Talk:Protestant Bible

Nonconformists

I would prefer to remove the term "Nonconformists" which was recently introduced. My reasons are because it is:

• A dated term
• Applies principally in England and historically in Wales (but not in most of the world where Protestants are not either conforming or not conforming to an Established church)
• Excludes low church / Evangelical Anglicans who generally don't use bibles with an Apocrypha

Comments? Greenshed (talk) 17:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Greenshed, all Anglicans will use a Bible containing the Old Testament, Apocrypha, and New Testament. Liturgically, while Anglo-Catholics might use the English Missal or something similar, low church Anglicans will use the 1662 BCP whose lectionary includes readings from the Apocryphal books. Verses from the Apocrypha are quoted elsewhere in BCP; for example, the Offertory includes: "Be merciful after thy power. If thou hast much, give plenteously; if thou hast little, do thy diligence gladly to give of that little: for so gatherest thou thyself a good reward in the day of necessity. Tobit iv." (refer to pages 16-20, 133) I think its important to mention Nonconformists here because the decision to not publish the Apocrypha in the Bible was one that occurred within the context of English Protestantism, rather than Protestantism as a whole (for example in Germany, it continued to be published in the Bible). I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 19:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think you are right to say that "all Anglicans will use a Bible containing the Old Testament, Apocrypha, and New Testament." While, of course, I have not done an exhaustive survey of all Anglican churches, baring my tourist visits to cathedrals, I have never seen a bible with an Apocrypha in a CofE that I have been have attended. If one takes a look at the website of the conservative, evangelical Anglican Church Society, on the Apocryphal they say "we have now come full-circle, the books are no longer in our Bibles but they are also now largely unknown" ([1]) but perhaps you have a reference to the contrary? As regards the now rather seldom used 1662 BCP, I am not disputing that there are lectionary readings from the Apocryphal books but this article is on the topic of the Protestant Bible not Anglican attitudes to and uses of the Apocrypha. Finally, I do still suggest that we should writing for a global English readership and that while I suspect that you are right about German Protestant bibles frequently containing the Apocrypha (a ref would be helpful and this is not my area of expertise), both the English language and Protestantism have gone global and so I would only favour using the term "Nonconformists" as part of a historical explanation of developments in England and Wales. Best regards. Greenshed (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply User:Greenshed. The official liturgy of the Church of England today is the 1662 BCP, with Common Worship being the alternative. As with the 1662 BCP, the lectionary contained in Common Worship requires several readings from the Apocryphal books throughout the liturgical year. In light of that, I would find it hard to digest that any Anglican church would have Scripture that did not contain the Apocrypha, without breaking the official rubrics. This video has an Anglican priest explain what books are in the Bible of an Anglican church; I trust that it might be helpful here. Concerning the books of the German Lutheran Bible, this 2017 table of contents will give you an idea with respect to that topic. With regards, Anupam^Talk 00:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I am not for one minute disputing that there are Anglicans who use the Apocrypha either in their liturgy or in some of their bibles but I am simply observing that there is evidence that not all Anglicans have the Apocrypha in their bibles. Evidence that the Apocrypha is quoted in Anglican liturgy is not, on its own, evidence that the Apocrypha is printed in Anglican bibles. On the German point, by all means add a note to the article about the German Lutheran Bible. As an aside, it is widely stated that the Church of England is a broad church and as such in encompasses a wide range of theological viewpoints and ecclesiastical practices. As the BCP is Anglo-Catholic while the Thirty-nine Articles are much more Protestant, I would suggest that the "official rubrics" are not wholly consistent and, as such, it is not surprising that local Anglican churches are not fully in alignment with them, however indigestible this might seem. Anyway, my main points are that in reality not all Anglicans use bibles with the Apocrypha and that non-Anglican Protestants in the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, South Africa, Kenya, .... cannot in any meaningful sense be considered to be nonconformists. Greenshed (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Orthodox Bible

Should we work on creating an Orthodox Bible page? One in a similar vain of Catholic Bible and Protestant Bible. Doremon764 (talk) 11:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

It's a good idea if you have the time. Greenshed (talk) 19:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Handling quoted text

Regaring these reverts, please see WP:CITE—in particular, In-text attribution … is done whenever a writer or speaker should be credited, such as with quotations …. Also, please justify quoting a 1981 pamphlet to prove a claim of anything regarding a phtrase like to this day.

Also, is there a source or other evidence for Luther’s very long subtitle for the Apocrypha section being well-known? —96.8.24.95 (talk) 03:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the reverts made by User:Trlovejoy. Adding an attribution in the lede is unnecessary, especially when the author is mentioned in the reference, along with the original quote. Anupam^Talk 03:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe there’s a reason that WP:CITE advises to use in-text attribution in addition to a reference, but regardless, why is a direct quote necessary here? Particularly if the source doesn’t bear a mention in the text, I don’t understand the value of a quotation over simply saying it in Wikipedia’s voice. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 03:31, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with putting the text in Wikipedia's voice, but don't see the need to attribute the claim in the introduction when a reference is already there (the author is already mentioned in the reference). Anupam^Talk 03:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It still seems to me that the aforementioned guideline flatly disagrees with your position, but okay, let’s rewrite around the issue. What of my other reverted edits? —96.8.24.95 (talk) 03:44, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with this edit as the focus of the former wording is regarding the lectionary and the removal of the reference is not helpful. Anupam^Talk 03:56, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I’ve written around the quotes and believe and hope all concerns have been addressed. Still not sure why we’re relying on a pamphlet from 1981 for that last, but if no one’s requested a better source, all right. —96.8.24.95 (talk) 04:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning "1981" in the lede is not necessary and is misleading. Lutheran and Anglican lectionaries have included readings from the intertestamental books for much longer. Other than that, I am fine with your edits. Anupam^Talk 04:06, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

First king James versions without Apocrypha

Article states that the first King James versions without an Apocrypha were bound in 1666. I own a Kjv bible printed 1650 OT and 1651 NT by R Norton London that has no apocrypha. 95.145.15.106 (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2024 (UTC)