Translation talk:Bible

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Talk in no topic[edit]

This is really great that this is going on! Would it be possible though in some way to let people know what Greek source it is translated from? Or to set a standard Greek text that everyone will translate from? I imagine each book is done by one person in the beginning--if there is not a standard Greek text could this person mention which text he/she used?--Jdavid2008 04:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I see that it is being done. Thanks a lot--and sorry for complaining before checking for the facts!--Jdavid2008 06:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the Free translation is the best name for this translation, how about changing it to The Wiki Translation? Does anybody object?--Jdavid2008 05:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

If nobody objects within a week from March 27, I'll make the move.--Jdavid2008 08:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts I'm not so sure whats best, and so I'll just leave it. Is anybody else still working on this project?--Jdavid2008 05:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I haven't disappeared! I have to admit that I lost a little wind but I could get rekindled.
As for your question about source... I use UBS Third Ed. I know that there is a Fourth but at my skill-level I don't think it makes much difference. Do you?
As for the name change. I kind of like "Free Bible". I didn't coin the name but it seems fitting to me. However, I have no problem with Wiki Bible. I think it would be a pain to change.
(BTW, "LiberalGrace" and "cAlan" are both me. Sorry for the confusion. I liked "LiberalGrace" better and think it is more memorable, so I changed it. No intention for deception.) --Liberalgrace 13:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey LiberalGrace :) As far as I can see you have always mentioned in the "discussions" tab what source texts you used. It seems the person who started Genesis, and the one who started Matthew did not though. As for the name I'm happy with The Free Bible, or something of that sort :) After being used to it I kind of like it too.
Thanks by the way for all your work!!--Jdavid2008 02:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


This work is being done by a number of people who are translating from various sources. Just as each and every original writer will have a distinctive style, so will translators. I see already that some of the style changes are obvious within a page of text. Eventually I think there ought to be an effort to make things more consistent, but for now I think the styles should be left alone. Sometimes a small change in wording can make a significant theological difference, and each translator is entitled to his/her opinion. Inevitably, some discussions will arise over these wordings, and perhaps the effort to arrive at a true meaning will actually improve the entire work. I would point out that even among Rabbis, there are arguments over the meanings of Old Testament passages. We can hardly expect to agree where they cannot, but we can expect to get more opinions and be more open to discussion. I wish to thank everyone involved with this project. It is an ambitious and extremely useful undertaking! -- Pinkfud (talk) 07:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Redundant with WEB?[edit]

How does this effort compare with the World English Bible? It seems like it is redundant to me. I wonder if the effort would be better spent proofing and updating the WEB. -Amillar 23:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, now, if translators had thought like that, what edition other than the KJV would have gotten done? Amillar, that idea is, simply put, stupid! You need to take a course in logic! Laleena 15:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that idea so stupid, actually rather sensible.
I like the idea of a all new translation myself, and really look forward to how this is going along, but proofing/updating might be nice also. Maybe we should start another project for that? To produce a revision of the WEB. We could correct stylistic problems, and whatever textual errors there are, and also maybe convert it to a more standard text, like the NA27.--Jdavid2008 05:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Standard Footnotes?[edit]

Could we adopt another way to do footnotes in WikiProject Bible? I understand that those who put in footnotes have generally used the letter a, b, c, and so on with the Fn tags. However, as the Fn system is very inflexible when adding extra footnotes, and, at least in Genesis, notes are starting to pile up and not link right. I've had no success trying to make them work.

If no one objects within a week, I'm going to change the notes in fontwords to work with the simpler ref tags.

Fontwords 17:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Already answered over at Genesis :) I switched because other Bible translations used the Fn tag, but have noticed that it really doesn't work for this project. The ref tags sound great.--Jdavid2008 17:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be here?[edit]

This is a sort of 'original research', to call it so, that would rather fit into Wikibooks, not in Wikisource, where we should place original texts.diego_pmc 20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This is part of our project scope; see Wikisource:Translations or ... Romance of the Three Kingdoms. John Vandenberg (chat) 21:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it is early days for us to understand what this project will become. I can see two important justifications.
  • Practical justification: creating free content is often better than using free content otherwise available.
  • Ethical justification: the Bible should be free.
I think quality control structures need to be thought through though (woops, never put those words together before).
Sourcing articles at Wikipedia makes them verifiable to anyone. Here though, translation can only be verified by other translators. Alternatively, people can verify against existing translations, but these don't explain how they derived the result, and if people have a translation they can use for comparison, they don't need a free Bible. ;)
Anyway, I'm in for the duration. Love to hear more discussion of the meta-issues. Alastair Haines 15:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
You raise important justifications and concerns, but the key is that it is very early days. I would like to augment your ideas a little to throw the net further.
On the practical side of things, there is so much more to free/wiki content than just the words on the page. Each word has a loving author, who will often answer queries on the talk page, or can be contacted via email. And others will be happy to assist answer queries that are within the capabilities. Even on Wikipedia articles where the content is mostly bedded down, the talk pages are still alive. Even if the best translation possible was freely available, it would still not be a good as developing a living community of translators who are all working as a group to create a translation in full view of the reader. As an example, "[citation needed]" and w:WP:V/w:WP:RS is now a meme of it's own - these scholarly principles have been popularised. In the process of creating and continually revising a translation of the Bible (one of the most oft translated works every written?) in a public forum, the scholarly principles of translation will be popularised in the process.
On the ethical side of things, the result will be not just a free translation, but a living free translation. Currently the free English translations are not easy to comprehend for most readers, and the situation is often worse for non-English translations where new editions are commissioned less frequently. Also the updates to the PD translations are covered by copyright, so it is actually illegal to update them to use what might be the most appropriate wording. With a free translation, it cant be limited in that way, as each revision will be based on a free version so it is provable that it wasnt a copyright violation.
On verifiability, even on Wikipedia there is a difference between verifiable, and verifiable by a dunce without access to a state or research library. On Wikipedia, the process of adding citations that can be checked by other scholars is how trust is built. I trust articles on Wikipedia even though I dont have access to the journal articles mentioned, and even when I cant grasp the concept 100%. In most cases, I simple trust that there are people who review the content. Our free translations can do the same, and better. Not only can the sources be documented, we can increase their accessibility by hosting them on Commons and laying them out nicely on the appropriate Wikisource project (he:, la:, el:). In time, people will trust that our translation is sufficiently reviewed to be worth using. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


I think "Wikisource" should be the parenthetic, not "Free". it makes it more clear. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

In the page title, or in the {{header}} ? John Vandenberg (chat) 11:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Page title. And, by extension, the header too. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
That is the more common style in Category:Wikisource translations. Wikisource:Style guide does not mention anything about this situation.
I'll leave a note at Wikisource talk:WikiProject Wiki Bible. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:41, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Done, following lack of response. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:41, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I've updated {{bible versions}}, and replaced the invocations of {{biblecontents|version=Free}} to {{biblecontents|version=Wikisource}}, which moves the pages from Category:Free Bible books to Category:Wikisource Bible books. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

blank pages[edit]

I have proposed deletion of four empty pages: Wikisource:Proposed deletions#Bible (Wikisource) blank slates. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: Include the number of chapters in the Bible at the beginning of each book[edit]

Issue: I was reading the Samaritan entry at Wikipedia, which led me to want to review certain chapters of the book Deuteronomy. I bumbled through various wikis till I found a list of English Bibles in Wikisource. I chose the Wikisource translation, and clicked Deuteronomy.

Immediately, I was confused. I thought there were more than 9 chapters in this book of the Bible. I confirmed I was correct with the KJV. However, someone not familiar with the Bible might think that Deut only has 9 chapters, esp. if just skimming.

Proposed Solution: List all the chapters at the beginning of each book, with the ones that are not translated at all yet in red links. Also, mention at the top of the book whether or not all of all the chapters have been translated. I thought at first that Chapter 1 was completely translated, but just very small.

I hope this makes sense. Thanks for your hard work & consideration.

--Geekdiva (talk) 01:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent That sounds like a very good idea. Wonderful. Anyone else have anything to say about that. Arlen22 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22

Checkmark.svg It is in effect. Arlen22 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Apocryphal books[edit]

Sentence in Question:"Many bible scholars consider the Apocrypha as inferior both in quality and content." Has anyone heard of this. 3 people have heard of this.
If you have add 1 to the number. If the number reaches 10 I will add the sentence in question to the end of the description about the Apocrypha. Arlen22 (talk) 14:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)Arlen22
If you have any objections please state them. I will add the sentance in question on or after June 20 if no one objects. I will put it on before that if there are 10 votes. Arlen22 (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not called it apocrypha... you may called it deuterocanonical/apocrypha... cause Catholics considered it canonical ... Make it undispute to everybody... and place it between Old and New Testaments... Jumark27 (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Jumark27 (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Please do not called it apocrypha... you may called it deuterocanonical/apocrypha... cause Catholics considered it canonical ... Make it undispute to everybody... and place it between Old and New Testaments... Jumark27 (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Jumark27 (talk) 03:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Which translation is this Bible (Wikisource)?[edit]

Is it AKJV? or which one? Which revised edition is used for this (year of latest revision) --FaktneviM (talk) 07:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a completely new translation by various Wikisource contributors. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Okay. Is that mean every single biblical book could be from different translation? Is this total anarchy? Which specific translations were used by contributors so far? Could I also publish something for help? --FaktneviM (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The source texts are the various Hebrew and Greek editions available to the contributors. No-one should be using a published English translation or paraphrase. Your assistance would be most welcome, particularly with the redlinks. Pop across to the project page and have a read through there to see what people are up to. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Are those contributors able to translate right from original languages, in particular way, right from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? I thought source is already from some English source. However, I´d like to help, but not sure if I will be capable of translate directly from original biblical languages. In fact, I haven´t direct ingress to source texts in those languages. --FaktneviM (talk) 10:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Questioning collateral[edit]

Could someone, who is involved by this "Wikisource Bible translation" send here www links or at least names of translations, which they are using for this project?

Where I can find also some indications how fast/slow is working on this translation, what is already done, and what is in schedule. How long should lasts that and how long is already in progress?

I would like also to hear some notice how their translation works progress, their methods, knowledge what they know and what specifically is needed before some wikipedian translator starts doing?

I have much more time these days and I would like to join into with my efforts.

My capabilities in many languages, including English, increasing the level over time. This is another question too. Is there some translator, who use as source for translation work other than one of English editions available? In other words, it will be a problem, if for "FREE BIBLE" = Wikipedia Edition" would be used some French, Spanish, Italian, German, Czech, Russian or any other non-English edition? "Converting" ... Hahaha :) ... from editor´s native language would be better for quality and explanatory value of the resulting text. Not because lack of knowledge in English, but for better understandings nuances of intended meaning and semantics in biblical ways of ideas´ expression. What is your attitude?

Is there any translator, who is using original ancient languages of the Bible like Classical Hebrew, Old Aramaic, Koine Greek ? And what about little newer traditional languages such as Old Latin ?

Other languages like Classical Arabic for the Quran and Reformed Egyptian for the Book of Mormon are wholly inappropriate due satan-friendly teachings in them. Of course, not because of those used languages itself.

Well. Little more questions than I originally thought.

Thx for polite answers.

May YOU have peace!

Greetings to everyone.

--FaktneviM (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Writing Style[edit]

I've been looking at the different books and have seen a great diversity in writing styles. From what I have seen, some are trying to mimic the language of the 1600s while some is using modern 21st century English. I think it might be wise to agree on what type of English we want to use because English has evolved a lot in the past 400 years (example A, the word fear which was used throughout the KJV has evolved from meaning respect and veneration to meaning a phobia or pleasant emotion, which is a colossal difference in meaning)! Personally, I would want to use 21st century English on all the books, because otherwise the King James Version gives a perfect 1600s English version which I have seen poorly mimicked in many books I have read. This makes me feel like we should use 21st century English for all the books including all of the Apocrypha which I haven't seen done yet. We will write better and be better understood. Thoughts? Suggestions? --Stidmatt (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I don´t know which biblical text´ sources project´ members are using and if editors involved in this huge and complex work are changing over time or if working is based still with the same persons as when translation project started.
It seems me wise to use only "nowadays language" for "normal people".
On the other hand, using of precise and literal translation is helpful if you want to keep ancient biblical way of sharing ideas.
Converting Creator´s thoughts is not easy for any man. Hard task is even harder, if editors/translators are volunteers, who are not mainly professional translators in ancient languages, but normal people with huge, but still limited knowledge.
I think that the best way is continuing the translation work, regardless if in 16th century language or in nowadays language. Correction could be applied after we finish all the biblical books. Nevertheless, this is one of the well-minded works and most crazy experiments all the time. Look, after we finish, "completely free Bible" will be available for everyone! Not paid for money, but completely freely and by endeavor of volunteers. I like that idea. I´d like to join myself into it too.
What is your opinion about Apocryphas and why do you prefer to translate those books as well? I don´t think those renegades´ writings are useful. Neverless, I respect others´ attitude if someone consider those books as important. Would you like (or rather "Could you") help too? You´re most welcome!
Greetings to all --FaktneviM (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
My personal opinion is we should include as many texts that are not traditionally included in Protestant/Catholic versions as we can possibly get hold of, which shouldn't be difficult because we can get people across the world to participate, even (hopefully) get some versions translated that haven't been previously translated into English, if there are any. This opinion is based on my personal research which has led me to believe that the authors of the apocrypha had different ideas then were accepted by the Catholic church a thousand years after they were written and many were used throughout the middle ages (As I have learned while reading on wikipedia about the history of christianity and when the standard selection was selected by the different churches, I have found through the research over 200 books that tell the story of Israel from different angles). People who are skeptical of this claim should read [1] and [2]. I can only get my hands on so many versions, but being a global site we could get people around the world to get many of these books as we can. I would love to help as much as I will be allowed to. It looks like the sections I saw when I published my first post have changed to modern English. I will stick as close to the original meaning and intent as I can as I help add on to this historic task. I will also use modern English. Stidmatt (talk) 05:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Let's do it! You're very welcome! You could focus translation especially to 'red links' (books, which are not translated so far). I wish you much enthusiasm and perseverance in this. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
Personally I have a deep knowledge about development of biblical canon. Hence I respect only inspired books as defined by 'Palestinian Canon' (= 'Protestant Canon'), which includes 66 books and does not share with deuterocanonical books, apocrypha, pseudoepigraphy. This division is used in Judaism and Protestant Christian. Entire Hebrew Canon is finished during 5th Century BCE. Christian Greek Scriptures were finished late 1st Century CE. --FaktneviM (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Other books are still important, and some of the people using it may be catholick or orthodox, having more books in their bible JustinCB (talk) 01:27, 12 October 2017 (UTC)


Just granpa (talk) 02:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Serious reservations[edit]

I have serious reservations about this. The Bible is such a huge piece of work (I'm not talking about length of the text), I cannot possibly see how a bunch of voluntary, unknown, unqualified ... in fact do the authors have anything to their names whatsoever? ... "users" can even start to create a new translation of the Bible. I doubt how much of this is really cross-referenced to the many biblical manuscripts, and how much is just an amalgamation of other translations — which in turn poses serious questions as to the accuracy of this translation. The lack of talk page discussion shows how little thought has gone into this translation and how little coordination there is between authors; a close examination will no doubt pick up numerous inconsistencies and contradictions.

There already exist numerous academic translations of the Bible that are "free", and even those that aren't have generous quotation limits. With that in mind, I don't know who would ever need or even want to use this translation. You would better spend your time elsewhere.

Voomie (talk) 19:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The question regarding its purpose is a good one, I must agree. I am very interested in participating myself, having minor qualifications on the Slavonic textual side of translation (wherever that might come in useful). I was wondering also if it was this work's status as a translation that qualified its inclusion in Wikisource. Anything I can do to help, I would appreciate knowing. Thank you! Božidar 16:33, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Jer. 31:33, "I will put my law in their inward parts." Cpiral (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Good question. My answer is "let death not come to discussion", or better "let discussion live". By "discussion" I mean constructive of the work, but by "work", I mean both the articulation and its discussion.
"...The grass withers and the flower falls, but the word of the Lord remains forever." (1 Peter 1:24-25) Its no secret that the word of the god translates into the original words, then into versions, then into languages and other paraphrases, but mostly into reverie. Nor is it a secret that the authorship is unknown. (Was it Q?) All the translating entails some less-than-unbiased reporting, but the eternal, unchangeable abstraction "language", as a class containing all remembered words, is not itself biased. Besides I think it is the lord's will that the language of god comprises all the human sensible material forms and definitions that could possibly arise on earth, and that the word of the lord is adapting to that forever, in its own way, because it can, because it dies not.
"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division." (Luke 12:51) It is time for god's children to play, big(space)time. The serious stuff has been done and is a polished jewel, thank god (for money). The children of Jesus' god may have "thoroughly vicious" political techniques, but they are still better than the more gross sinners mentioned in 1 Corinthians 5:11-13.
Warfield has some important points to make:
1) About our editing:
Nobody doubts that wrong readings were current in the second century and it goes but a little way towards showing that a reading is right to show that it was current in the second century. Many of the most serious corruptions which the text of the New Testament has suffered had already entered it in the first half of that century. The matter of importance is not to discover which of the various readings at any given passage chances to appear earliest, by a few years, in the citations of that passage which have happened to be preserved to us in extant writings. It is to determine which of them is a genuine part of the text as it came from its author's hands.
I'll note that the bible scholars seek the writer, not the perfected one—medical researchers are more interested in disease. Many are now cured enough to paraphrase very well. (Plus see W:EXPERTS.)
2) About the dangerous Harnacks to come to these discussion pages:
The method of criticism which is employed by Harnack here—a method with which Hilgenfeld used to vex us and of which Harnack and Bousset and Conybeare seem to have served themselves especially heirs—is, let us say it frankly, thoroughly vicious. Its one effort is at all costs to get behind the total formal transmission, and in the attempt to do this it is tempted to prefer to the direct evidence, however great in mass and conclusive in effect, any small item of indirect evidence which may be unearthed, however weak in its probative force or ambiguous in its bearing. The fundamental principle of this method of criticism naturally does not commend itself to those who have made the criticism of texts their business. Even an Eduard Norden sounds a salutary warning against it, and the professional critics of the New Testament text reject it with instructive unanimity.
I think Warfield is discouraging people from digesting the rough old discussions, and instead to conceive in the more excellently polished ones as sources for the endless and ubiquitous exegesis of Jesus. But "God is not man, that he should lie, or a son of man, that he should change his mind." (Numbers 23:19)
A few more interesting facts about interpretations:
  • The Living Bible is a paraphrase, mere thoughts, not direct, Greek, translation.
  • The King James Version of our 17th century (a compilation of translations) is still the most used, yet it came mostly from Tyndale, a man who was literally burned at the stake for "untrue translations". (Preface to the RSV)
  • There are probably thousands of bible translations, many of which will include extra articles "of doubtful authenticity".
Let there be lightning. And will the last words turn out the lights?
Cpiral (talk) 20:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Is This Dead?[edit]

Seems like a great idea, but it doesn't look like anyone has contributed any significant translations since 2008-ish. And most of those who have claimed chapters have only done a single verse or two (really lame, guys). Is this bible translation project dead? Is anyone involved in the project who is actually contributing entire chapters? the present? There is no way this kind of a thing can ever get anywhere unless there are a handful of dedicated contributers. And by dedicated, I mean people who are able to commit to--and actually accomplish within a year or two--half a book or more. Slaveofone (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Slaveofone, I am interested in this wikisource project too. I hope it is not dead project. However, I have no details about current state of the project. Meanwhile, please see related pages:
Public Domain licence for The Bible is rare, but nowadays there are some few possibilities for GPL-like licence Bible translation. Some of them are available through the internet, albeit mostly in English only. I am not knowledgeable enough about those other translations. Thus I cannot say anything specific about their translation quality, accuracy, faitfulness-to-original language style, and other factors when to consider choosing suitable Bible translation. Also, the type of readers is important factor for it. Do not hesitate to write me a message and suggestions if you do know more. --FaktneviM (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I still think that this project has its goal and purpose to achieve. It is very close as I can see that most of biblical books are done or in progress. main page' revision history seems to be still active too. So I quess it is still in progress and they are working it. --FaktneviM (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
As for me, I am grateful to all resilient contributors here who already made great efforts and done a lot of work so far. --FaktneviM (talk) 10:04, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Deuterocanonical Books[edit]

List of books:

  • Tobit
  • Judith
  • Esther (Greek)
  • Wisdom of Solomon
  • Ecclesiasticus (Sirach)
  • 'Baruch plus Letter of Jeremiah
  • Additions to Daniel i.e. Song of Three Young Men, Susanna, and Bel and the Dragon
  • 1 Maccabees
  • 2 Maccabees

Please be considerate... these books are considered canonical to Catholics and Orthodox Churches so do not call it Apocrypha.. but just call it Deuterocanonical Books or else just put a title: Deuterocanonical Books and/or Apocripha and place them between Old and New Testaments.

Thanks to this project! You are making a new Undisputed Bible translation... so be ecumenical to us Catholics.

Thank you for your good consideration and also to those you sacrifice in doing translation from original texts. Jumark27 (talk) 04:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

We do not accept this thing... if called it Apocripha only but not consider us Catholics... so as a respect for us, kindly put the name Deuterocanonical Books. Jumark27 (talk) 05:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


I am moving this work to the Translations namespace per WS:T. Since this is WS policy, the move should be uncontroversial. Some of the links will be broken in the meantime, but the mainspace pages are listed at User:Beleg_Tâl/Sandbox/Bible#Translation:Bible. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Separate Apocrypha and Deuterocanon/Anagignoskomena sections[edit]

An idea I have had, hearing the complaint above about the merged deuterocanon and apocrypha section. We could just have an Anagignoskomena (or just Deuterocanon) section in the middle and an Apocrypha section at the end. Also, apocryphal book order should probably be discussed. TyEvSkyo (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that will cause more problems than it solves. Right now we have a big heap of books labeled "Deuterocanon/Apocrypha", which is good because it essentially says "all of these books are either deuterocanonical or apocryphal", which will please everyone since most of the books are deuterocanonical to some people and apocryphal to others. But if you start to split the deuterocanonical ones from the apocryphal ones then you have to deal with whose deuterocanon you are using. Your suggestion of Anagignoskomena, for example, using the Orthodox canon, would add to the Catholic canon but detract from the Ethiopian canon.—Also, the complaint above is already addressed; formerly the page just read "apocrypha" without specifying "deuterocanon", which is not true for most non-Protestant Christians.
As to order, is there any order that is preferable to the one currently used? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily. I was thinking that A) We should add all antilegomena (adding the Apocolypse of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepard of Hermas, and the Didache) as well as some more of the Apostolic Fathers, the Tewahedo outer canon, and the Gnostic scriptures. B) We should put the Old Testament and New Testament Books in a logical order. For the Old Testament, the order they appear in the canon of those churches which include them. For the New Testament, the order they would go if they were in the Bible (Gospels, Acts, Letters, Revelations) and on top of that the time at which they were written. So it'd go like this (including Antilegomena and Broader Canon):
  • Prayer of Manasseh
  • 1&2 Esdras
  • Add. Esther
  • Tobit
  • Judith
  • The Maccabees
  • Jubilees
  • Enoch
  • The Meqabyan
  • Pseudo-Josephus
  • Add. Psalms
  • Psalms of Solomon
  • Wisdom
  • Sirach
  • Prayer of Solomon
  • Ethiopic Lamentations
  • 2 Baruch
  • Letter of Baruch
  • 3 Baruch
  • 4 Baruch
  • Add. Daniel
  • Peter
  • Thomas
  • Acts of Paul
  • 3 Corinthians
  • Laodiceans
  • 1&2 Clement
  • Shepherd
  • Barnabas
  • Didache
  • Sinodos
  • 1&2 Covenant
  • Ethiopic Clement
  • Ethiopic Didescalia

TyEvSkyo (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm cool with adding books if they are in somebody's canon. Your order looks reasonable to me. I'd say go for it. Just be careful not to identify any books as "apocryphal" or "canonical" if there are people who might take offence to that kind of classification. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


Should we translate historically important prologs of books and the bible(specifically of the vulgate and wycliffe translation)? They summarize and tell of history and various interpretations more effectively than we could, and the wycliffe prologue is more protestant, while the vulgate is more orthodox. I could translate the wycliffe prolog if this is agreed to. JustinCB (talk) 23:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:39, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Do we have a "General Prologues" section(each book would have a "Prologue" chapter; this is just for the general prologue). JustinCB (talk) 11:24, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I added the Wycliffite Prologue JustinCB (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)


I have made several books with disputed sections to have the main book and another version that transcludes the main book and just has the sections not in the main book JustinCB (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm the editor who merged these together. Out translation policy only allows for "a single translation to English per original language work". What benefit do you see to have the full book duplicated or triplicated only to include a few extra sections? Far better to put them all together and make a note that the section is only found in some manuscript editions, such as was done at Translation:Psalms. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
That's why I'm transcluding it and not duplicating it(the translation of 1-150 are still at Psalms, but there is a command that includes them in the document, as Psalms(Greek) is included in Psalms(Syriac) JustinCB (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
But why not have them all together? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
The new transcluding scheme has possibly already caused one potential problem. The "Psalms (Greek)" section, as far as I can tell, now includes 150 Psalms as they are found in Hebrew, and one Greek Psalm. If we want to have a "Psalms (Greek)" or a "Psalms (Syriac)", I would imagine that those should reflect the Greek or Syriac text throughout, rather than being a translation of the Hebrew Masoretic Text plus a tiny amount of Greek or Syriac material, respectively. Alephb (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I meant that they are cannonical to different churches, but Psalms(Deuterocannonical/Apocryphal[Greek]), Psalms(Deuterocannonical/Apocryphal[Syriac]), and Esther(Deuterocannonical/Apocryphal) are very long titles(but we can still use them if you want). JustinCB (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

@JustinCB: canonicity doesn't matter. We aren't providing a canonical Bible, we're providing a collection of translations of different works. Using Esther as the example, we can either have two translations: one of the Masoretic version and one of the Septuagint version; or we can have one translation that makes notes of the differences between the two. But our focus is on what text is in the original work, not on what translation is in whose canon. 00:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

"Translations of different works" that have, in a few places, a huge amount of overlap. The book of Esther, for example has two versions, Hebrew and Greek, and the parts of the Greek that are also in the Hebrew are translated from the Hebrew version into Greek, and it would make more sense to translate those from the Hebrew, which we would need to translate separately already because we would already have to translate the Hebrew version. Does this not make sense? Those two books and Psalms are sometimes translated as two books: "<book>"(translated from hebrew) and "additions to <book>"(translated from a translation with additional sections[the most common translation is the Greek septuagent]), which is inconvenient to people who want to use the version with additional sections, and it's a lot of work to translate books multiple times. Do you understand why I want to use transclusion. JustinCB (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

This is why a single translation with annotations marking the variant sections is preferable. When you have Translation:Psalms (Greek) or Translation:Esther (Greek) as a separate page on Wikisource translation space, this indicates a separate translation of a separate source, and that means a lot more work.—If you really want separate translations for Hebrew and Greek Esther, and for Hebrew, Greek, and Syriac Psalms, we can copy the text instead of transcluding it, so that future editors can modify the various versions according to variations in the Greek and Syriac versions. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't really personally understand the concept of transclusions very well, let alone have much of an opinion on it, either then that the final concept, whether transcluded or what have, shouldn't in my opinion label something as Greek Psalms unless the whole work follows the Septuagint, because in the case of Psalms the numbering is different in Greek than in Hebrew for most of the book. I'm not familiar with Syriac Psalms, but maybe something similar occurs. I dunno. Alephb (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that a big part of this is that the TITLE of the work reflects something about it that makes it unclear. The book might be better as Book(Text that is in Greek) or Book(Sections that exist in Greek) or something like that, but I suppose that the basic idea that I'm advancing, you understand what I mean. JustinCB (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
It may be so, but I also think you are envisioning something that isn't actually acceptable content for Wikisource user translations.
  1. Book(translated from the Masoretic Text) and Book(translated from the Septuagint) are okay; Book(translated from the Vulgate) and even Book(translated from Wycliffe's Middle English) is also okay; any translation of any original or notable foreign-language version of the Book is acceptable.
  2. Since that's really redundant, Book(translated incorporating elements of all the important versions of Book) is common and acceptable.
  3. What's not okay is stuff like Book(parts that are accepted by X canon but not Y canon), or Book(parts that are in X version but not Y version). The translators of the Authorized King James Version did this, but Wikisource does not do this.
Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Having three translations of Psalms is okay, provided that they are three separate translations of three separate versions of Psalms. Psalms(Greek) is okay if it is Psalms(translation of the Greek version of Psalms), but not if it is Psalms(translation of the Hebrew version plus bits that are translated from Greek). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Would Psalms(translation of the Greek version that's using parts of the Hebrew Version until we have people that want to translate the entire book of Psalms from the Greek version) make sense FOR NOW? JustinCB (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but that would involve copy-pasting instead of transcluding. In which case I can make the requisite changes. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
The only thing about that is that Psalms(Hebrew) isn't complete either. It's probably fine, though, because we could re-copy or translate the other psalms separately, Esther is complete(translated from Hebrew), and Daniel only has a few verses(or possibly 1 chapter) complete. JustinCB (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
If you folks decide that there should, in the end, be a complete translation of Psalms from Greek, I could pretty quickly provide a sort of "base text" by taking the public domain Brenton translation, updating its English, and then leaving it there for anyone with more Greek knowledge to correct where needed. My understanding is that Brenton is pretty good, and given the slow rate of progress on a lot of this stuff, having a modernized Brenton as a base might be a good start. Any errors in it can be corrected by anyone with the time/know-how. Alephb (talk) 02:53, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that's the best way and there's only one other book like that(letter of Jeremiah), but it's probably OK, at least for the books not yet translated from Hebrew. JustinCB (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, one book that might use transcluding rather than copying might be baruch-letter of jeremiah(or baruch as catholics use). If there are other books that are sometimes 2 books and sometimes 1(like ezra-nehemiah and samuel/m'lakim[samuel and kings]), that might be ok as well, but we can probably discuss those after they are translated. JustinCB (talk) 22:16, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Wycliffite Prologue(proofreading)[edit]

The Wycliffite Prologue isn't done yet, but it already seems to me that some things are clumsy in Modern English that flowed better in Modern English, and a proofreader or proofreaders would be helpful. JustinCB (talk) 19:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Daniel (Hebrew)[edit]

User:Beleg Tâl, just a heads-up. The section you just marked as "Daniel (Hebrew)" is about half Aramaic. Alephb (talk) 02:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

And now the title is "Daniel" and the link is to "Daniel(Hebrew/Aramaic)" and is broken. JustinCB (talk) 15:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It's fixed. JustinCB (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Stylistic things[edit]

There are several stylistic choices that I'd like to discuss: not translating ben/bin, (mis)using "olde englissche" for aramaic influenced hebrew, and using pilcrows in the wycliffite prologue. Write any additional you want to discuss. JustinCB (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The pilcrow thing is specific to that work; if the original had them then you should keep them unless you have a good reason not to. Post your decision at Translation talk:Wycliffite Prologue since it's only relevant to that document only. I'll leave the translation discussions to people familiar with Hebrew. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The thing about the pilcrows is that they're the mideval way to make a new paragraph, but the modern way is to add a new line and extra (physical) space. I also changed the spelling to gofur wood to reduce confusion with gophers. Part of the problem with the "olde englissche" is that it's being used woodenly ungrammatically(like putting -eth at the end of everything, especially where it doesn't belong), and it's annoying(the other part is about "later hebrew"). JustinCB (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feelings either way about ben/bin. I tend to retain them sort of as a reflex, but if you're saying we should translate it across the board, you're probably right. The "olde englissche" stuff I almost completely disapprove of -- I think the person who put it in is generally confused about when the Hebrew is "Aramaic-influenced", and Aramaic influence, when it really exists, is a sign of later, not earlier, Hebrew, I think. But I feel roughly the same way about "gofur" as you feel about bad early Modern English. What would you think of a compromise: we go with goper instead, as I don't think we really know whether the pe would have been pronounced as 'f' or 'p' that early anyhow, and it matches the way some academic sources would transliterate the word (similar to seper and sopet instead of sepher and shophet). Those are my initial reactions. Alephb (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
goper seems fine to me. I want to remove the "olde englissche" and replace it with normal modern english, or, if it needs to be distinguished, dialect english/scots. It makes more sense for to use "son of" because that's what it means. Other cultures have words for "son of", but they're almost always translated(it's like "allah" isn't translated, even though it just means "god" and isn't the name of god). Not translating "ben" would be like if you wrote "sonof" when translating english (imagine "Hallo, Ich bin Justin sonof Joseph" or "Þu konþ Ych ben Justin sonof Joseph").
All right, goper it is. I support the removal of all the "-eth" and "-est" stuff. Maybe it could be used in biblical poetry, if done correctly -- biblical poetry is noticeably archaic grammatically compared to the books it is embedded in, but that's not what's going on right now and for right now a total removal would be best, I think. It's possible I've soaked up too much influence from hearing some names like "Ben Gurion" and "bin Laden" (or as Wikipedia calls him in its opening sentence, Usama ibn Mohammed ibn Awad ibn Ladin) and such. For Arabic names, you always hear "bin Laden," not "son of Laden," and "al-Baghdadi," not "the Baghdadite." I apologize for picking terrorists -- they just have strong name recognition. For a few characters, it almost seems like "ben" is part of the name. For example, the Bible keeps talking about Caleb ben Jephunneh in passages where it's not really trying to help the audience by telling who his father was. If I was writing a translation for people with high biblical literacy, I would keep some bens in in some places, with a footnote every now and then explaining. But this isn't a translation for people with high biblical literacy, so you're probably right. Alephb (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, I'm changing the current parashot notation, (P) and (S), to ¶ and • because the symbols are roughly equivalent, and it isn't as jarring as the parenthesised letters. When they're used as cantillation I lowercased and italicized them. I'm also removing chapter titles and olde englissche, but that doesn't mean that you can't remove them(or change the parashot, for that matter). JustinCB (talk) 17:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the parashot thing is a good move. My impression is that the "(S)" and "(P)" notation is based on the Hebrew-English Bible on the Mechon Mamre website. Alephb (talk) 02:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Another thing, I've found that I'm using a lot of footnotes in the Wycliffite Prologue(over 400 and it's approximately 42% complete[I made that number up, but it's based on actual progress], or started on the seventh chapter out of 15). Many of the footnotes are for things that the way they're translated is the plain-as-your-nose meaning, for example, "saw hem not" is translated "didn't see them" and has a footnote because the literal meaning is "saw them not". A lot of the footnotes are like that or changing to a clearer word order. JustinCB (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

It's all judgment calls, I guess. Anyhow, since Wikisource isn't paper, no problem with abundant footnotes. As long as the footnotes aren't misleading or otherwise screwing around with the project, no real objection here. If we can manage to footnote every spot in the Bible where there is serious doubt about the correct reading, this project could become a useful resource unlike any other on the internet. That's a long ways off, though, at the rate things have been going. Alephb (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The thing is that most of the footnotes don't express serious doubt but only mark when the phrasing is slightly different and the meaning is abundantly clear(but none of them are wrong). See the Wycliffite Prologue. Also, while you're there, why don't you tell me if I'm being woodenly literal. Also, in a few places, the chapter number is put with the book name. The standard way(for now) is to use Chapter then the number. Cantilation marks will be lowercase italics with a space before and after, and if you choose to do parashot, the major section is ¶ and the minor is •. The using of "son of" in names is so you know which person with the name you're talking about(like how we use last names). We know it's the Joshua that's the son of Nun and not some other Joshua and we know that I'm not Justin Timberlake because my initials are JCB. JustinCB (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

When you say "cantillation marks", I think you're referring to the parashot where they appear in poetry. What most people mean by cantillation marks is a whole nother monster, and we have indicated none of those (as far as I can tell) in the translation. Every word gets one in the Hebrew Bible (except in certain expressions that are something like hyphenated). For chapters, I had generally been following however the previous editors had set up a book, but you're welcome to standardize them if you like. I'd be happy to take a look at the Wycliffite prologue. Alephb (talk) 02:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Most of them are, but see Exodus 15. The end-of-book (Sh) is § now. JustinCB (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

No, those things we're indicating in Exodus 15 aren't cantillation marks. Those are basically poetic line-breaks -- although the "r" markings shouldn't be included at all. Here's a picture of Exodus 15, as it appears in a Hebrew manuscript that does not include any cantillation marks. The spacing of the words there still provides all the information that we are (for some reason) currently rendering as r and s. Alephb (talk) 23:16, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Cantillation marks are described here: [3]. Alephb (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Want to remove them or me remove them? Also leveticus 13:55 a small part of the verse(just letting you know) I translated from the Vulgate because the previous translation(and the Hebrew, according to the translator) was nonsense JustinCB (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll pull out the rs. No objection to translating from non-Hebrew sources as long as those sources are clearly noted. I think the other translator was a bit overconfident there dismissing the Hebrew there as nonsense, although it's certainly not completely clear to us here all these centuries later. Alephb (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
While I was at it, I pulled the s, and sh marks that aren't found in the Hebrew either. Instead, I duplicated the Hebrew text's format in English. Now, that might not be ideal either, but it will give you a picture of what we're dealing with. The poetic lines are simply wrapped about in a strange way, and what the previous editor was doing (under the confused influence of a particular HTML rendering of the Hebrew Bible) was adding little symbols where the Hebrew had spaces and line breaks. Alephb (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)


I don't have any strong feelings about this, I just want to know why the biblecontents template was removed. JustinCB (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Because it doesn't list the contents of the Wikisource user translation of the Bible with any sort of precision, and because the syntax it uses to link to books is not the syntax used in the user translation either. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

add editors[edit]

How would we cause an influx of qualified editors to be added to the project? JustinCB (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, just brainstorming here. One could put a notice up at WP:BIBLE, WP:JUDAISM, WP:CHRISTIANITY. There is or was an online discussion list for biblical Hebrew called b-Hebrew. If it still exists, maybe someone there would be interested. There is a phenomenon called biblioblogging, which is basically academically-oriented blogging about the Bible. There is or was a big online list of bibliobloggers -- since bloggers already volunteer their services in a way, one might go down the list and try recruiting bloggers and/or their commenters one by one. Alephb (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Translation of "bnei"[edit]

I think, that maybe we can translate this word as "clan" if we don't use "sons"(apologies if it should be clan/sons of). What do you think about that? JustinCB (talk) 03:02, 3 February 2018 (UTC)