Talk:Books of the Bible

Can someone please add a Christian (not Catholic) table I'm having trouble making one. 173.20.102.126 (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Copied from my user talk page: I thought it might be more useful here.) Evensteven (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You stated that the order of the books of the Bible (specifically the New Testament) varies based on the denomination. This may be true, but the statement in the article that the order you have is accepted by most Protestants, Catholics, and Greek Orthodox is not. You can see the Catholic order here. Just on the bookshelf of my office, the same order is used in the NIV, NRSV, CEB, KJV, NKJV, TEV, CEV, RSV, and New Oxford Annotated Bible. All of these versions are used regularly across Protestant denominations. In fact, this is the order found in both my Greek texts: "A Reader's Greek New Testament: 2nd Edition" by Goodrich and Lukaszewski and "The Greek New Testament: 4th Revised Edition" edited by Aland et. al. Every Bible Commentary in my office, including the New Interpreter's Bible and The Interpreter's Bible has them in this order; however, to be fair, they do rely on the NIV and NRSV (former) and RSV and KJV (latter). You can also find this order in Box 1.4 on page 10 of "The New Testament (4th ed)" by Bart D. Ehrman.

I would request one of two things happen. 1) The correct order as cited above be placed in the article or 2) Both your order and the order I cited above be placed in the article with the statement that this order is the one used by most Protestant denominations as well as Roman Catholics. I have been unable to confirm that the Greek Orthodox use this order.

In the interest of learning, would you tell me which denominations use the order you have, and where this can be found? I was unable to find it in any google search.

Pastor Melissa (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Pastor Melissa[reply]

You appear to be new to Wikipedia. Welcome! I assume you are IP 50.195.146.93 who made the edits I recently reverted.

I wasn't calling into question the accuracy of your changes. I was questioning the editing process. Edit summaries are fine for simple matters, but it's clear that the book order in the Bible tends to be more complex, and moreover, could be subject to partisan rivalries among editors. The article has been stable for some time, indicating its original state has been generally acceptable to the community of editors who watch it, representing an editing

consensus

(click or right-click on the blue word to bring up the editorial consensus policy). That consensus can change, but my action in reverting you was designed to draw attention to your edits so that sufficient attention could be drawn, and its desirability be weighed also by experienced editors here. The edit summaries could not explain your reasons or approach sufficiently for due consideration to be given (there just isn't room there). Now you have responded, quite perfectly I might add, and everyone can see your thoughts, which also appear to me to be quite reasonable.

The various Biblical versions don't just differ in order, of course, but in content (differences in accepted Biblical canon), and in grouping. Protestants eliminate several books (sometimes differently from each other too), often calling them Apochrypha, while Catholics and Orthodox take them as canonical (the Orthodox accept a couple more than Catholic). Western translations tend to stick with content and order as in the Vulgate, whereas Orthodox used the Greek of the Septuagint (I assume that's the basis for your "Greek" versions). Different orderings might be useful to different people for different reasons, depending on how far they are going into historical development of the canon and collections of original texts. In addition, while Protestant-oriented ordering may be natural to many westerners who speak English, there are also a great many English speakers worldwide of Catholic and Orthodox backgrounds, and all such use English Wikipedia.

I don't really oppose your changes. I hope I merely brought up a few things you may not yet have considered in approaching Wikipedia, asking that you give them what you consider to be proper weight. Then, if you still wish your changes to be made, it's ok with me if you want to revert my reversion. And now all the other editors here can also weigh in with any comments they want to bring, and respond to changes with a good idea of what's going on. Please be aware that we on Wikipedia often get editing from IP addresses (essentially anonymous) who leave behind a very few edits, all too often without merit or appreciation of things they haven't thought about. While yours did not have the earmarks of the less knowledgeable of those, I hope you now have also gained some insight into how valuable editorial review can be, and why we may pause to consider before going ahead with changes. Welcome again, and I hope we see you again in the Christianity pages. Evensteven (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section I actually wished to change was the New Testament ordering. The Hebrew Bible/Old Testament list on the page seemed to do a good job of showing the variety of possible orders. As such, no, the Greek texts I used are not based on the Septuagint. They are compiled from a variety of manuscripts and are the two texts used most often in Koine Greek classes in undergraduate and graduate studies. The manuscripts most used in the one I prefer, edited by Aland et al, comes from papyri, uncials, miniscules, lectionaries, and several more. I have never seen arguments before about the ordering of the New Testament, so discovering this problem on Wikipedia surprised me. Admittedly, I do live in the US, but I have not been able to find any non-western sources that confirm a different order of the New Testament canon either.

Thank you for the insight into how editorial changes should be made. In the future, should I encounter something I would like to add or edit, should I come to a page like this before making a change? Pastor Melissa (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Pastor Melissa[reply]

Yes, this is the place for anything that needs the consideration of the editing community, and that isn't readily addressed in simple fashion by edit comments themselves. But in many small matters, the edit comment alone is sufficient. So it's often a judgment call where to go first, and often the talk page is used once it's clear that there's an actual question that needs resolving.

As for arguments on Wikipedia, I can't say I've seen one specifically about Bible book order, either Testament, but stuff that is associated with differences among the churches can be sensitive, and I was seeking only to get explicit confirmation that all sides were fine. But as for your changes being to the New Testament ordering, indeed I see it now, but somehow I was thinking OT at the time I reverted you. That was completely my own blunder, for which I apologize. If I had only seen that aright the first time, I would have let your edit pass without all this commentary, and I would not have considered the matter to be sensitive. For indeed, I know of no real differences in NT canon, or ordering. I've only ever heard of infrequent criticisms of an early Reformation leader or two regarding bits from a couple of the general epistles, but nothing that altered it in major ways. Anyway, I hope I haven't influenced you to become too shy. After all, two more WP policies talk about

how to respond when that doesn't work out the first time, so no one really needs to walk on eggshells either. Don't worry, you're doing great! Evensteven (talk) 19:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205074449/https://orthodoxanglican.net:80/downloads/apocrypha.pdf to http://orthodoxanglican.net/downloads/apocrypha.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.chabad.org/article.asp?aid=63255
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5QBt728BO?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sbible.boom.ru%2Fslavpdf.htm to http://www.sbible.ru/slavpdf.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060616123651/https://gbgm-umc.org:80/umw/bible/apocot.stm to http://gbgm-umc.org/UMW/Bible/apocot.stm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513222152/http://www.sain.org/Armenian.Church/Bible.txt to http://www.sain.org/Armenian.Church/Bible.txt

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:18, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

i came here looking for those, and searching for "abbreviation" or "short" didn't make any hits. You know, "Jn" for "John", etc. --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.logos.com/bible-book-abbreviations Editor2020 (talk) 01:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What revelation was meant Tobe reading the book of God thus the debate of the Xhosa religion say they pray on ancestors Simbulele luhle simjo (talk) 05:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Tobe? Editor2020 (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]