two tables are mostly unsourced. Veverve (talk) 05:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
- https://web.archive.org/web/20230903221749/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/biblical_canon is the most up-to-date version of the page before the tables were removed (9/3/23) WikiWilliard (talk) 03:12, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks wikiWilliard for the archived link. I use that chart constantly. Veverve, that deletion is criminal. The answer is to add citations, not delete good information. Had I known someone like you would make such a change I would have put in some hours to cite things. But as it stands, I don't have the coding aptitude to undo it. 74.193.27.97 (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I use that chart constantly
: if you are using unsourced information from Wikipedia, this is your choice.that deletion is criminal
: this is veering very close to a WP:PA, please stop at once. This deletion was furthermore perfectly legitimate, see WP:BURDEN.I would have put in some hours to cite things. But as it stands, I don't have the coding aptitude to undo it
: see Help:Referencing for beginners if you want to try yourself at the task. Veverve (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)- This is not WP:PA, it was not a personal attack. The statement was criticizing your edit, not you personally. Stating the username of the single account responsible for the edit is not a personal attack. WikiWilliard (talk) 18:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you so much for this! I've been hoping there was an archived version ever since the edit was made. The deletion made me very sad and removed a number of things that I used on almost a daily basis. 166.181.81.73 (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks wikiWilliard for the archived link. I use that chart constantly. Veverve, that deletion is criminal. The answer is to add citations, not delete good information. Had I known someone like you would make such a change I would have put in some hours to cite things. But as it stands, I don't have the coding aptitude to undo it. 74.193.27.97 (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Books of Enoch in the chart
editIt seems that all 3 Books of Enoch are listed as canon for the Ethiopian Orthodox bible but from as far as I can tell, only the first book of Enoch is canon. Should 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch be removed or is there a source I am missing that claims that the latter 2 books are canon. As well, there are question marks next to both books with no citation, so it just leaves the chart in a very weird spot. Bus1226 (talk) 18:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
- To my knowledge, 2 and 3 Enoch only survive in Old Slavonic and Hebrew, respectively. This makes their inclusion in Ethiopian canon extremely unlikely. 91.189.246.31 (talk) 22:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe you two are right.Rafaelosornio (talk) 23:19, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
missing notes
edit@Myfishes: your recent edit has left the article with three undefined footnote errors for the names "Luther", "GrOrthodox", and "Sheba". Are you able to resolve these? -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
Old Testament Protestant column proposed change to Apocrypha books.
editUnder the Protestant column of the Old Testament canon the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books say "No − inc. in some mss. (Apocrypha) or No − inc. in RSV and NRSV (Apocrypha)" This seems a bit unnecessarily wordy for a simple field name. Why not just us "No (Apocrypha)" with a tagged note description something like the following.
"This book may be included in some of the modern published popular Protestant Bibles like the: CEB, ESV, KJV, MSG, NLT, NEB, NRSV, REB, and RSV publications as (Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books) or included in CE (Catholic Edition) versions of these Bibles."
This seems like it would be cleaner and more informative. I made the change to the table. I hope it is well received.
Russell Rucadulu (talk) 17:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Resources for this article very limited
editThis essay relies heavily on a single, questionable source. A number factual errors—“the Samaritan alphabet,” there is no such thing. The pre-exilic, Phoenician alphabet was a shared script among the residents of Syria-Palestine. Article is skewed and inaccurate in many places. The author cites the Anchor Bible Dictionary (a multi-volume source) without naming author or article. 2600:8802:5501:47E0:6D72:59F8:286B:194 (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)