Template talk:Books of the Bible

Structure [ edit ]

Credit is due to User:Koavf for pulling a lot of info together here.

However, I strongly dislike the mixing of the main canons with pseudepigraphia, including OT apocrypha alongside the heading Hebrew Bible, and expect that others will agree with me.

Also, can we have show/hide buttons for the sections after the canon, hiding them by default? - Fayenatic (talk) 09:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure I included every book that is considered canonical by some tradition, including certain books that constitute an Old Testament or an Apocrypha for some traditions. Needless to say, a number of these are not included in the Hebrew Bible, which is why I included both names to that collective set of ancient literature. While some of the works are pseudepigraphal, they were or are all considered canonical by some mainstream denominational family or church, so I didn't arbitrarily mix in the Gospel of Thomas with Exodus, for instance. I personally don't care if you want to include some [collapse]/[show] data for the canon(s); I guess that makes sense. I'm glad that you like it in the main, even if you have beefs. Let me know here or on my talk if you have more to say. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 09:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

A couple of issues here:

  • I appreciate that work went into this, but does WP need another Bible template at all, given that there are already OT and NT templates, as well as a general sidebar in Bible?
  • I too don't like the way the template is arranged, with canonical + non-canonical books mixed, and some very marginal topics included (e.g. Octateuch).

Peter Ballard (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This template is extremely problematic and redundant. It's problematic because it says things like the Didache are in the New Testament. It's problematic because it is very POV. Do we put this template on articles about old testament books? But then would we need to create a conflicting template for the Jewish Books of the Bible and then not only have the OT template at the top of the article, but then the Christian and Jewish templates filling the bottom? That's overkill. Perhaps this template could work if it was made in a manner that encompassed all POVs, but right now it isn't at that point. My preference is just to not even attempt such an all encompassing template and leave things as they are. But if other users want to try to fix this template, good luck to them. But as of right now, I do not believe it is ready to go live in articles, and I have removed it for now. Thanks.-Andrew c [talk] 16:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Non-canonical and POV Peter, as I've tried to explain above, there are no "non-canonical" books on this list, because all of them are considered canonical by some group. Since there is no single, definitive canon, I included them all. This leads to Andrew's assertion of POV, which I honestly don't understand. I included all of the various canons precisely in order to avoid POV in the template; that was the whole point. I don't see why it would be necessary to have separate templates for Jewish and Christian canons anymore than we would need templates for Catholic, Protestant, Ethiopian, etc. canons. They are all different traditions with different canons, and collapsing them is a legitimate (and reasonable) approach. See, for instance, the article Bible, which is not about the Hebrew Bible exclusively, nor the New Testament and Christian collation of the Old Testament either; it is about the various traditions (broadly termed Christian as well as Jewish.) It is a useful template, I think and consistent with other such series of articles and it has utility in navigating the topic. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, look at nearly any reliable source on the Bible - whether (theologically) conservative, liberal or skeptical - and you won't find the likes of Shepherd of Hermas in the canon. Yes Hermas is interesting to people studying the evolution of the canon, but the canon is a very small portion of Biblical studies. Putting the likes of Hermas alongside the canonical books is definitely a case of undue weight, except in an article specifically discussing the NT canon. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Canon Excerpted from New Testament apocrypha
"...These are not accepted as canonical by most mainstream Christian denominations; only the Ethiopian Orthodox Church recognizes the Shepherd of Hermas, 1 Clement, Acts of Paul..."
From Apocrypha
"...The Ethiopian Orthodox have in the past also included I & II Clement, and Shepherd of Hermas in their New Testament canon. This is no longer the case, according to Biblical scholar R.W. Cowley..."
Consequently, since it is/has been canonical, I included it. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The template needs further division. At least add Apocrypha, New Testament Apocrypha, and Pseudepigrapha. The Didache hasn't been in anyone's canon for milennia. As much as I like navigation... who is the intended user?Tim (talk) 11:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Division If you have some way of dividing this, I would be happy to see it. I tried to do the same, but it was virtually impossible. As for Didache, from that article "...with the exception of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church 'broader canon'." The intended user is, I suppose, anyone wanting to navigate all of these topics. I didn't have a particular audience in mind other than myself and anyone like-minded in wanting all these pages accessible from any one of them. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The mixing of canonical books w/ non-canonical books can cause confusion it is best to simply split it up into seperate templates--Java7837 (talk) 04:19, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Non-canonical As I've tried to explain, there are no non-canonical books on this template. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Judaism vs Christianity [ edit ]

Kindly keep this template as a reflection of a Christian POV. It would be a fallacy for it to convey Judaism's POV side by side with Christianity's since Judaism opposes the Christian view that there can be a "new testament" because there is no such possibility or phenomenon in Judaism. Judaism regards the notion of any "New Testament" as heretical and blasphemous. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

POV? Again, the very reason that I included the term "Hebrew Bible" and referenced the Oral Torah were to keep the template NPOV. It is POV to take out an article like Development of the Jewish canon because that asserts that the development of the Jewish canon is somehow non-Christian. Deleting them makes the template POV to the Christian point-of-view (whatever that is) and, of course, ignores movements like Hebrew Christianity and Messianic Judaism, which don't see a stark division between the two. Furthermore, it ignores the approach of the article Bible itself, which includes the development of both traditions. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Koav: Your mere statement that "Again, the very reason that I included the term "Hebrew Bible" and referenced the Oral Torah were to keep the template NPOV" (as an example) goes against WP:NOR because you cannot take it upon yourself to create on Wikipedia what does not exist in the real world. For heaven's sake, it is so basic that Christianity totally rejects Judaism's Oral Torah and that Judaism likewise totally rejects Christianity's New Testament, so that to create a template that somehow creates an impression that there is a "agreement" on this would be a total falsehood not conveying anything except your OR views. IZAK (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Original research Then would you claim that the articles Bible, Books of the Bible, and Biblical canon are inherently original research as well? This template essentially reproduces that material in a navigational form, and the version to which you are reverting it makes it be a POV template; namely, a Christian POV template. It is neither reasonable nor desirable (nor possible) to utterly separate Jewish and Christian canon, history, theology, etc. Nor is it necessary to subsume one to the other. I think that other commentators will agree that it is not the case that I am attempting to "blend" the two traditions, merely represent them as they represent themselves, and in so doing create an NPOV template. Furthermore, it is not the case that Christians unilaterally nor necessarily reject the Oral Torah (e.g. John Howard Yoder, or Ancient Hebrew Poetry, etc.) For that matter, it is neither unilaterally nor necessarily Jewish to "totally reject" the New Testament (e.g. Martin Buber.) Consequently, I think your argument is weaker than mine and your edits create a POV situation that otherwise does not exist. While the template is going through RfC, I would prefer to leave it as it was made so the RfC is relevant. If you revert the template, the comments on RfC do not refer to what is actually the case on Wikipedia. According to this comment and the one below, you apparently think that I am trying to represent my own religious views on this template - this is an understandable position, but one that is ultimately in error. If you would like to discuss my own personal convictions, you can feel free to do so on my talk page or through private correspondence, but, as I have tried to explain, I am providing the views of a variety of faith traditions on their own terms, rather than my own. It would be impossible to believe the claims of all of these traditions, as they are contradictory (e.g. I cannot believe that the additions to Daniel are canonical, deuterocanical and non-canonical simultaneously.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The theologians and ideas you cite do not represent normative Judaism. Buber is not a spokeman for Judaism. He was neither a rabbi nor is he acknowldged as an authority on Judaism by classical mainstream Juidaic scholars. It would be like quoting the disrobed Hans Küng as an authority on normative Catholicism. Indeed, the Bible, Books of the Bible, and Biblical canon articles mostly speak from a Christian POV, the classical Judaic view is far from represented there. Judaism does not even accept the notion or name of "Bible" as it calls it the Torah with its own {{Books of Torah}} template, and "Books of the Bible" are known as the Tanakh having the {{Books of Nevi'im}} and {{Books of Ketuvim}} templates so that your efforts muddies the clarity of these templates, and the notion and word "Canon" is entirely Christian. There are other great Judaic templates, such as the {{Rabbinical Literature}} template and I would hate to see any of them crushed by or into and conjoined with this garish template. Finally, the {{Books of the Old Testament}} has managed to convey whatever basic "commonality" there exists between the Hebrew and Christian Bibles and while the {{BibleRelated}} template is problematic and needs some sorting out, it is more focused than yours. So your attempt crosses the line of WP:NOR by throwing in controversial and non-traditional POV's about how "Midrashim" can co-exist with Christian Gospels which is just sheer nonsense from a historical, theological and rational perspective. IZAK (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Spokesmen Buber was, in fact, quite a spokesman for Judaism. I honestly have no idea how you can claim otherwise. While it is true that he was not a rabbi, Mordechai Kaplan and Meir Kahane were, and they have very little overlap with one another; Buber has more to do with mainstream Jewish thought than they do. For that matter, Kung is, in fact, an authority on Catholicism by virtue of his scholarship, just as he is on Judaism and Islam. I would be happy to expand the Jewish perspective on the articles mentioned, but your response doesn't really address what I raised in the first place: as long as those articles are about that topic, so should the template {{Books of the Bible}} have the same scope. While it is true that Jews in Jewish audiences call their holy Scripture Tanakh or Torah, it is not unprecedented to call it the Bible, especially when speaking to non-Jewish audiences. In point of fact, you used that phrase yourself ("Hebrew and Christian Bibles.") It is not "un-Jewish" to call it the Bible, nor is it inconsistent with Judaism. The notion of canon is obviously not entirely Christian, as there is a Jewish canon and articles about just that. Again, I have no idea how you can honestly make that claim. In point of fact, the way that you use sarcasm quotes for the very word commonality between the Old Testament and Tanakh belies a gross POV of your own. To any disinterested their party there is an obvious and objective commonality between the two even if they aren't identical. The other templates you mention are very fine and serve their purposes well; this one does not infringe upon their use in any way. Your position is increasingly incoherent.

Request for Comment? [ edit ]

Should I? Do you think there should be a request for comment to get some feedback on what to do with this template? It seems better than chopping it apart or deleting it outright. Of course, I put some effort into this and I think it has some utility, so I think it can be used (either as-is or with modification.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 20:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I did As you can see below. I excluded any style discussions, as I assume that those can be easily discussed and changed per consensus. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comment [ edit ]

There is a dispute about the scope of this template: should it include Christian and Jewish canonical traditions together or not? Does this constitute a problem of POV or original research? There are also style issues and smaller controversies that can probably be resolved easily. 21:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The two together Just like how the articles Bible, books of the Bible, and Biblical canon include both traditions, so should this template. The template includes all traditions' canons precisely so it will not be POV; to restrict it to Christians only would make it POV (and inherently more problematic, really, as there is no single Christian canon.) Leaving it ambiguous as to what actually constitutes the "Bible" allows the reader to decide for himself and understand the development of the various canons. This is also not original research anymore than a "Books of Tom Clancy" or "James Bond films" template constitutes "original research;" this is simply a listing that is already available on a variety of articles (most of them linked earlier in this post) and which are themselves sourced. While I appreciate the concerns of my detractors, the template as it stands is NPOV and useful for navigating a variety of interrelated topics. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:24, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Also Furthermore, claiming that the two traditions can't be presented together is itself POV against Hebrew Christians, Messianic Jews, early Christians, etc. and is inconsistent with the articles that I listed above. Again, in order to be NPOV, both traditions (assuming that there is a stark division between the two and they are themselves monolithic) must be presented. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 21:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The idea of an all-encompassing template appeals to me. Since it is indeed all-encompassing -- see the comments of the author, needless to repeat the explanation above -- I prefer it to the older template, Template:Books of the Old Testament that covers only the Jewish books and is much harder to navigate (in its oblong shape), and to which no one seems to object (not even IZAK "the deleter" who fulminates against a generally accepted term as "Old Testament") even though it lists the same books.

My suggestion would be to use the new model (improved as it might be) in stead of the "Books of the Old Testament".Dampinograaf (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

For the OT canon, I much prefer the older template, Template:Books of the Old Testament, because (i) it follows the sequence of the books as usually printed (albeit the Christian not the Jewish order); and (ii) it says who recognises each of the groups of pseudepigraphia. The main change I would like to make would be to make it (the old one) collapsible, and collapse it by default. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
OT Canon I would be happy to have both, as they serve two different - if overlapping - functions. In terms of layout, one is a sidebar and the other a footer, so the actual process of navigating and laying out the page is different. Also, this template is clearly broader in its scope, and directs the reader to a variety of sources. As far as the order goes, it is impossible to display the order in which the OT canon appears, because it is different for different church traditions (see, for instance Books of the Bible), even among Christian traditions within the same church government. If anything, I think someone could make the case that presenting it in the Protestant order is POV. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Koav: If it is a "Hebrew Christian" or "Messianic Judaism" POV that you are trying to foist through this template, which I suspected, then you are not being honest to claim that such a template is somehow representing either Christianity's or Judaism's views, because in that case it reprsents neither! There is nothing in Christianity that would accept Midrashim or the Talmudic Oral Torah as in way connected or supportive of any "Canon" and there is nothing in Judaism, or classical Judaic scholarship that gives any credence or validity to Christian gospels and texts. So to be blunt you are dreaming, which is your personal right, but you have no right to foist your personal dreams as "realities" via this template or other moves, upon Wikipedia or upon seasoned and knowledgeable Judaic editors like myself who regard such efforts as insults to logic, history, theology and the integrity of both Christianity and Judaism as unique, separate and even contradictory religions. Kindly stop your violations of WP:NOR and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. This template should probably be nominated for deletion very soon as it duplicates other better templates that do not seek to supplant accepted scholarship. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Me As I stated above, I am trying to present the views of a variety of faith communities, not my own, hence I have included to them all for 1.) the reader's benefit and 2.) NPOV. To claim that "X, Y, and Z" are the canon of the Bible would be POV, so I have presented all canons of all mainstream faiths that include the Bible as a scripture. If you would like to include some kind of Islamic point of view (as they can also be argued to include the Bible or portions thereof as divine), I would not object. Also, I should point out that Messianic Jews do not accept (for instance), Psalm 151 as canonical, so presenting the reader with a navigational template that includes it does nothing to provide the Messianic POV. All I was saying is that it is no the place of Wikipedia to exclude that POV nor the Eastern Orthodox position that Psalm 151 is canonical; let the reader evaluate that himself. As to the further allegation that I am somehow infiltrating Wikipedia for a Messianic agenda, I find that a bit offensive and inflammatory. Whether or not I am a Messianic is irrelevant and as I have argued, I am not presenting their POV exclusively or predominantly; I am presenting the views of a variety of traditions on their own terms for the reader's benefit. As for whether or not a Christian can "accept Midrashim or the Talmudic Oral Torah as in way connected or supportive of any 'Canon,'" that is simply not true as I have shown above. Of course, it is not the majority opinion in mainstream Christianity to take into account Talmud, but it is not our place to say that Christians cannot. Let the reader decide with an NPOV template that comes from a variety of perspectives. Your pointed barbs toward myself, my education, and my religious convictions are a bit frank and untrue, so please keep the discussion restricted to the content of the template rather than any conspiratorial or bad-faith assumptions about the contents of my mind. If I act in a manner that is clearly opposed to some policy, then take appropriate action. If you want to talk to me personally, you can post on my talk or correspond with me. Otherwise, it has no place here in talk. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Also Your edits to the "Name" field break the {{navbar}} functionality; please don't reinsert them. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My advice and position would be not to do what you are doing as that only adds confusion and misunderstanding by lumping all and sundry opposite and contradicatory views into one template. By all means, create separate templates for each faith if need be because there is more than enough information about each individual religion to have them exist and stand alone, but your wholesale "interfaith" "interdenominational" "Ecumenism" efforts via this template only serves to badly confuse matters. Just because Wikipedia lists all this diverse and complex information does not mean that you or anyone are "commanded" or required to mesh it all into a hodge-podge of information that creates a false and misleading picture. I am not interested in throwing anything into this mess, the goal her should be to untangle this unholy creation that you are foisting on the world in the name of a self-appointed and misguided "peace venture" between these rival and contradictory religions. IZAK (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Impossible Should we make separate articles for each faith tradition as well? In addition to being unworkable, that suggestion would be ahistorical, illogical, and not useful to the reader. All the more how they should be put together for purposes of navigation, which is the point in this template. Again, in this post you use sarcasm quotes that display your own biases and make some unfounded allegation; I did not coin the term "Bible," I did not found any particular faith tradition, and I have no vested interest in who considers which pieces of Scripture canonical. Nor do I have any agenda to create any kind of cross-faith government, organization, or movement. I am simply reporting what others have said and how they have defined their various canons themselves. In what way is this false or misleading? It would be false and misleading to state in this template that the Bible is "X, Y, and Z" when other traditions exclude X and include W. That is precisely what makes this not be false or misleading. The even more outrageous allegation that this is somehow "unholy" is actually preposterous and bad-faith, Izak. And while I'm on the topic of bad faith, your edits make me wonder if you even read what I wrote or the contents of the template itself. As I said before, changing the "name" field breaks the functionality of {{t-navbar}}; either you don't understand that (doubtful, considering how long you've edited), you don't care (which is bad faith), or you didn't even read what I wrote and blind reverted (worse faith.) Please don't take out any personal grudge you have with me on the most basic functionality of the template. Also, as I suggested, it appears that you reverting in the middle of the RfC has confused at least one reader (Coppertwig.) If you revert it in the middle of the RfC, some users are commenting on something else than others, which renders the entire discussion pointless. Lastly, I don't know if this is a matter of simple mistake, ignorance, or maliciousness, but removing pseudo-Josephus is nonsense; it is considered canonical (the "broad canon") by the Ethiopians and has never been considered canonical by Jews. Why did you remove it? This edit isn't even consistent with the intention that you've stated here and in your edit summaries. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I can see you've put much effort into this template. Unfortunately, it's extremely difficult to mix religions together because of differences over the scope and order of the canon. The other OT template is more precise w/the nuances. I don't see a way to put in the "Jewish tradition" unless it refers to a list of Hebrew Bible books alone. Then you could add in other OT canons, as does the OT vertical template. Alternatively, why not just eliminate the "Jewish and Christian traditions" cell, and call the whole template "Books of the Bible" with either implicit or explicit understanding that this is a Christian perspective template, which would be fine with me. thanks very much for your attention. HG | Talk 06:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure That makes sense - if you think it makes more sense to have either a tripartate division with HB/OT/NT, etc. or have them all listed together, I would be fine with that. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Izak. I am very concerned not only with NPOV but more fundamentally the correctness of the template (in its original jewish+christian form). It completely misrepresented Jewish theology. They fact that it distorted some other smaller groups (Messianic Jew etc) less is no consolation. As it stand now of a Christian only template, I have no comment. Jon513 (talk) 09:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Correctness? In what way does this misrepresent Jewish theology? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I am torn here. I see the usefulness of a single template that could combine all relevant parts of the Bible that are considered canonical - in the secular sense of the word - by several different religious traditions. Too many templates lead to article clutter. That being said, is the template - in the original form - too large and unwieldy? Also, if there is genuinely an effort to create a tradition-neutral template, why, for example, are other large denominations that share certain books of the Bible not present? I am thinking, in particular, of the Mormons. If you think that is ridiculous, then I submit that the template is doomed to fail, and we had better have tradition-specific templates. Relata refero (talk) 18:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Large and unwieldy It may be larger than desirable; personally, I think it's fine, but I can understand someone else thinking the opposite (especially with a smaller resolution.) For that reason, I thought it made sense to have collapsible parts and if someone wants to insert them, I would be fine with that. Your statement about Mormonism is confusing: Mormons don't have any additional pieces of Scripture they consider to constitute the Bible, and I included a link to the Standard Works precisely because Mormons are a part of the larger Christian tradition and have a larger canon than simply the Bible. I don't understand what you want exactly. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
  • This is clearly a listing of books according to the Christian tradition. It says so both at the top and on the left, near the top, within the template. I suggest renaming this template to "Christian Bible books" (not "Books of the Christian Bible" unless a good case can be made that there is only one Christian Bible; I think different Christian traditions might include different books.) The phrase "the Bible" should not, in my opinion, appear in the title of the template, since I don't think there's only one Bible. The phrase "the Bible" might be able to be used in the titles of some articles etc. if the meaning is clear or vagueness is OK. Here, I don't think that's the case; listing a book in a template with name "the Bible" amounts to an assertion that the book is part of "the" Bible. However, if there's already a Christian Bible books template of some sort, then maybe one of them should be deleted. --Coppertwig (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The Bible As the articles Bible, books of the Bible, and Biblical canon are about all Christian and Jewish traditions, so should this template be. To say that the Bible constitutes one set of Scriptures in particular would be POV; in order to avoid that, I have included all of those traditions. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I think "Biblical Books in Christianity" would sound better. But it certainly should not be yet another attempt to jam Jewish and Christian religious concepts together. We had enough of that back in December with the ill-fated "Glossary of Christian, Jewish and Messianic terms". -LisaLiel (talk) 01:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The template is obviously about the Christian Bible, and attempts to shove in Jewish books as well don't really work. The Jewish canon has different books, in a different order, with different names, and sometimes even different contents. Relata Refero's point about Mormon books is also obviously relevant. Jayjg (talk) 02:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

See above Lisa, that glossary article constituted original research, whereas this does not - at least no more than the articles on the Bible themselves constitute original research by simply listing the contents of the Bible according to a variety of traditions. Jayjg, I think I've addressed your concerns in my prior comments, and I'm equally confused here about your reference to Mormonism. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 04:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
No you haven't, you've now got the "Hebrew Bible" as a subset of the "Christian Bible". The "Old Testament" is a subset of the "Christian Bible", the "Hebrew Bible" stands on its own. Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
"Hebrew Bible" is a term used by academics to be neural. It refers only to the language they were written in. If it is not a NPOV term then there is no NPOV term.--Carlaude (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
That's not strictly true. The Hebrew language bible (aka masoretic text) only really dates back to the 8th century; before that it was the Greek language Septuagint. Apart from the dead sea scrolls, which are individual rather than a combined "bible", there isn't really a "bible" in Hebrew that's pre-Christian. Clinkophonist (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
See Inspired Version. Relata refero (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Good point. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I came here for the RfC. It looks as though the current form (Books of the Christian Bible/Old Testament) is the best compromise. Two other comments, though:

  • If we're going now this road, then books of the OT should be in Septuagintal order. And the Books of the NT should definitely be in "canonical" order.
  • The current heading "Epistles: General, Pastoral, and Pauline" is POV. StAnselm (talk) 07:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Template name [ edit ]

Thanks both for your hard work and your responsiveness to comments. Once the version begins to stabilize and the RfC wind down, I'd recommend that you rename the template to match the heading (currently Books of the Christian Bible). Thanks, HG | Talk 16:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Name The name of the template and name field are part of the distraction. If you see the template before it was modified, that is what is going through the RfC above. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Blind reverting [ edit ]

Please don't Another user has blind reverted the template and broken the {{Tnavbar}} functionality, please stop doing that. Blind reverting and not posting on talk while an RfC is posted is pointless and serves to undermine the discussion on talk and break the usefulness of the template itself. Please do not do this. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 06:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no. So long as you list "New Testament" under anything that includes "Jewish tradition", I will continue to revert it. If you want to add {{Tnavbar}} functionality in a separate edit, by all means do so. But tables are complex, and I don't feel like fiddling with them just because you lumped inappropriate table changes in with other changes.
Now. I don't think this template has any reason to exist at all. But if you insist on it, then put Jewish tradition across from Hebrew Bible and do anything you want with Christian traditions. But stop combining them like that. It's pretty apparently agenda-driven, and it won't wash. -LisaLiel (talk) 14:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Why have this template at all? [ edit ]

Sorry to sound negative, but I still haven't seen any reason to have this template when there are already the much tighter {{Books of the Old Testament}}, {{Books of the New Testament}} and {{BibleRelated}} templates. I just can't see the justification for this template - almost a screenful - being on the page of every biblical book when it duplicates much of what is in those templates. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Each of the templates you mention are useful in their own right, as is the one being discussed here. They should, though, appear collapsed by default; this is, I believe, technically possible. Dampinograaf (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Council of Jamnia [ edit ]

What does the mythical "Council of Jamnia" have to do with the Books of the Christian Bible? Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that this template is about books of the Bible, not about "Books of the Christian Bible. Whether the "Council of Jamnia" is mythical or not, it is frequently mentioned in discussions on the canonical process; see e.g. Development of the Jewish Bible canon or The Council of Jamnia and the Old Testament Canon.Dampinograaf (talk) 10:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
However, as has been decided by lengthy discussion (see above), this template is actually about Books of the Christian Bible, and the "Council of Jamnia" certainly had nothing to do with that. Jayjg (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the supposed Council of Jamnia has to do with the Christian canon. It can be cited by Protestants as a reason for their rejection of the Deuterocanon, so that makes it relevant to the Christian bible, does it not? Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Is it cited by Protestants as a reason for their rejection of the Deuterocanon? Jayjg (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I've heard that. Idk if I can find a RS for it, but I have heard it. On a quick search in JSTOR, I found it mentioned in an article titled "The Place of the Book of Esther in the Christian Bible", from "The Journal of Religion", so I don't think its unreasonable to say it is a basis for whether or not Gk portions are included in the canon. Carl.bunderson (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the Protestant position is based more on the fact of the Jewish canon, rather than whether or not the Jewish canon arose due to any Council of Jamnia. If the Council of Jamnia article is correct amd the idea of such a council first gained prominence in the 19th century, then this is certainly the case, because the Protestant OT canon was settled 300 years earlier. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The "Council of Jamnia" theory was first proposed by Graetz in the 19th century. So, anyone else have any arguments as to how the "Council of Jamnia" is relevant to the Christian Books of the Bible? Jayjg (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion [ edit ]

Since this template no longer contains Clement or the Shepherd, I suggest that it be removed from those pages. On the other hand, it should be included on the pages of all the "Old Testament" books. We need some consistency here. StAnselm (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Carl.bunderson (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
agree.Dampinograaf (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Order of Old testament Entries [ edit ]

Is the order of the Old Testament list really as random as it seems? Other Wikipedia tables (e.g., Template:Books of the Old Testament) seem based on the canonical order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rknasc (talkcontribs) 20:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It followed the canonical order of the Jewish Tanakh. As the template now states that it is the Christian Bible, I've changed the sequence. - Fayenatic (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
We probably should have "1 & 2 Samuel", etc. I'll change it now. StAnselm (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

1&2 Esdras with the RCC [ edit ]

Please WP:verify your claim that on the status of 1&2 Esdras with the RCC.

Barring that-- please change the article Books of the Bible first.

This template follows the infomation on Books of the Bible which is where folks would normally WP:verify infomation anyhow. --Carlaude (talk) 17:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Lutheranism & the Deuterocanonical Books [ edit ]

Lutherans following Martin Luther himself never included any of the Old Testament Apocrypha in their Old Testament canon.
They followed the traditional Protestant canon of the books of the Bible." I would then have this to back up that statement in a footnote: "Jaroslav Pelikan and Helmut Lehmann, gen. eds., Luther's Works, The American Edition, 55 vols., (St. Louis and Philadelphia: CPH and Fortress Press, 1955-1986), 35:337; Erwin Lueker, Christian Cyclopedia, (St. Louis: CPH, 2000), sub "canon-Bible"; Heinrich Schmid, The Doctrinal Theology of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, Charles A. Hay and Henry E. Jacobs, trans., (Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, 1961), 80-81.
I am removing references to Lutheranism in the Deuterocanonical books section.--Carlaude(talk) 18:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC) (See also comments of Drboisclair at talk:Carlaude )
This is the correct move. As a former Lutheran, I can tell you that Lutheranism as a whole does not accept these books. There are some denominations of Lutheranism that might because they're very, very close to Catholicism, and I've been told that the Finnish Lutheran Church and the Orthodox Church are "virtually the same." But my own denomination of Lutheranism, the Missouri Synod, does not accept those books. Martin Luther kept those books in the Bible, but put them in the back and noted that they were not canonical, but simply "good reading." -- Crushti (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Ditto for Anglicans. I'm removing them for the same reason. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove translations? [ edit ]

I propose to remove the list of translations from this template. There is already Template:English Bible translation navbox for them. Agreed? - Fayenatic (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I dislike this idea.
I do think we could cut out a lot of them, however-- like half or even more.--Carlaude(talk) 03:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
I would agree with removing them wholesale. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Since no-one acted on this, I have, removing the translation section entirely. I wasn't sure which ones to take out, Carlaude, so if you do want some re-instated, how do we decide which ones? carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 19:39, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Book [ edit ]

Should the Book of Mormon be linked in this template? Pass a Method talk 01:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Just for starters, no one, not even LDSs themselves, refer to the Book of Mormon with either the word "Bible" or the phrase "Books of the Bible". tahc chat 02:35, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Weekly Torah portion? [ edit ]

@Tahc...How does Weekly Torah portion have anything to do with the development of the Bible? -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 23:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you are looking for the Template:Development of the Bible? -- this is not a development of the Bible template. It is about the Books of the Bible. The Weekly Torah portion are parts of the Bible-- the first five books. tahc chat 07:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Weekly Torah portion is irrelevant to the template because the verses are being referenced in different books of the Old Testament. Simply this, Weekly Torah portion is of religious beliefs only applied to Judaism. This template is not about religious value. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Pseudepigrapha list [ edit ]

@Tahc...What is your defense for removing Pseudepigrapha list? -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Obviously the List of Old Testament pseudepigrapha are not "books of the Bible". If one believes the lead of that page, the pseudepigrapha are almost by definition not books of the Bible. Even if a couple are on both lists we can not have everything linked to this template; there must be thousands of Wikipedia pages that link to a couple of the books of the Bible. Again, maybe you are looking for the Template:Development of the Bible.
Now please revert your edits until such time as you have a WP:CON to do otherwise. tahc chat 07:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Pseudepigrapha list is placed in see also section. Non-canonical books referenced in the Bible is also placed in that section as well, yet those books are not in the Bible, only referenced but not scripture. And as you stated, Obviously the List of Old Testament pseudepigrapha are not "books of the Bible", but it is relevant for navigation in the see also section and the template in general. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 07:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
By that logic there would be no end to the pages added to the template. After adding Pseudepigrapha list, then you could say we need to start adding documents named on the list, and so forth.
If that were the case, then books mentioned in the Bible would be listed but no. Why do you think the template is called Books of the Bible? The links are placed in the see also section because it is relevant for navigation. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Also, you don't decide for other users to withdraw from their own edits in favor of your own self-defense. WP:CON can only be decided on an agreement between users in a discussion. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 08:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
No. WP:BRD means when your bold edit is reverted, you leave if as it was and then discuss and seek WP:CON... it is not "Bold... Revert... Re-revert..." tahc chat 08:28, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Huh? [ edit ]

You said "If that were the case, then books mentioned in the Bible would be listed but no. Why do you think the template is called 'Books of the Bible'?".
That makes no sense. Are you trying to say that if we followed JudeccaXIII's logic... then there would also be non-canonical books referenced in the Bible on the template-- but that aren't. Or are you trying to say that if following JudeccaXIII's logic really did lead to endless pages being added to the template... then there would also be "non-canonical books referenced in the Bible" on the template-- but that aren't. Or maybe you mean Books in the Bible? tahc chat 08:57, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems your can't read properly. books mentioned in the Bible are not the same as Books of the Bible. So don't even bother to try and bash my username because you can't find a proper defense. That's why you have Huh?, and I have Duh! -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 09:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh! Your misinterpretation:. Books of the Bible differs from books mentioned in the Bible. But your misinterpretation is understandable. Book of Jashar is mentioned but not part of. -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Hence my link to non-canonical books referenced in the Bible-- which lists Book of Jashar as the 1st example.
Rather than just calling my seeming interpretation a misinterpretation, please tell us-- me and any others reading-- what you are trying to say in the first place. tahc chat 09:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
What is wrong with you? Let me help you: -- JudeccaXIII (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

My two cents [ edit ]

Please stop It seems like you're both getting pretty heated. I think that a simple mention of a list next to the Pseudepigrapha is legitimate. I made this template not just for the books that were canonized in the Bible but for all manner of divisions, manuscripts, portions, etc. to navigate between them. I think that a separate footer for works like Book of Jasher is appropriate for that article but the edit I just made to tighten up the links is probably useful for navigation here.—Justin (koavf)TCM 16:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"Old Testament" vs. "Hebrew Bible" [ edit ]

@Tahc: Could you present some evidence that the books of the Hebrew Bible are "meaningfull to all Christians"? I grew up in Ireland where the vast majority of Christians are Catholic, and our "Old Testament" contained a different list to this, with no distinction made between the books that were originally written in Hebrew and the books that were originally written in Greek. "Old Testament" is also not favoured in academia because for Jews the Hebrew Bible is not "old" in the sense of passé and so its use is implicitly anti-Jewish (see here).

To call the group of books that only Protestants call the "Old Testament" the Old Testament is not NPOV. Multi-denominational bible of course include all the books of the Roman Catholic Old Testament, while making the distinction between the Hebrew Bible and the deuterocanonical books

Also pinging User:Editor2020 who thanked me for my initial edit.

Hijiri 88 (やや) 21:40, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer Hebrew Bible (Old Testament Protocanon), then go on to list the Deuterocanon or Biblical apocrypha. This template might need to be split into two, one for the Hebrew Bible and another for Christian Bibles.This would also solve the problem of book names, book order, division of books and organizational divisions (Torah, Prophets, Writings). Editor2020 (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The books of the "Old Testament Protocanon" / "Hebrew Bible" are meaningful to all Christians for certain reasons (all of these books are consider part of the Bible by all Christians).
The term "Old Testament" is meaningful to all Christians for other reasons (it is the only common name for the Scriptures before the New Testament). My first concern here is that both the term "Old Testament" and the link to its article has to be noticeable on the template. It could be along other terms like Hebrew Bible and Protocanon, but cannot be removed entirely.
No labeling form for these Old Testament Protocanon books will be NPOV to all sides. There are, in fact, many groups besides the Catholic and Protestants. Some Catholics (such as readers of Irish Bibles) may be used to having no distinction the 2 groups of books, but in many English Bibles-- like the most widely known English translation, the non-Protocanon Old Testament has always be separated out from the others (using either the term Deuterocanon or Apocrypha). Since this is the English Wikipedia, and for other reasons, this is the most obvious choice.
Also note that parts of the "Hebrew Bible" were not written in Hebrew but in Aramaic, and that parts of the Deuterocanon such as 1 Maccabees were written in Hebrew. tahc chat 01:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Editor2020's solution works for me. I agree that the books of the Hebrew protocanon are important for all Christians, but for a great many (most?) Christians they do not constitute the same thing as the 'Old Testament', and are not more meaningful than the deuterocanonical books. Their constituting an Old Testament protocanon, though, is unlikely to be disputed by anyone. Hijiri 88 (やや) 03:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
What is this?