The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
This page is not a forum for general discussion about the Bible. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about the Bible at the Reference desk.
Bible is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Bible is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, an attempt to better organize and improve the quality of information in articles related to the Catholic Church. For more information, visit the project page.CatholicismWikipedia:WikiProject CatholicismTemplate:WikiProject CatholicismCatholicism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles
NT context, origins, authorship (inc. NT pseudographia)
Gospels
Pauline epistles
Catholic epistles
NT canonization
Councils
Schism
Reformation
NT translation/transmission/manuscript witnesses
Papyrus to codex
Vulgate
KJV
NT apocrypha
Genres
Narrative
Law
Wisdom
Prophecy
Poems
Gospels
Letters
Apocalyptic
Myths
Prayers
Proverbs
Theology
Organization TBD; might be topical (nature of God, nature of evil, etc.), canonical (Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, etc.), or chronological (ancient, middle ages, post-enlightenment, etc.)
Fundamentalism should probably be discussed here?
Study of the Bible (criticism)
Textual criticism
Form criticism
Source criticism
Redaction criticism
Structuralism
Poststructuralism
Rhetorical criticism
Literary criticism
Canonical criticism
Historical criticism
Tradition criticism
Social/political/cultural/ideological criticism
Feminist criticism
Biblical archaeology
Influence
Literature
Politics
Jurisprudence
Science and medicine
Ethics
Art/music/culture
This is really a first attempt, so it's pretty rough and inexact. I do not intend that every item on this outline be a separate section with a section heading; some of the sub-topics should be grouped, etc.; the exact sub-headings can be figured out later. But I wanted to list the types of information that would be conveyed in each section, with a real focus on the top-level divisions. Thoughts? Levivich[block] 17:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I think about it more, I think the heading "Development" should be dropped, and everything under it promoted up one level in the outline. Levivich (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dare I take silence as consensus? :-D Levivich (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your ambition is admirable and exactly what this article needs. However, this is the kind of article that no matter how much it is watched, will only get bigger—the size is already a bit above the recommended (11592 words vs recommended 10000), and I suspect the relative overwhelm of your new proposal's perceived size has led others to avoid comment here. Thus, while I agree that each topic would not have its own subsection, it should be considered in advance how to group the Genre and Study categories into more manageable big-topic divisions. Looking optimistically, the development is on the edge of impossibly long in the proposed form, so such information will need to be treated extremely to the point. Aza24 (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion Aza24 is right on the mark. It will be a difficult and time consuming almost total rewrite in order to make what’s here-which was requested-more concise. The requested part matters because taking it out would likely result in being asked to put it back down the road. I also admire the willingness to make that kind of effort on behalf of WP. I support your desire to improve this article and am sorry we could not reach more agreement on what that involved previously. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All good points, thanks. I'm working with on condensing the overall outline and fleshing out the lvl 3 subheadings and if I think I've made progress I'll post a second proposed outline here. Levivich (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please list this book as mythological as every other religion except other current mainstream religions have been dismissed and listed as mythological!
Reasoning provided is not correct. Quran, for example, is not listed as mythological. Additionally WP does not take a stance on the validity of religious beliefs - it only reports what both adherents and non-adherents have to say. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am thinking this sentence should be removed because it is not about the Bible: According to historian Shulamith Shahar, "[s]ome historians hold that the Church played a considerable part in fostering the inferior status of women in medieval society in general" by providing a "moral justification" for male superiority and by accepting practices such as wife-beating.[1]: 88 Thoughts?
References
^Shahar, Shulamith (2003). The Fourth Estate A History of Women in the Middle Ages. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781134394203.
I agree, it seems to say more about the Church than the Bible. There are better sources for discussion of the Bible's influence on the status of women. Levivich 22:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the earth may be rotating backwards, but you and I are in agreement, so I can probably assume no one else will argue against it. I will go ahead and remove it. Biblical teachings on women are a very mixed bag - both repressive and supportive. Do you have any thoughts on how much of that should be included? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(...and everyone thinks climate change is caused by pollution...) I don't have thoughts on that yet, mostly because I haven't looked at the sources to see how much/what they say about the topic, but at some point I'll get there. Levivich 20:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ha ha!! You have a sense of humor! I had no idea! That's awesome! This is cool, let me know when I can help. I do care about this article, so I want to, and even though we have disagreed on sources, I think we have agreed on much more, and that has usually been where content alone is concerned. No humor intended! I will happily wait and follow your lead here, as it seems that will lessen conflict - and produce humor - which totally rocks! Thank you.
Also, imo, all the recent edits by everyone are improvements. It's looking good! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2022[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "Believers in the Bible generally consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, while understanding what that means and interpreting the text in various ways."
to: "Believers in the Bible consider it to be a product of divine inspiration, while understanding what that means and interpreting the text in various ways." Nathan Pintos (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Decline. I do not support this change and the reason is within the sentence itself: because it is seen in different ways. Everyone does not consider it divinely inspired even if they consider themselves "believers". Removing "generally" implies a universal agreement that does not exist.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2022[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Holy Bible is the proper title. Devout religious and spiritual groups believe it is the inspired words of God Himself. 96.18.209.11 (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This has been discussed multiple times - most recently [[1]]. Consensus is that it should not be changed because, as a secular institute, WP does not make judgment calls on religious scriptures. See for example WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RNPOV. Jtrevor99 (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Devout religious and spiritual groups believe" Their bigotry is of no interest to us. Dimadick (talk) 13:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True, and I am not accusing the previous editor of this in any way, shape or form. But I will caution that we as editors in our responses to any religious topic must also be careful to avoid bigotry. It is a balancing act that comes with experience, and requires all of us to learn not to allow our personal experiences or biases to color our editing - positively or negatively. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I carry you with me and quote you everywhere I go? I have a short essay on neutralizing bias on my user page that starts with "everyone is biased". Not everyone seems willing or able to see that. I am genuinely pleased to run across someone else who does. Thank you. Perhaps you would allow me to add this quote to my essay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would sincerely be honored! Thank you. And how very true: it's impossible for any of us to avoid bias...even the act of trying to avoid it can inadvertently introduce it. But, so long as we are cognizant of that and trying, they can contribute constructively :) Jtrevor99 (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jtrevor99 you are now on my user page where I list 6 steps for neutralizing bias:
Recognize the problem. It helps to become aware it isn't just you. It also helps to become aware it is you. It's everyone.
Learn to recognize when an author neglects facts, fails to acknowledge opposing arguments, or dismisses contradictory studies. They are biased.
Test Yourself by looking for contrary evidence. Make sure to include sources that disagree with your own personal POV.
Create consistency by using the same standard for all. Don't cut an author you like slack that you would not give to one you don't like. That too is bias.
Consensus hinders bias. Never revert a good faith edit because you don't personally agree with it.
Most importantly, Be wary of overconfidence. "The more certain you are about an opinion, the more likely you are to employ confirmation bias... Sometimes the best time to expose yourself to opposing views is when you are most certain you already have all the information you need". [2]
And then, there you are. Thank you for being an example of what's best on WP. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course everyone is biased. That is a given. The day that nobody is biased anymore would be the day there are 0 edits on wikipedia. Latin Beau 06:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Latin Beau you are so right, but it isn't uncommon for it to be a very difficult thing to see in one's self. We think what we think because we think it's right - if we weren't right, we would think something else! I admire anyone who sees how this makes each of us biased. I admire those who work at seeing and acknowledging that - and setting it to the side. So, from me personally, please take away my respect for this comment. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Never revert a good faith edit because you don't personally agree with it." Not a good advice on Wikipedia. Quite frequently, good-faith editors mess up an article's structure and sources. The only option is to revert the changes and talk to them. Dimadick (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps should be amended to state "...based on content" or something of that nature. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dimadick It's the reason for reverting that differentiates those, but perhaps you're right and that should be clarified. "Never revert an otherwise well sourced, good faith, valid edit just because it is contrary to your personal views". That's WP policy and should be upheld.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2023[edit]
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I am a theoretical physicist, and this page is anti-scientific. See, for example:
The oldest books began as songs and stories orally transmitted from generation to generation <- Current academic theories consider that ...
The Bible was written and compiled by many people, most of whom are unknown, from a variety of disparate cultures.[10] <- Current academic theories consider the ..
The books of the Bible were initially written and copied by hand on papyrus scrolls.[12] No originals survive. <- Gee, that is convenient.
At the very least, there should be a statement at the top indicating that this article is operating according to current archaeological reconstructions and textual analysis theories in the academic world. 128.244.38.5 (talk) 18:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not done Wikipedia is reliably sourced not democratically sourced. So, of course, Wikipedia kowtows to the mainstream academia, like the Ivy League. Do Britannica and Larousse do otherwise? No, since that's what a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia is based upon: academic learning, not religious dogma and not popular opinion.
Wikipedia isn’t a free speech website. It isn’t democratically sourced, it is reliably sourced. That means that the mainstream academia (Cambridge, Harvard, Oxford, Princeton, Sorbonne, and Yale) gets the lion’s share. Your religion will be presented from the perspective of CHOPSY. There is no point in protesting against it, since Wikipedia is interested in the academic truth, the CHOPSY truth, not in the truth of your religion, nor the truth of political correctness. So, don’t waste tears if you see your religion bashed by CHOPSY, since this is the only choice Wikipedia has. You have the choice to disregard CHOPSY, Wikipedia doesn’t.
To tell you the truth, there is no real difference between Wikipedia, Britannica, and Larousse. They all have the same norms and values about what amounts to knowledge. So, if you see Wikipedia, think it is Britannica 2.0.
Oh, yes, in case you missed the memo: Wikipedia isn’t WikiLeaks. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
tgeorgescu Wow. That was unnecessary. Cultural insensitivity has become an automatic go-to on talk-pages I guess.
@128.244.38.5 (talk) My sympathy for the treatment you received here, but what tgeorgescu says is perfectly correct. There is no need to include a statement at the top indicating that this article is operating according to current archaeological reconstructions and textual analysis theories in the academic world. because that is always assumed in every WP article in existence. The rules are strict and adherence is monitored by EVERYONE.
After apologizing, I have to say that I find your complaints puzzling. this page is anti-scientific I can't even begin to figure out what that means.
The 3 statements you reference are common knowledge. Of course the Bible began as oral history. Oral history is still used in places around the world, it has been allowed in courts of law, and it has a long and distinguished history of its own. There is evidence - both internal and external - of that fine tradition in the currently existing biblical texts. Philippians 2, for example, was originally a hymn. There are a little more than 4 dozen of these in the NT and more in the Old. These excerpts are older than the written text, which is a significant fact, as they date the concepts they purvey back to the origins of Christianity (and in the OT, Judaism). I don't understand the problem.
The Bible was written and compiled by many people, most of whom are unknown, from a variety of disparate cultures Any preacher or teacher in any Christian church or Jewish synagogue will tell you that. There is no disagreement. You can see that for yourself just by going through it and checking. The books of the Bible were initially written and copied by hand on papyrus scrolls.[12] No originals survive. <- Gee, that is convenient. Well, no, it really isn't. It has left a lot open to question. But again, this is common knowledge. There is no one of any reputable group that would tell you otherwise. So again, I am lost as to what the problem is. Perhaps you would care to explain further. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
tgeorgescu, your reply is really out of topic. The anonymous user suggested making it clear that our current understanding of the Bible is based on "current archaeological reconstructions and textual analysis theories". He/she did not dispute their accuracy, nor were they advocating for any religious dogma. Dimadick (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, all our history or archaeology articles are based on "current archaeological reconstructions and textual analysis theories". Why should this article be singled out? tgeorgescu (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
tgeorgescu You're right, it shouldn't be singled out. We all agree on that point - well, except for the original poster - and they were terrifically unclear. Perhaps Dimadick understood better than I because I am still confused. Anti-scientific? What?!? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They were unclear with what they wanted, but their only actual proposal for changes was in the last paragraph of their text. Dimadick (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Referencing and citation: not checked
Structure: criterion met
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done for now: please establish a 
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Biblija and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 6#Biblija until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. MB 01:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I admire anyone who sees how this makes each of us biased. I admire those who work at seeing and acknowledging that - and setting it to the side. So, from me personally, please take away my respect for this comment. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
I admire anyone who sees how this makes each of us biased. I admire those who work at seeing and acknowledging that - and setting it to the side. So, from me personally, please take away my respect for this comment. Thank you. 
Not done Wikipedia is reliably sourced not democratically sourced. So, of course, Wikipedia kowtows to the mainstream academia, like the Ivy League. Do Britannica and Larousse do otherwise? No, since that's what a WP:MAINSTREAM encyclopedia is based upon: academic learning, not religious dogma and not popular opinion.
Not done