Talk:Bible

Standardise the Tanakh

Moved from Wikisource:Scriptorium.

Likewise with the King James Bible, the Hebrew/JPS comparison Tanakh is currently in a bit of an ugly format, I'd like to propose a standard of naming. Currently, we have Torah Bereishit for the first book of the Torah, Nevi'im Trei Osor Hoshea for a book of Nevi'im, etc. I'd like to propose that we standardise the pages that we currently have (the entire Torah, and two of the Nevi'im), along with the redlinked Ketuvim and Nevi'im, to Bible (Tanakh)/Book (for example: Torah Bereishit would become Bible (Tanakh)/Bereishit).

For your convenience:

Current name	New name
Torah Bereishit	Bible (Tanakh)/Bereishit
Torah Shemot	Bible (Tanakh)/Shemot
Torah Vayikra	Bible (Tanakh)/Vayikra
Torah Bamidbar	Bible (Tanakh)/Bamidbar
Torah Devarim	Bible (Tanakh)/Devarim
Nevi'im Trei Osor Hoshea	Bible (Tanakh)/Hoshea
Nevi'im Trei Osor Yoel	Bible (Tanakh)/Yoel
Nevi'im Trei Osor Ovadiah	Bible (Tanakh)/Ovadiah

If we'd like to, as well, we could also redirect Bible (Tanakh)/Genesis to Bible (Tanakh)/Bereishit, for convenience. As it is, I'm going to stard standardising the seven or so books that we have using {{verse}}, so that Template:Sourcetext will be compatible if/when we move them. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 00:40, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

1. Support. Danny 00:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Support.--Shanel 00:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Support --BirgitteSB 01:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
4. Support standardization, but not the title scheme (see below). Dovi 18:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Tanakh titles

I support the idea of standardizing Tanakh, but I strongly recommend doing it with the regular English titles of the books. Doing so it not only more user-friendly on English Wikisource, but also will avoid conflicts about spellings and transliterations. I also think Bible (Tanakh) is redundant, though I understand we cannot simply use Bible since it will conflict with the Christian Old/New Testament scheme. In my opinion, it would have been better to leave the word "Bible" neutral, allowing alternatives such as Bible (Protestant) or [[Bible {Judaism)]].

In lieu of that, I suggest the following alternatives:

• Tanakh/Genesis
• Tanakh/Kings
• Tanakh/Isaiah
• etc.

Much simpler to use, and in my opinion clearer too.

The Torah/Nevi'im/Ketuvim division can be employed too, but it doesn't need to be in the titles of the texts themsleves. To understand how this can be done, take a look at the Mikraot Gedolot at Hebrew Wikisource.

It would also be good to find ways to set the texts within the books, unlike the Christian version, not based upon the chapter numbers. In the Torah it can be done based on the Parashot.

What do people think? Dovi 17:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I can see the reasoning for these titles, especaily since I noticed today all the links to verses in the Tanakh at WP are in form of Genesis 1:3' etc. I don't understand what you mean about setting the text within the books however. I would like to migrate links at WP to here from the external site now being used and the chapters and verses are the only way I would understand of how to set the anchors.--BirgitteSB 18:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

In terms of setting the texts within the books, what I meant was how to divide the text between pages (assuming that the entire book won't be on one page). For Torah at least, there is an easy alternative option to the chapters. Regardless, chapter and verse numbers would be indicated for citing and linking. This is a technical issue I guess it would have been more appropriate to raise later if at all, since the initial question at hand in this discussion is the page titles of the books. Dovi 20:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the perfect time to bring it up. After talking to Danny on IRC, I now understand what you are talking about. I was definately envisioning having the whole book on one page which I think allows easier linking from WP for those who do not know how the Parashot are divided or named. I could be way off base, but I think the people who would know that sort of information in general would be reading on the Hebrew Wikisource. That said I would definately like acknowledge the Parashot in some way. I do not know how many Parashot there are per book. If it is not a large number, maybe we could make the verse number a different color for each Parashot with the title mentioned in that same color at the beginning of each division. I am open to any ideas you might have also.--BirgitteSB 12:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Also being involved in the conversation with Danny, I'm slightly more enlightened as to what the parashot are, though I'm still not sure what the differences are between the chapter divisions of the English-formatted texts, and the Hebrew-formatted texts. However, like Birgitte said, I imagine that the majority of people who are going to be looking for verses in the Tanakh will be looking for them formatted in what they would find a normal Chapter:Verse manner (it also allows the easy use of {{verse}}, and thereby {{sourcetext}} on Wikipedia). Of course, that doesn't preclude us from having the notices about which parasha the text is from, and which chapter and verse.

In regards to the naming, I prefer Bible (Tanakh) over Tanakh, even though I do agree that Bible is redundant for those who know what the Tanakh is... Also in regards to naming, I agree with using the English translations of the books. Much better idea than debating over which transliteration is the correct one... Jude (talk,contribs,email) 13:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

On Bible (Tanakh) agree with Jude in principle that it is only redundant for those who know the term. In general, I too prefer English terms (as above). However, either "Bible/" or "Tanakh/" is far less cumbersome to use within a system that will possibly contain many thousands of links (eventually). Since the former will create naming conflicts, I suggest that the latter is preferable to the double-term. The lack of familiarity problem is easily solved with a appropriate links to an explanation.

On the parashot business, from reading the above I don't think there is really a problem at all. Birgette suggests entire books on one page, which I also think is the best way to go at this point. If that is how we do things, then the whole issue becomes irrelevant, because all kinds of text divisions can be indicated: Parashot, chapter and verse numbers, sedarim (yes there are more... :-) In would be very cool if, someday, the reader could choose what text divisions he wanted to display (also see technical question below on this).

Finally, on a technical note: This discussion has been extensive enough that it probably belongs on Talk:Tanakh. If there is no objection I will move it there later (tonight). Dovi 06:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe there are two advatages to using Bible (Tanakh) over Tanakh. First there is some indexing feature that people have mentioned, but I do not sufficiently understand. Second is that it better fits into the structure of pages like Bible/Obadiah which relys greatly on realative links. If you also look and the indvidual verses to understand the scheme I am working on. Obadiah is a sample and this can hopefully be automated and I belive using the title allowing realative links will make that easier. I have not yet added the Tanakh until we sort out the name.--BirgitteSB 06:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't quite get how it fits into Bible/Obadiah better (please explain?). But I also posted to your talk page before I saw your above note. Take a look there. Dovi 07:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Bible... (Moved from my talk page)

Hi Birgitte. I saw that you started working on indivual verses from Obadiah, and that an anon did the same for Genesis. This individual-verse scheme is something we have worked on quite a lot in Hebrew Wikisource, and seeing it in English got me thinking.

A couple of things:

First of all, do you have any idea why we have a page-name like Bible/Obadiah when Bible itself is a redirect to "Religious texts"? Wouldn't it make more sense for Bible to be a Bible page to list all the books, as well as provide a better location for talk than Scriptorium?

All of the work done on this has been within the past 48 hours and we are still fleshing it out. Though collaboration on the IRC channel mainly. I had not noticed the redirects. Thanks for pointing them out, I am not sure of the final design of the disambig page. I will wait for the feedback before changing the redirect I think.

Secondly, for Obadiah the template lists the previous book and following book in the template. This is likely to cause problems in the future, since various demoninations and religions order the books differently. Perhaps the solution would be to have Bible generically list links to other pages that give the various Christian and Jewish canons.

Yes that is a problem I had not thought of. Perhaps I should just kill the next link at the last verse of the chapter? There is always the template at the bottom. I plan on setting up Bible very much like the first section of Bible/Obadiah. What do you think of that?

Thirdly, the individual-verse pages you and others have created are titled as follows, which is fantastic:

• Bible/Obadiah/1/3
• Bible/Genesis/1/1

That is a very powerful tool, but it made me realize that it can also help solve some the Bible/Tanakh problem. What I mean is this: part of the difference is in the counting of books. Whereas Tanakh would have Bible/Kings, Christian Bibles would have Bible/I Kings and II Kings, or Bible/1 Kings and 2 Kings. Same for Samuel, Chronicles. But the whole issue could be put to rest with a simple change to the naming scheme:

• • Instead of 2 Kings/1/1 use Kings/2/1/1.
• Instead of 2 Kings/3/16 use Kings/2/3/16.

This would allow easy sharing through different listings, whether Kings is considered a single book (Jewish) or a double book (Christian). Dovi 07:01, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Another perfect solution to a problem I had not even thought of. I moved the whole disscusion here because it will get pretty involved I think. User:Bookofjude and User:Danny are the main people I have been hashing this out with. Danny also issued an invite to people over at WP where there was a conflict of where to link to Bible verses, which accounts for the anon edits. Please share any other thoughts you have about this we are still experimenting--BirgitteSB 07:25, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

More ideas

P.S. I'm beginning to think more and more along the following lines, tell me what you think:

1. All individual books of the Bible from all religions, denominations, and canons, are listed very simply as in Bible/Obadiah. Among other things, the Bible/Tanakh issue is thus put to rest.
2. Links to the "previous" and "next" book are not given in the generic page for an individual biblical book, such as Bible/Obadiah. However, for a specific translation of a book such as Bible (King James)/Ruth, such links are obviously given according to the order of the books in that translation.
3. Each different canon of the Bible gets its own main page, linked to from the Bible page. Each of these main pages lists the books of the Bible according to its own system and order, with links to each book. E.g. Protestant Bible, Tanakh or Jewish Bible, Roman Catholic Bible, Greek Orthodox Bible, etc.
4. A system for all individual books is used that can accomodate the various canons. E.g. for Bible/Genesis there are no differences between the canons (all list it as the same individual book), but for Samuel & Kings there are differences. In such cases, pages for all possibilities would be allowed: Bible/1 Samuel, Bible/2 Samuel, but also Bible/Samuel.
5. Individual verses are listed as per my suggestion above. Dovi 07:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with most of this, however, I am opposed to the suggestion regarding Kings, Samuel, Chronicles, etc., by which 2 Kings 2:2 would be Bible/Kings/2/2/2. This division is recognized by all readers of the Bible, and is included in all versions of the Tanakh. It is natural, and would be the basic starting point for a search. Similarly, Ezra-Nehemiah are considered one book in the Tanakh, but we are not talking about doing Bible/Ezra-Nehemiah/Ezra/1/1. I much prefer that the texts all follow the same pattern. Danny 21:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Danny. The Jewish version should certainly link to the chapter divisions for Samuel, Kings, etc., which are dependent on the division into parts 1 & 2 (i.e. is "chapter 10" from 1 Samuel or 2 Samuel?). But it should be listed as a single book. For detailed discussion of this (including the misnomer that printed Jewish Bibles honor the division - actually they technically recognize it and print it, as we will certainly do at Wikisource, but they also do everything possible to minimize its importance and not give it any place of honor), see the extensive discussion at w:Talk:Tanakh.

In Hebrew Wikisource we have certainly listed Samuel, Kings, etc. as single books, and Ezra-Nehemia too. The citation follows the Kings/2/3/16 form (מלכים ב ג טז). It will be important for linking to parallel Jewish versions here. The difference with Ezra-Nehemia is that the form of the citation for verses doesn't depend on a number, so doesn't involve any confusion. Dovi 05:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Bible page

Isn't it about time for Bible to be an independant page instead of a redirect? (Forgive me if there is a reason for this that I am unaware of.) Dovi 18:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see these fictional books here on wikisource, too :-) 86.112.206.150 12:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Hebrew Bible Update

At Hebrew Wikipedia there is now a page for every book, every chapter, and every verse in the Tanakh. The texts are presented in a variety of useful formats. Here are some examples from the beginning of Exodus:

• he:שמות א א (the verse Exodus 1:1 in several formats)
• he:שמות א (Exodus Chapter 1; several versions can be chosen from by clicking the "hide" and "show" links to the left.)
• he:שמות Several versions of Exodus (the whole book on a single page): Nine different formats can be chosen from by clicking on the links in the middle of the page (the stuff above is a navigation template that still needs work).

There is still some tweaking that needs to be done, but the texts are there and can be linked to from parallel pages here. Dovi 17:54, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I came here because of the problem of systematically citing Bible verses in Wikipedia, see w:Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Bible. As far as I am concerned, splitting books by chapter is a nightmare, and without any merit as the days when computers were tending to run out of RAM when asked to open a megabyte-sized page are well and truly over.

I don't know what would be the best way of implementing this, but ultimately, it should be possible use a single algorithm to calculate a wikisource link from the parameters book, chapter, verse, version, where "version" besides the major public domain English translations should also extend to WLC, LXX, Greek NT and Vulgate. The Tanakh project is a start, but it imposes the JSP translation. I don't know if we have any possibility to create a dynamic way of arranging texts synoptically (think http://unbound.biola.edu/ ), but that would be the long term aim here. --Dbachmann (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Great Bible

There are a few other versions of the Bible that I think we should have written on wikisource, here they are and the reason I think they should be on here:

• Great Bible - It was the first authorized version in English, and looks to me like a primary source for King James. It is also understandable to many native English speakers, being written parallel to William Shakespeare.

This would be very easy to do, as it is on Archives.com currently in a scan of the original. We would not be duplicating however because it has not been transcribed into modern fonts and is hard to read for people who haven't spent time learning how the English script of the period was done. This is obvious to many but should be said that by being on Wikisource it will be more accessible to millions of people.

Thoughts? Questions? Concerns? —unsigned comment by Stidmatt (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2011.

Page formatting

I really think that the colourful tables are not the best way to display this page, and it would be better served by a normal list. This would make it consistent with pretty much every other translations page on this website.

The following discussion on WS:SCRIPTORIUM occurred and resulted in one support and one oppose, but no final decision; let's get this dealt with.

I feel there is a lot of improvement that could be done to Bible and related pages. Since WS:BIBLE doesn't appear to have been touched in a while, I thought I'd post here. Here are the improvements that I was thinking of doing:

• Remove the colourful tables at Bible and replace it with a normal list like every other translations page

[...]

Those are just some things I thought of while looking at the state of things currently, and I wanted to run them by the community before I start making huge changes :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

[...]

I support your first proposal and was actually going to propose getting rid of the tables and replacing them with a normal list as everything else is myself. Jpez (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I support some sort of change to that page, but given the different versions / date / etc. that people are likely to be looking for, I think some form of table should be retained for this page. It's one reason I suggested tackling one item at a time, rather than opening discussion on everything at once. I know that a couple of other individuals have already done a lot of work to clean up the "Bible" pages here at Wikisource, but as far as I know, none of them has asked before making their changes. Some changes have definitely improved Wikisource, while others have left new problems in their wake. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that a table should be retained; that level of data is easily handled by a list as on other pages. Observe:

Tanakh

Contemporary

• The Holy Scriptures, according to the Masoretic text, Jewish Publication Society, third impression, 1917 (incomplete).
• The Hebrew Bible in English, Mechon Mamre HTML edition, 2002 (incomplete).

The Holy Bible

Historical

• Biblioþēce, collection of Old English translations dating from ancient to modern times (incomplete).
• Wycliffe's Bible, translated by John Wycliffe, 1380s.
• Tyndale Bible, translated by William Tyndale, 1526.
• etc

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

That's where I disagree. It will be much harder in the long run to keep track of editions, impressions, versions, and the like, by collapsing everything. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: If that's the case then KJV for example could have it's own page with all it's editions, versions etc there and then we can link to this page from the main bible page. Jpez (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I do this frequently: one translations page to list all the translations, and each translation gets a versions page if necessary to disambiguate between editions. One example I have worked on recently is Adeste Fideles vs. O Come All Ye Faithful (Oakeley). Interestingly, Authorized King James Version already exists as a versions page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

—Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

My proposed update is at User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/Bible/proposal; other information contained in the tables should really be moved to the translations' pages themselves. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support removal of non-standard tables. The tables are of recent construction (2013) and better belong on a Portal. At the time I was more concerned with the same editor's page moves of Bible versions to wordy and similar titles that made linking too difficult. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support This rather ugly page comes up on a Wikisource search for "bible". I suggest make this page as easy as possible to read for anyone searching for "bible". Outlier59 (talk) 01:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Update: this is Done. @EncycloPetey: feel free to heavily revise or revert if you like. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Bibles with scanned source

There seem to be few source texts in Wikisource for the Holy Bible versions, so I've uploaded the English Revised Version to Index:English Revised Version of the Bible.djvu. It's a revision of the King James Version, authorized by the Church of England in 1870, completed in 1885. I think one time I heard that the King/Queen of England owns the copyright in perpetuity, but on Commons the category note says page scans are permitted. I'm not sure where that leaves Wikisource in terms of hosting a scanned copy. For now I'll create a pagelist for the index file.

The American Standard Version was published in 1901, is more or less the American version of the English Revised Version, and remains under copyright. The American "Revised Standard Version" was published 1952/1953, and is also under copyright.

As far as I know, the "Fully Revised Fourth Edition" of the New Oxford Annotated Bible:New Revised Standard Version With The Apocrypha (2010, Oxford University Press) is the latest and most comprehensive edition. With that in print, maybe nobody will worry about older versions being on Wikisource.

Outlier59 (talk) 22:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Everything published before 1923 is public domain in the USA and is therefore fair game on English Wikisource; you can use {{PD/1923}} license for these works. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Thank you for letting me know about that! I wasn't sure about British publications hosted on Wikisource, or American publications with copyright renewal after 1923.

I think it might make sense to simply list here, in publication date order, all "Bible" versions we currently have on Wikisource (and maybe a few we can't host here), including unsourced texts and transcription projects. In other words, make this a versions page for Bible texts, including all the English versions of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles. I realize all the versions were at some point translations from Greek or Aramaic, but at least it would give our readers a list of what we have or know about in the way of Biblical texts.

What do you think? Outlier59 (talk) 01:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

That is the purpose of this page: to list all versions of the Bible we have on Wikisource (or more precisely, all translations, as I believe multiple versions of the same translation should be on a separate versions page). If you know of versions not currently listed (for example the one you are creating above), feel free to add them to the list :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl:I think I'll be free in a week or two to start working on this. I started looking at things a bit today and posted this [1]. I think it would be excellent to have that text here, but that djvu doesn't seem to have the text, so that's why I proposed deletion. Do you have any idea what the source texts are for the Bibles listed here? Many seem unsourced.

I don't want to step on toes, I just want to try to make this page a useful Wikisource page -- with sourced texts. Please give me feedback on anything that doesn't seem right to you. Outlier59 (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently with a source (i.e. a scan): JPS 1919, Coverdale, KJV 1611, and KJV 1911. World English and Mechon Mamre appear to be electronic sources only so no scans. Translation:Bible gets no scan for obvious reasons. That leaves 9 translations where a scan would need to be found, uploaded, and probably match & splitted. That will be a huge job, but it will get done eventually :) I don't think it will be hard to find the right sources though. I found the Coverdale and KJV ones with no problem. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Commons Category

There's an expanding category in commons -- commons:Category:Books about the Bible -- which might want to be considered here. Outlier59 (talk) 02:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. We'd include those in Portal:Bible. The main namespace page Bible should include works that are the Bible, or books titled "Bible", not books on that subject. Topical collections on a subject are placed into the Portal namespace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I've added the note to Portal:Bible. Outlier59 (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add translation, Douay Rheims original

The Douay Rheims you have listed is the Challenor revision.
Please add another translation https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Bible_(Douay-Rheims_Original)
this is dated 1582-1610
translated by English College of Rheims (NT) and English College of Douay (OT)
and add the text "Challenor Revision" to the existing Douay Rheims
—unsigned comment by DavidPorter65 (talk) .

Done. The page Bible (Douay-Rheims) is now a versions page listing the different versions of the DR translation we have. This page (Bible) has been updated with the correct dates of the original publication of the DR translation. The Challoner edition is now at Bible (Douay-Rheims, Challoner). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Anybody Still Here?

@Jude, @Shanel, @Danny, @BirgitteSB, @Dovi, @Benn Newman, @Jdavid2008, @Laleena, @Cato, @Alastair Haines, @Mikey, @Arlen22, @Božidar, @Jpez, @John Carter, @Beleg Tâl, @TyEvSkyo, @Liberalgrace, @Amplaos, @Doc glasgow, @LaggedOnUser, @Alex43223, @Yemenim, @Jonathan Gallagher, @Fontwords, @Pleonic, @JoeNYCBoi, @Citizensunshine, @Gospeltothepoor, @Jakedm84, @Ilumixochi, @Lyons24000, @LittleStar, @Fiat Lux, @Maklelan, @Jon, @ICXC NIKA, @ILVI, @Lgministries, @Sije, @Nicholasrpope, @Gingerkid1234, @Salofmilwaukee, @VIII Book Maccabees, @Slaveofone, @Michael L Swift, @Sylverve, @PreciseBible, @ManuTheGreek, @Flyingcircle, @TyEvSkyo, @Alephb:

Is anybody still working on bible transcriptions or the Wikisource Bible Translation? It seems as if everyone has left, but that seems wrong.... JustinCB (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

B"H

Yo I'm still here

Awtsmoos

What I can't find is where the actual Hebrew text of the Torah is, and if there are any open source translations! 74.88.74.251 09:29, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

No KJV?

Surely there's a story behind this, but the omission seems strange. JPxG (talk) 03:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Indeed. I've restored it to the listing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:29, 6 September 2023 (UTC)