436:- Absolutely an encyclopedia-worthy topic. Now, allow me to vent. 1. I despise the color-heavy layout. 2. Title has issues... What other "Bible" is there than the "Christian Bible"? Do we speak of the Muslim Koran? The Jewish Talmud??? 3. The fact that this has been the locus of an edit war is neither here nor there. The topic is inclusion-worthy; whether the current incarnation is ready for primetime is another matter. 4. Sourcing sucks. It should not suck. I assume that there is scholarly debate over authorship of this or that book and this should be reflected. Similarly, attribution should be cited in each and every case.; Bottom line: a very problematic rendition of an absolutely Knowledge-worthy topic. —
898:: Clearly the consensus is to keep, but I am sympathetic to the quality concerns of the nominator. It needs some opening disclaimer about the subject being complex and the modern scholarship theories being subject to debate on a case by case basis, and a suggestion that the reader go to the individual book articles for fuller explanations. (Alternatively, we could change the traditional column to say "God" and the modern column to say "Man" and be done with it.)--
192:
it is impossible to sum up the vast range of scholarly opinion within a sentence or two. The scholarly views are already discussed on the articles for the individual books. There really is no way this list can be done fairly or neutrally, and it more or less declares what the 'true' view is even though there is no such thing. It is thus grossly misleading, and by its very design as a list cannot be unbiased on this complex issue.
597:: I think that brings out what was in the back of my mind: fast food vs fast knowledge. Call me old fashioned, but while I think it is ok for students to grab fast food, I am not an advocate of fast knowledge, specially when it is undercooked. I would suggest a few paragraphs per book at least and 2 separate article: Old and New Testaments. There is no reason for not separating them.
618:- This article has been rated of top importance by the appropriate WikiProject. In my opinion that means that, to those interested in the subject think, it is notable. The article may need reviewing or rewriting but as the content of the article is clearly encyclopedial to those interested, I can not even begin to understand why this article has been put up for deletion. --
400:
to have "List..." in the title, probably. I think an encyclopedic article on the topic of "Authorship of the bible" could be written, even if it is just summarizing the authorship sections of the articles on each individual book of the bible. But these are just generalities, and don't apply to the specific content in this article currently.-
734:
It's entirely possible to summarize majority scholarly views, as this tries to do. The article has problems, but for how much of several hundred years of debate it tries to cram into one table, it does a really good job. Most of what is being proposed as changes to the article seems reasonable, but
716:
would both be acceptable, and probably allow for more development. Table format must go, as it lends itself too much to really short descriptions. It generally is possible to have at least some indication of the academic consensus of the authorship of each book, at least in a broad sense, however, so
191:
This is a poor and overly-simple format for this information. There is not a single 'modern scholarly' view on authorship issues. Not only was it recently the site of an edit war but it has been the site of a good deal of fighting in the past. It is impossible for this list to remain neutral, since
399:
I have a problem with the title. What is the "Christian Bible", and why do we need an article that focuses on it exclusive? Seems like a POV fork, especially when we are discussing the Hebrew bible books... the table format also seems problematic, and if it is to stay, the article should be renamed
858:
I agree thst the article needs a lot of improvement. In particular "modern" ought to be "modern liberal", as many evangelicals will not accept the views of modern higher critical theologians. There are further difficulties: while
Protestants regard the apocrypha as deutero-canonical, Catholics
829:
per above, great topic, poor title ("Authors of the Bible" is not ambiguous with anything else except the Tanakh, which is routinely finessed with the word "Bible"), poor presentation. I would like to see some discussion on the
Talmudic tradition on authorship and the traditional lists of the 72
840:
Although I sympathise with some of the arguments against the article, I see no reason why we shouldn't have an article on authorship. However, the presentation is poor (it certainly should not be in table form), and the title is simply asking for problems as it covers too large a scope. We need
382:
such broad controversy over dates, authorship and even canonicity is itself highly notable and educational. In my own church, there are plenty of strong, faithful
Christians who still say "THE Bible" without recognizing how sheltered that view is. Ultimately, our job here is not to decide who's
260:
Almost nothing on this article is cited despite the fact that it makes some pretty sweeping claims. The problem isn't the quality of the work on the article but the nature of using a list for this purpose. It declares what the 'true' view is even though there is no such
940:- The question of the authorship of the books of the Bible is a legitimate topic and has been discussed at length in many works of scholarship. So the article is currently pretty horrible. So what? This is nothing that cannot be fixed through normal editing.
218:, and the debate then focuses on the relative sanity of scholars: an undecidable question really. And mix that with a table and you have a recipe for conflict. This material needs to be discussed in each article where each book is discussed. Unlike
160:
352:
per nom as an unverifiable list and a gross oversimplification of a much more complex issue. List is unnecessary as the more complex issues are discussed in their relevant articles. I especially like the heading on the bottom table:
464:
One simple way would be to have sub-topics for each book in which the authorship is discussed at length. This article would then become a navigational aid to these sub-articles, while providing a lead and summary of their contents.
880:
notable. If there are factual errors, correct them; if layout is misleading, rearrange it; if there's edit-warring, deal with the miscreant editors. Deletion would not be the most appropriate response to any of those problems.
752:- Seems an entirely acceptable article to me, if like most it may require some work. Would support adding caveats in the lead section to address some of OPs concerns. But I see no sufficient reason to delete at all here.
520:. People have written whole shelves on each book of the bible, and you want us to try to reduce that to a dozen words? But if the decision is to keep, the table should be dropped and replaced with a prose discussion.
735:
not tied to a deletion process or outcome. I suggest the nominator start an RfC on how this information should best be presented, in order to prime people to arrive with opinions other than "keep" or "delete".
88:
83:
214:" a message about each book of the Bible. A terrible idea really. It is like trying to tweet the history of Europe in a table. This is an inherently ambiguous topic on which every viewpoint has support from
92:
75:
154:
779:
The subject is clearly notable. If you have a problem with any of the entries, discuss it on the talk page. Plenty of sources exists discussing where the various books of the Bible come from.
378:- This article has a lot to do and doesn't do it perfectly, but without a single place where this information is summarized, Knowledge suffers a loss of clarity. The very fact that there
658:
120:
79:
115:
859:
regard them as canonical and
Catholic Bibles will not print additions to Daniel (including Judith) as a separate book. I agree that the article may need to be split.
841:
separate articles for different parts of the Bible, possibly
Authors of the New Testament and Authors of the Tanakh/Old Testament, just to keep the articles manageable.
71:
63:
717:
I think a revised article or two, with individual paragraphs indicating the current academic opinion regarding the authorship of each work, is probably doable.
684:
175:
275:
It declares what's accepted by the mainstream, not what's true. If you see any claim to truth, please remove it immediately and I will support that change.
142:
955:
928:
907:
890:
868:
850:
821:
802:
771:
744:
726:
699:
673:
648:
631:
606:
585:
564:
550:
529:
510:
474:
459:
424:
406:
392:
368:
336:
313:
284:
270:
251:
231:
201:
57:
327:
The sources are infinite. For every source saying one thing, I can find you another saying something else, and then another, and another, and...
136:
541:: I agree with Pico, a table that "tweets decisions" is not going to be accurate and each item would need to be three paragraphs at least.
132:
639:
this is an unsatisfactory article that needs a lot of work, and is too simplistic. But that is an argument for improvement, not deleton.
383:
right, but to show the traditional views as well as the mainstream range of modern views. I think this is worth doing and very doable.
479:
We already have an article on every book of the bible, and each of those articles discusses authorship. Let's not introduce POV forks.
182:
300:
713:
709:
17:
148:
812:- the article topic is clearly notable. The fact that it is in terrible shape is a call for improvement not deletion. --
241:- I think it is a valid list. The sources are reliable. The article is not formatted correctly, but that can be fixed. --
831:
970:
36:
969:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
560:
506:
470:
420:
388:
311:
280:
266:
249:
197:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
864:
602:
546:
455:
227:
722:
53:
598:
542:
451:
223:
846:
924:
919:- I liked John Carter's suggestions above; they could help address some of the article's problems.
886:
556:
502:
498:
466:
416:
384:
304:
276:
262:
242:
193:
168:
860:
740:
404:
619:
497:. That the topic is challenging and open to debate is not a reason to delete. Please see our
766:
695:
669:
581:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
780:
718:
644:
49:
842:
358:
948:
920:
882:
817:
626:
525:
332:
900:
736:
401:
753:
691:
665:
577:
437:
219:
109:
493:
The topic has massive notability, of course. Should this be doubted, please see
640:
494:
415:
Andrew, how would you feel about a title more like "Table of Bible
Authorship"?
941:
813:
521:
328:
211:
555:
If this article isn't deleted this is a good solution to the problem.
210:
As I said on the talk page, here a table is used to "telegram" or "
963:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
830:
prophets of
Judaism, as many of them have auctorial status.
450:: How are you guys going to address the "tweet problem"?
105:
101:
97:
167:
576:- highly useful for our main readership -- students.
355:"Author according to some modern scholarly thought"
659:list of Christianity-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
973:). No further edits should be made to this page.
222:'s life, scholarly opinion can not be tweeted.
72:Authorship of the books of the Christian Bible
64:Authorship of the books of the Christian Bible
181:
8:
714:Authorship of the Books of the New Testament
710:Authorship of the Books of the Old Testament
708:- Acknowledging the problems of the title,
685:list of Lists-related deletion discussions
679:
653:
683:: This debate has been included in the
657:: This debate has been included in the
7:
299:This article has been nominated for
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
956:12:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
929:09:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
908:03:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
891:01:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
869:19:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
851:08:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
834:07:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
822:16:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
803:07:14, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
772:01:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
745:20:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
727:19:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
700:19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
674:19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
649:15:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
632:12:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
607:21:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
586:21:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
565:19:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
551:18:13, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
530:12:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
511:10:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
475:10:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
460:09:32, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
425:03:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
407:02:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
393:01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
369:23:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
337:12:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
314:22:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
285:01:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
271:22:29, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
252:22:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
232:14:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
202:14:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
1:
495:an entire book on the topic
58:00:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
990:
966:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
44:The result was
906:
876:. The subject is
702:
688:
676:
662:
316:
981:
968:
946:
905:
799:
796:
793:
790:
787:
784:
769:
763:
758:
689:
663:
629:
624:
366:
365:
362:
309:
295:
247:
186:
185:
171:
123:
113:
95:
34:
989:
988:
984:
983:
982:
980:
979:
978:
977:
971:deletion review
964:
952:
942:
797:
794:
791:
788:
785:
782:
767:
759:
754:
627:
620:
440:Sept. 24, 2010.
363:
360:
359:
305:
243:
128:
119:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
987:
985:
976:
975:
959:
958:
950:
934:
933:
932:
931:
911:
910:
893:
871:
853:
835:
824:
806:
805:
774:
747:
729:
703:
677:
651:
634:
612:
611:
610:
609:
589:
588:
570:
569:
568:
567:
557:RomanHistorian
553:
533:
532:
514:
513:
503:Colonel Warden
499:editing policy
487:
486:
485:
484:
483:
482:
481:
480:
467:Colonel Warden
442:
441:
430:
429:
428:
427:
417:Dylan Flaherty
410:
409:
396:
395:
385:Dylan Flaherty
372:
371:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
340:
339:
318:
317:
307:Alpha Quadrant
292:
291:
290:
289:
288:
287:
277:Dylan Flaherty
263:RomanHistorian
255:
254:
245:Alpha Quadrant
235:
234:
194:RomanHistorian
189:
188:
125:
121:AfD statistics
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
986:
974:
972:
967:
961:
960:
957:
954:
953:
947:
945:
939:
936:
935:
930:
926:
922:
918:
915:
914:
913:
912:
909:
903:
902:
897:
894:
892:
888:
884:
879:
875:
872:
870:
866:
862:
861:Peterkingiron
857:
854:
852:
848:
844:
839:
836:
833:
828:
825:
823:
819:
815:
811:
808:
807:
804:
801:
800:
778:
775:
773:
770:
764:
762:
757:
751:
748:
746:
742:
738:
733:
730:
728:
724:
720:
715:
711:
707:
704:
701:
697:
693:
686:
682:
678:
675:
671:
667:
660:
656:
652:
650:
646:
642:
638:
635:
633:
630:
625:
623:
617:
614:
613:
608:
604:
600:
596:
593:
592:
591:
590:
587:
583:
579:
575:
572:
571:
566:
562:
558:
554:
552:
548:
544:
540:
537:
536:
535:
534:
531:
527:
523:
519:
516:
515:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
489:
488:
478:
477:
476:
472:
468:
463:
462:
461:
457:
453:
449:
446:
445:
444:
443:
439:
435:
432:
431:
426:
422:
418:
414:
413:
412:
411:
408:
405:
403:
398:
397:
394:
390:
386:
381:
377:
374:
373:
370:
367:
356:
351:
348:
347:
338:
334:
330:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
315:
312:
310:
308:
302:
298:
294:
293:
286:
282:
278:
274:
273:
272:
268:
264:
259:
258:
257:
256:
253:
250:
248:
246:
240:
237:
236:
233:
229:
225:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
205:
204:
203:
199:
195:
184:
180:
177:
174:
170:
166:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
134:
131:
130:Find sources:
126:
122:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
965:
962:
949:
943:
937:
916:
899:
895:
877:
873:
855:
837:
826:
809:
781:
776:
760:
755:
749:
731:
705:
680:
654:
636:
621:
615:
594:
573:
538:
517:
490:
447:
433:
379:
375:
354:
349:
306:
296:
244:
238:
220:Paris Hilton
216:some scholar
215:
207:
190:
178:
172:
164:
157:
151:
145:
139:
129:
45:
43:
31:
28:
719:John Carter
599:History2007
543:History2007
452:History2007
224:History2007
155:free images
50:Ron Ritzman
843:Dougweller
921:bobrayner
883:bobrayner
692:• Gene93k
666:• Gene93k
901:Milowent
737:Jclemens
402:Andrew c
357:. Ha!
116:View log
917:Comment
896:Comment
595:Comment
578:Bearian
539:Comment
448:Comment
438:Carrite
161:WP refs
149:scholar
89:protect
84:history
878:highly
768:(talk)
641:NBeale
628:(talk)
518:Delete
361:Snotty
350:Delete
301:rescue
261:thing.
208:Delete
133:Google
93:delete
798:Focus
297:Note:
212:tweet
176:JSTOR
137:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
944:Reyk
938:Keep
925:talk
887:talk
874:Keep
865:talk
856:Keep
847:talk
838:Keep
827:Keep
818:talk
814:Whpq
810:Keep
777:Keep
756:Wiki
750:Keep
741:talk
732:Keep
723:talk
712:and
706:Keep
696:talk
681:Note
670:talk
655:Note
645:talk
637:Keep
622:JHvW
616:Keep
603:talk
582:talk
574:Keep
561:talk
547:talk
526:talk
522:PiCo
507:talk
491:Keep
471:talk
456:talk
434:Keep
421:talk
389:talk
376:Keep
364:Wong
333:talk
329:PiCo
281:talk
267:talk
239:Keep
228:talk
198:talk
169:FENS
143:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
46:keep
951:YO!
832:JJB
761:Dao
690:--
664:--
183:TWL
118:•
114:– (
927:)
904:•
889:)
867:)
849:)
820:)
765:☯
743:)
725:)
698:)
687:.
672:)
661:.
647:)
605:)
584:)
563:)
549:)
528:)
509:)
501:.
473:)
458:)
423:)
391:)
380:is
335:)
303:.
283:)
269:)
230:)
200:)
163:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
923:(
885:(
863:(
845:(
816:(
795:m
792:a
789:e
786:r
783:D
739:(
721:(
694:(
668:(
643:(
601:(
580:(
559:(
545:(
524:(
505:(
469:(
454:(
419:(
387:(
331:(
279:(
265:(
226:(
196:(
187:)
179:·
173:·
165:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
135:(
127:(
124:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.