Talk:Table of books of Judeo-Christian Scripture

message: So far as Jews are concerned, there is no Judeo-Cristian Scripture. There is only Jewish Torah, or the multiplicity of Christian Scriptures named with various Greek and Latin terms. Jews also do not have churches, so that is an error.
Essentially there is a need for separation of the concepts.--Mrg3105 22:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A Christian concept

message: Discussion should take place here, since this is the page being proposed for merge.
Oppose merge. Judeo-Christian scripture is a larger topic than Books of the Bible. It includes Jewish oral law and rabbinical commentary, as well as pseudepigraphal, apocryphal and restorationist works that don't fit under the smaller Bible topic. The Editrix 18:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of merge proposition 

message: After three days, original proposer of merge has neither explained proposal nor commented. Seeing no other discussion, tag is being summarily removed. The Editrix 15:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Merge tag 

message: It's not clear exactly which version of the "Catholic Bible" this refers to, but I believe it is the historical Latin Vulgate.  If someone wants to add a Vulgate column that is fine, but Catholics don't really use that bible anymore, so it is misleading to list the Latin Vulgate books under the heading Catholic Bible.--Isotope23 14:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixing Catholic Biblical Links

message: Added verification tag whilst I find sources for these books and the lists of which texts are included.--Isotope23 15:52, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this list looks like it could be useful if verified. I am curious about the "Restorationist" column as well. The wikilink for that term takes you to a page that is, essentially, a description of Mormonism. Is "Restorationism" the academic term for Mormonism, or is it exclusively used by Mormons? The header terms seem a bit vague anyway; I think the "Catholic" designation is a loose term not intended to correspond directly to a particular translation such as the Vulgate. The reason I think this is because the term "Protestant," for instance, doesn't correspond with a particular version, either--just what all churches falling under that umbrella would consider canonical. I especially like the listing of Jewish rabbinic literature and early Christian apocrypha. I would be interested in a column on the gnostics, though I'm not sure if that quite fits here.--JECompton 01:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag

message: For now, I'm replacing this page with a redirect to Books of the Bible as this is very similar to that article already.  The one person who opposed the merge appears to no longer be actively editing.    If someone wants to reinstate this article with sourcing... that would be fine.  At that point a merge or redirect from Books of the Bible to here might be appropriate because I think a sourced article here would probably be a more complete and useful article.--Isotope23 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect

message: #It is not WP:V sourced.
#"Restorationism" is an overly broad term... Restorationist does not equal Mormon, so this section is misleading.
#Calling Pseudepigrapha "scripture" as a whole is a misnomer... most of the books here are not considered scriptural by any current church.--Isotope23 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with this article

message: Since no one has sourced these entries, I've removed them.  The problem with these sections is that it was never clearly demonstrated or sourced who considered these books to be "Judeo-Christian Scripture"... so they don't belong in this table.  2 that I removed though (Jubilees and Enoch) I believe are considered scriptural by the Coptic Church.  I would strongly support adding a Coptic column to this table and including these works; unfortunately I am no expert on the Coptic scriptures and I don't feel I know enough in this area to undertake this task myself and do it correctly.--Isotope23 20:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and there is a wonderful illustration of why I have not gone ahead and boldly added this yet; because I obviously don't know what I'm talking about.  :)  I'm going to do some research, but if any subject matter experts stumble across this their efforts would be appreciated.--Isotope23 14:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edited out Pseudepigrapha & Apocrypha

message: I noticed that the Protestant list seems to be missing some books, such as Psalms, Job, Songs of Song, etc.
*They are there in the Former Prophets section.--Isotope23 00:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Psalms not accepted by Protestantism? 

message: Some of the Psalms are headed by another writer's name, e.g. Psalm 82, A Psalm of Asaph. DFH 20:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I'd like to do away with the whole "Attributed Author" section.  To me that is the most problematic section here because it suggests that each of these books have one agreed upon author who the book is attributed to by all Jews and Christians and that isn't close to the case.  Besides, as you've pointed out the book of Psalms has many attributed authors.  That section does a poor job of displaying the differences of opinion that exist on authorship...--Isotope23 20:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not all the Psalms were by David 

message: In what sense was Mark an Apostle?  He was not one of the Twelve Apostles. DFH 20:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I fixed it so at least it isn't wrong while I'm still mulling over an AfD or at least a very, very major overhaul of this page.--Isotope23 20:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostle Mark ? 

message: Why are several books from Psalms onwards listed twice in the LDS column? I could go further and ask why the article even has an LDS column at all, seeing as the LDS "Scriptures" are just those in the Protestant column PLUS the Book of Mormon, etc.  This hardly warrants having a whole column allocated to the LDS. DFH 19:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the duplicates... The LDS column was here when I first found the article (though under a different name).  I presume it is set up this way to indicate that they do indeed accept the Protestant version of the Bible as well as their own set of scriptures.  There is alot of overlap in this table.--Isotope23 19:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LDS also excludes Canticles/Song of Solomon, and considers the apocrypha semi-canonical. AuntieMormom 19:13, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why duplicate entries in the LDS column? 

message: I don't like the use of the word Restorationist to mean Mormon.  In the UK restorationist is used for the house-church Protestant charismatic movement.  The Internet is worldwide.  Let's not use words that are ambiguous.  If you mean Mormon there is a good word for it:  Mormon.
:Unfortunately, many see "Mormon" as a loaded term, and it wouldn't really fly well anyway given that the several Latter Day Saint churches have different canons and use different titles for the same books. With the situation as it is, I'd rather see the section split and made into a new chart to show those churches' canons - maybe there already is one in one of the LDS articles.  I'm probably not going to screw with it until after the merge though.--The One True Fred 04:08, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restorationist?? 

message: Why? This is redundant of Books of the Bible. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep... and when someone tried to AFD it, it got kept.  I'd completely support a bold redirect or merge.--Isotope23 talk 20:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: The Eastern Orthodox list is very misleading.  There are different Eastern Orthodox definitions of the Bible.  4 Maccabees is not canonical to any of them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.84.23.228 (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eastern Orthodox 

message: This article seems very muddled. Spellings are inconsistent. Eg I don't think Tobit & Machabees are ever so spelt in the same edition of the Bible. Also, ascriptions are not treated consistently. some are the opinions of Jewish &/or Christian fundamentalists, while others are those of modern scholars. In particular, I'm sure I read somewhere that Jewish tradition doesn't ascribe Job to Moses, but places it somewhere about the time of David or Solomon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.221 (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muddle 

message: Who or what is "Baba Bathra"?--Carlaude (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baba Bathra  

message: Some table entries contain only an asterisk; some are blank. Nowhere on the page can I find anything that says what the difference between the two table entries (asterisk and blank) are. Could someone who knows add a clarification/explanation? Sanguinity (talk) 17:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just speculation, but it looks as though the asterisks are intended to indicate that those books are part of the Jewish canon, but not in that sequence. — Malik Shabazz  19:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asterisk?