Talk:Councils of Carthage

message: User:Latreia recently renamed the books explicitly mentioned by the canons of the council to better match those names used by the King James Bible and its successors. I find this new translation problematic:
* The council canon implies that David wrote the psalter. This implication is lost in the new translation.
* The new translation restricts the 12 prophets to the 12 minor prophets, which is not explicit in the original.
* The new translation expands the two books of Esdras into three books, one of Nehemiah and two of Ezra. It is not obvious that this translation is correct. In fact, I am confident that it is wrong.
* The new translation mentions the Septuagint, which is not mentioned at all in the original.
* The old translation mentions explicitly that Hebrews was written by Paul. The new translation omits this interesting datum.
In sum, the new translation seems to anachronistically project modern ideas concerning the biblical canon into an ancient document. For that and all the specific reasons listed above, I purpose to revert this latest edit. Rwflammang (talk) 22:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With the addition of the phrase "quoted as" it is now clearer that the list is a quotation from the document itself; given this, I fully agree with your revert. I wasn't projecting new ideas onto a translation; I was simply not aware that this was a quote; this wasn't obvious enough. Latreia (talk) 18:33, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of books

message: Did someone forget something?  Kind of like getting in your car without the keys... Or maybe going to get a drink of water and forgetting the cup... The SOURCE section does not list the names of any of the books, the publisher, the date published, the edition - rendering them absolutely unobtainable... Essentially this page is entirely unsourced, since no one can ascertain what publications are being referred to, after all of that work the editor basically achieved nothing... Maybe they were going to come back to it at a later time & add the rest?  I am marking this article as unreferenced since for all intensive purposes, it is... Stevenmitchell (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source Documents Without Titles & Dates are Absolutely Useless 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Councils of Carthage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100418172015/http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma1.php to http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma1.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923211342/http://www.cristoraul.com/readinghall/Western-Civilization-Jewels/HEFELE/Book-12/214.html to http://www.cristoraul.com/readinghall/Western-Civilization-Jewels/HEFELE/Book-12/214.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Some of the early African councils mentioned in this article are only known through the writings of Cyprian. Edward John Shepherd argued in the 19th century that some of the writings attributed to Cyprian were forgeries written against Pelagianism, and that the early African councils mentioned in them never happened. I have noted sources on both sides of the debate on the authenticity of Cyprian's letters at s:Talk:Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume V/Cyprian/The Epistles of Cyprian/Part 58. However, I can't find a modern scholar who discusses the matter. Given this, I'm presuming the letters are authentic and the councils are historical, but can someone come up with a WP:RS to back this up? I'm considering adding this to the article. Sondra.kinsey (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity 

message: This was a minor synod and I am unsure if this should belong in the Wiki.  The list of all the canon from that synod are available for verification online.  My argument here is that there bishops synods every year and these generally are not Wikipedia significant.  I have looked at the canons published from that council and do not see any significant reason for this.  Perhaps someone can provide some insight? I had to revert an edit by WCYborg as none of the edits are reflected in the actual canons from that bishops synod.  I found the canons here  http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3816.htm  DeusImperator (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Council of 419