As I've been browsing the Bible translation articles, I've kept expecting to see a navbox at the bottom with direct links to other articles about Bible translations.
The list of translations in the template is currently incomplete, and the grouping probably needs to be changed. Please make any improvements that you deem necessary!
The translations in the template are intended to be ordered chronologically. I've used the year of publication of the complete Bible for this purpose.
--stephenw32768< user page>< talk> 11:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The box looks great and a chronological form is a probably the best idea. I noticed, however, a few missing: Clear Word Bible, Quaker Bible, and Joseph Smith Translation. 68.116.99.30 ( talk) 22:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This navbox is starting to get rather unwieldy. Adding every single KJV/RV derivative, no matter how obscure (rather than just the major ones, such as NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and so on) is making it much worse. I think there's some argument for limiting it to 'major' translations, but of course there's going to be some argument about what those are. Any thoughts? Is there some other way to keep things navigable, perhaps by sorting translations into families rather than by chronology? AndrewNJ ( talk) 03:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The current divisions by time periods are meet. However, within each section, translations should be ordered alphabetically so as to make them easier to locate. This would follow the standard of numerous other navboxes. 1.126.109.232 ( talk) 14:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the Complete Jewish Bible to the box in the proper order of translation dating. I believe it belongs on the list for two reason. First, it contains both the Old and the New Testament. Secondly, Messianic Judaism is generally defined as a Christian sect or movement. Regardless of the controversy of said movement/sect/belief system, the translation in question is, for all intents and purposes, one of the Christian Bible. Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 21:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
A lot of you have spent a lot of time on this template, and clearly a decision has been made to define a completed translation here as being "OT and NT" – i.e., a completed, Christian, Bible. I took the liberty at the page
Jewish English Bible translations of commenting out this navbox for now, because as it stands it just doesn't belong there, even if the article on Jewish translations is itself included in the template.
I am going to propose that you change the header to "English-language translations of the Christian Bible" (added for emphasis here, not intended to be bold in the final product). The rest of the template remains as is, without the Jewish translations. I would also propose, nevertheless, that the article on Jewish translations remain near the bottom of the template for reference, as it is now.
Alternatively, I suppose you could add Jewish translations to the template. But I don't think that serves the purpose of the template itself all that well. I have to insist pretty strongly, however, that either the template header has to change or the template contents have to change. Since the unmodified term "Bible" is used in English to refer to either/both Christian and Jewish Scripture, the template as it stands now violates
WP:NPOV, since it is clearly Christian in nature.
StevenJ81 (
talk)
16:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@ StevenJ81:: Take a look at the section below: "New Testament translations?" This also seems to acknowledge the complementary point about Hebrew-Bible (OT) translations, such as Robert Alter's recently completed work. Might this help to fulfil your request? Feline Hymnic ( talk) 12:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Would it be fitting to have an additional section devoted to Bibles that are obviously not serious, like The Brick Testament and the LOLCat Bible Translation Project? The ones currently on this list are/have all been used by various sects of Judeo-Christianity, but the others are still technically Bibles, so I'm not sure. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
It would be best to create a separate section for 'Picture Bibles for Adults' or something along those lines. You could add Manga Bibles to that list too.
The LolCat Bible is not strictly in English anymore than Jamie Stuart's 'A Glasgow Bible' (which doesn't appear to have a Wiki page). These should be placed in a category called 'Modern Dialectical' translations.
1.126.109.232 ( talk) 13:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Links to the Orthodox Jewish Bible links to a page about Messianic Bible Translations, which has nothing to say about an "Orthodox Jewish Bible". There is already the "Complete Jewish Bible", "World Messianic", "Heinz Cassirer's translation" and "Tree of Life" links to the page on Messianic Bible Translations. This makes a total of five links to the same page, including at least one which is misleading.. Maybe I'm missing something, but IMO the Orthodox Jewish Bible link should be removed.
Then, there's how there aren't actually specifically Jewish Bible translations (except those of Messianic Jews) like JPS and ArtScroll, so either they should be included or the title should specify that this is for Christian Bibles. -- 96.22.225.134 ( talk) 20:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Could we somehow include partial works? The translation that immediately springs to mind is the highly regarded 20th century " Phillips New Testament in Modern English" (J.B. Phillips). How might we do this? A section for "New Testament" translations? (How far should such an extension go? For instance, Phillips himself also did a little OT translation work.) Feline Hymnic ( talk) 21:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
The current template has a single level of grouping: "5th-11th century"; "Middle English" etc. It is also, but implicitly rather than explicitly, for full Christian Bibles: Old Testament plus New Testament. I propose adding an optional second level for partial translations. See Template:Jurassic Coast for an example of this principle at work. For instance, the "20th century" group and appearance would remain almost as now, but would also have, near the end, a small second-level group "New Testament" to include J.B. Phillips' well-known version, and perhaps also an "Old Testament" to mention his translations on some of the OT prophets. Then "21st century" would also have, near the end, a second-level group "Hebrew Bible" to include Robert Alter's recent publication. Note how this retains sensitivity to Christian and Jewish conventions, allowing "Old Testament" and "Hebrew Bible" to remain distinctive. Any thoughts? I propose going ahead with this in a week or so (i.e. around, or shortly after, New Year 2019). Feline Hymnic ( talk) 17:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Prof .Woodruff, Czar, and Feline Hymnic: For a long while, there's been an implicit consensus to leave Jewish translations out of this template, other than by way of the link to Jewish translations at the bottom of the template. There are (relatively) only a few Jewish translations compared to the enormous volume of Christian translations. More, the general sense was that people weren't likely to be coming to any page this would be on looking for Jewish translations—but if they did, they'd find them through the Jewish translations link. (And, honestly, I don't really want all these Christian translations appearing at the bottom of a page on Jewish translations. I just don't.)
Now, this template is getting crazy complex, and I don't know that I really favor all the extra subsections (Hebrew Bible, New Testament, what have you). I'd get rid of them all, and I'd remove the Jewish translations while I did that. But ... if they remain, then I think the JPS, new JPS, etc., should be extracted into a new Hebrew Bible subsection of the 20th century section. If we're going to have them, they should be identified properly. StevenJ81 ( talk) 21:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
if needed)
czar
12:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Separation by Catholic Bibles and Protestant Bibles Doremon764 ( talk) 23:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I just removed the NASB study Bible from the list because the article was deleted a while ago, so it was the only one without a link. I don't know if this is the best route or not; what do you guys think? The other options seem to be:
In any case except 5, I imagine there are several more we'd have to add - I know at least the EHV has a study Bible, and probably others. LittlePuppers ( talk) 08:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
As I've been browsing the Bible translation articles, I've kept expecting to see a navbox at the bottom with direct links to other articles about Bible translations.
The list of translations in the template is currently incomplete, and the grouping probably needs to be changed. Please make any improvements that you deem necessary!
The translations in the template are intended to be ordered chronologically. I've used the year of publication of the complete Bible for this purpose.
--stephenw32768< user page>< talk> 11:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The box looks great and a chronological form is a probably the best idea. I noticed, however, a few missing: Clear Word Bible, Quaker Bible, and Joseph Smith Translation. 68.116.99.30 ( talk) 22:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This navbox is starting to get rather unwieldy. Adding every single KJV/RV derivative, no matter how obscure (rather than just the major ones, such as NKJV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and so on) is making it much worse. I think there's some argument for limiting it to 'major' translations, but of course there's going to be some argument about what those are. Any thoughts? Is there some other way to keep things navigable, perhaps by sorting translations into families rather than by chronology? AndrewNJ ( talk) 03:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
The current divisions by time periods are meet. However, within each section, translations should be ordered alphabetically so as to make them easier to locate. This would follow the standard of numerous other navboxes. 1.126.109.232 ( talk) 14:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the Complete Jewish Bible to the box in the proper order of translation dating. I believe it belongs on the list for two reason. First, it contains both the Old and the New Testament. Secondly, Messianic Judaism is generally defined as a Christian sect or movement. Regardless of the controversy of said movement/sect/belief system, the translation in question is, for all intents and purposes, one of the Christian Bible. Surv1v4l1st ( Talk| Contribs) 21:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
A lot of you have spent a lot of time on this template, and clearly a decision has been made to define a completed translation here as being "OT and NT" – i.e., a completed, Christian, Bible. I took the liberty at the page
Jewish English Bible translations of commenting out this navbox for now, because as it stands it just doesn't belong there, even if the article on Jewish translations is itself included in the template.
I am going to propose that you change the header to "English-language translations of the Christian Bible" (added for emphasis here, not intended to be bold in the final product). The rest of the template remains as is, without the Jewish translations. I would also propose, nevertheless, that the article on Jewish translations remain near the bottom of the template for reference, as it is now.
Alternatively, I suppose you could add Jewish translations to the template. But I don't think that serves the purpose of the template itself all that well. I have to insist pretty strongly, however, that either the template header has to change or the template contents have to change. Since the unmodified term "Bible" is used in English to refer to either/both Christian and Jewish Scripture, the template as it stands now violates
WP:NPOV, since it is clearly Christian in nature.
StevenJ81 (
talk)
16:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
@ StevenJ81:: Take a look at the section below: "New Testament translations?" This also seems to acknowledge the complementary point about Hebrew-Bible (OT) translations, such as Robert Alter's recently completed work. Might this help to fulfil your request? Feline Hymnic ( talk) 12:13, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Would it be fitting to have an additional section devoted to Bibles that are obviously not serious, like The Brick Testament and the LOLCat Bible Translation Project? The ones currently on this list are/have all been used by various sects of Judeo-Christianity, but the others are still technically Bibles, so I'm not sure. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
It would be best to create a separate section for 'Picture Bibles for Adults' or something along those lines. You could add Manga Bibles to that list too.
The LolCat Bible is not strictly in English anymore than Jamie Stuart's 'A Glasgow Bible' (which doesn't appear to have a Wiki page). These should be placed in a category called 'Modern Dialectical' translations.
1.126.109.232 ( talk) 13:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Links to the Orthodox Jewish Bible links to a page about Messianic Bible Translations, which has nothing to say about an "Orthodox Jewish Bible". There is already the "Complete Jewish Bible", "World Messianic", "Heinz Cassirer's translation" and "Tree of Life" links to the page on Messianic Bible Translations. This makes a total of five links to the same page, including at least one which is misleading.. Maybe I'm missing something, but IMO the Orthodox Jewish Bible link should be removed.
Then, there's how there aren't actually specifically Jewish Bible translations (except those of Messianic Jews) like JPS and ArtScroll, so either they should be included or the title should specify that this is for Christian Bibles. -- 96.22.225.134 ( talk) 20:10, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Could we somehow include partial works? The translation that immediately springs to mind is the highly regarded 20th century " Phillips New Testament in Modern English" (J.B. Phillips). How might we do this? A section for "New Testament" translations? (How far should such an extension go? For instance, Phillips himself also did a little OT translation work.) Feline Hymnic ( talk) 21:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
The current template has a single level of grouping: "5th-11th century"; "Middle English" etc. It is also, but implicitly rather than explicitly, for full Christian Bibles: Old Testament plus New Testament. I propose adding an optional second level for partial translations. See Template:Jurassic Coast for an example of this principle at work. For instance, the "20th century" group and appearance would remain almost as now, but would also have, near the end, a small second-level group "New Testament" to include J.B. Phillips' well-known version, and perhaps also an "Old Testament" to mention his translations on some of the OT prophets. Then "21st century" would also have, near the end, a second-level group "Hebrew Bible" to include Robert Alter's recent publication. Note how this retains sensitivity to Christian and Jewish conventions, allowing "Old Testament" and "Hebrew Bible" to remain distinctive. Any thoughts? I propose going ahead with this in a week or so (i.e. around, or shortly after, New Year 2019). Feline Hymnic ( talk) 17:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
@ Prof .Woodruff, Czar, and Feline Hymnic: For a long while, there's been an implicit consensus to leave Jewish translations out of this template, other than by way of the link to Jewish translations at the bottom of the template. There are (relatively) only a few Jewish translations compared to the enormous volume of Christian translations. More, the general sense was that people weren't likely to be coming to any page this would be on looking for Jewish translations—but if they did, they'd find them through the Jewish translations link. (And, honestly, I don't really want all these Christian translations appearing at the bottom of a page on Jewish translations. I just don't.)
Now, this template is getting crazy complex, and I don't know that I really favor all the extra subsections (Hebrew Bible, New Testament, what have you). I'd get rid of them all, and I'd remove the Jewish translations while I did that. But ... if they remain, then I think the JPS, new JPS, etc., should be extracted into a new Hebrew Bible subsection of the 20th century section. If we're going to have them, they should be identified properly. StevenJ81 ( talk) 21:18, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
if needed)
czar
12:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Separation by Catholic Bibles and Protestant Bibles Doremon764 ( talk) 23:49, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
I just removed the NASB study Bible from the list because the article was deleted a while ago, so it was the only one without a link. I don't know if this is the best route or not; what do you guys think? The other options seem to be:
In any case except 5, I imagine there are several more we'd have to add - I know at least the EHV has a study Bible, and probably others. LittlePuppers ( talk) 08:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)