Talk:Biblical studies

Untitled

From VfD:

Complete text of article is "Biblical studies can be considered the study of the Christian Bible, and the body of work resulting from that study." Substub, dictdef of self-explanatory concept. Wait a minute ... I thought it was self-explanatory till I read this. How's it mean they can be considered? Isn't that what Biblical studies are? Bishonen 22:58, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Keep. Definitely doesn't deserve to be deleted. Important concept. I've improved it a bit, though is still a stub. --Samuel J. Howard 23:47, Aug 19, 2004 (UTC)

• Well, there are academic Biblical studies and religious Biblical studies. We already have documentary hypothesis and Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, so is this simplistic thing really necessary? Until I am convinced otherwise (it could happen) I'll vote to delete. Fire Star 00:07, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• • if by academic biblical studies you mean non-religious, then that is merely a subcategory of literature, history or some such. Religious studies, theology, scripture studies and such are still part of the academy! We have articles on the CDF and one on a particular theory in Biblical Studies...so??? We have articles on elements, that doesn't mean we don't have an article Chemistry--Samuel J. Howard 02:41, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
    • My intent was to point out the distinction between religious scholars (academic or not) who are concerned to use different species of biblical studies and the information they find therein solely to support their interpretation of a surviving more or less elaborate ritual tradition (parade examples being the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the related Ecole Biblique), and more "secular" scholars who study and publish their results without a faith-based agenda as such. There are certainly shades of grey between them, and people are often persuaded as a result of work in this field from one side to the other, in either direction. This distinction of motive is a subject which we should probably contribute a mention of to the article itself in the fullness of time. Fire Star 15:58, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. New article is good, if stubby. It's likely that someone will search for this topic. — Gwalla | Talk 03:15, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - There's a lot of information already here; this article probably best serves as a brief overview linking to in-depth pieces. I've added brief explanations and links to exegesis, higher criticism, documentary hypothesis, and Jesus Seminar; no doubt more can be added as well. Smerdis of Tlön 03:36, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• I'd have voted delete on what bishonen nominated. A substub that drastic is what I think hurts Wikipedia. If a topic is utterly vital and gets a single sentence, people searching us think we're fools and drop participation in the project. What Samuel J. Howard has written, on the other hand, is at least 1000% of the original in bulk and quality. There are things to quibble with here and there, but it is the minimum of what I'd vote keep on. Keep. Geogre 04:03, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Keep. Even the greatest articles were stubs once, and this is a concept that deserves an article. Andre 05:56, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

• Ah, the new version is better, and can obviously become better still (or at least fuller). Also I find Samuel J. Howard's and — Gwalla | Talk's points convincing. Change to keep. Fire Star 06:01, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• I wouldn't have listed the article if it had looked anything like it does now. Nominator changing vote to keep. Bishonen 11:25, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. A good article now. Andris 11:39, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep My eyes glazed over and my mind wandered as I tried to read the text, even the few hundred words of it, proof indeed that it is a genuinely academic article of some worth. Hayford Peirce 17:49, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion Great concept, but is limited on sources. Renee. Beaumont (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Stub?

Is this lengthy article truly a stub, or just in need of organization? I would argue that the "stub" label be removed, but defer to the community. KHM03 18:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Major edit

I edited section "In Christianity" with heavy hand, trying to reduce NPOV. The problem seemed to be that the section, as it was beforehand, did not distiguish between the subject "biblical studies" and the actual biblical study (as in exegesis). In addition, it felt to me like it would be citing one or two curricula of specific US institutions. I, using my Finnish high school-level knowledge on different exegetical traditions, tried rewriting the "Principles of biblical study" and bettering the language of other sections.

In addition, I tried to bring out the link between theology and biblical studies (as subject in Bible schools). To my view, they are essentially the same and the different name probably stems from theological differences. For fundamentalists, it is impossible to accept that some training that is needed for minsterial work is not actually based on Bible. They therefore use "Biblical studies" as a all-round name for all fields in the training (including, in extreme cases, psychology and business). Traditionally, the name of this field has been called Theology.

In the end, I removed some points relating to specific Bible schools. They are not internationally important and advertising them does not serve global audience. --81.197.72.83 23:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

The section "Various studies..." should be completely rewritten but my knowledge is not up to task. Preferably, this would be done by a theological scholar and a Bible school teacher together.--81.197.72.83 23:16, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

comment moved from article

Moved from the article, under the section "Various studies in the books of the Bible":

This section represents a core of study which is typical of a U.S. evangelical Bible Study. It should be generalized or maybe deleted. Anyhow its level should be raised to correspond the Wikipedia standards and turned NPOV.--81.197.72.83 23:13, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

SeventyThree^(Talk) 01:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed a bunch of stuff which wasn't necessary. KHM03 11:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed Rightly Dividing the Word computer tutorial[7]-- It doesn't seem right that PRODUCTS should be pitched on Wikipedia. There are infomercials for such a purpose.

I also removed Bible study blog[8] becuase its entry on Kristallnacht and Jews is incredibly antisemitic. I believe that there should be better (less biased) sources on Wikipedia, and that it is wrong to promote neonazi propaganda in an open forum.

Since I removed these two article, I added a link to [crosswalk.com], an unbiased source that I found indespensible during my theological studies.

links to lists of schools

these lists are POV -- they only include schools in the evangeiical Christian tradition. This is a page about the academic study of the Bible. Almost every college or university has courses on the Bible--usually several of them. It is an important area of study in higher education in general, and thus most universities-- even those with no religious affiliation--offer a major in Religion. If you can find page with links to all of these courses, that would be very appropriate. But these lists do not belong here--they might do very well on a more specific page, if complemented by similar lists for similar schools in the Roman Catholic tradition--which would include all seminaries, the Jewish tradition, which would include all yeshivoth, and the other Bible-based denominations. I don't like to remove without discussions, though, so for now i just put in a note on the page. DGG 19:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking closely, I noticed that 3 of the "lists" were actually only links to individual schools, and since that is obviously not what was not intended, i removed them. DGG 19:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

External Link suggestion

I had previously inserted this link: The Message made plain – The Inner Quest free study course on the Teachings of Jesus -- http://www.innerquest.org.ph/messagemadeplain/iq31messagemadeplain.htm. However, PeleSmith reverted it citing linkspam. Subsequent discussions regarding this matter are documented in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Religion#Semiprotection; 62 Please do not Spam Wikipedia Entries and 63 Is this link SPAM? Please weigh in. At PeleSmith’s suggestion, I am hereby posting to this Entry Talk page to resolve this issue as it pertains to Biblical studies.

I feel that content, substance and perceived benefit to all users should be the main determining factors in deciding whether to include information and links in Wikipedia articles. Certainly not popularity. The rules are secondary and should be enforced or relaxed depending on the merits.

I ask that you please go over the proposed linked Study Course comparing it with the contents of other already inserted links and evaluate this matter throughly before rendering your individual decision to INCLUDE or NOT INCLUDE. Unless, there are strong and valid arguments supported by a majority consensus among you against the inclusion of this link in Biblical Studies, I will attempt to reinsert the link. Further in the event that you should keep silent, I will take your silence to signify that you have no objection and I will reinsert the link.

I will wait 30 days to allow ample time for everyone to come to a decision. Thank you. Angel 03:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Greek and Hebrew, maybe Latin and Aramaic, not English

Just explaining a few changes to the language section (pursuant to wikipedia etiquette): I rephrased that section a bit. I took out the line that many Christians believe that the KJV in English is God's only authorized text. If that is true, and I'm not sure it is, it represents such a trivial minority so as not to be included--and if it's true it probably equally applies to other groups that believe their translation is the only one that gets you to heaven... Second, I deprecated Aramaic. It's hugely important, but it can't be listed as what people study for Biblical studies before Latin is mentioned. Third, I added Latin. Whether you understand it or not, it's probably the most commonly studied language for Biblical Studies, and has been for 2,000 years. I also changed a line that says the NT was written in Greek. It wasn't. Greek is just the oldest copies we have. It's not good enough Greek to have been written by a native in that language originally. Alright, are there any comments?--Mrcolj (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Extensive revisions

I've edited this entry because its contents did not reflect well its subject, namely, "Biblical Studies" as the name of an academic field. Since specifics about the fields methods and conclusions are better addressed in other articles, this one can keep to basic features of the field itself. Hbprof (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think your edit was good. I added the definition from the Oxford Handbook of Bib-studies anyway, so there is a solid reference now. History2007 (talk) 13:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Criticism as Praxis

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 February 2023 and 19 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SmokeyJoe77 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Ammaclennan.

— Assignment last updated by Ammaclennan (talk) 18:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Evaluation

• Is the article's content relevant to the topic? I think that the article does a great job at keeping all its content related to biblical studies. All the information that is formed in the article relates to biblical studies. I feel like it’s a topic that is talked a lot about so I feel as though many people will use this source although I do feel that other articles could have a more in-depth overview of the topic.HavenM (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

HavenM (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)