User:Alastair Haines/Draft Guideline
Draft Guideline on Use of the Bible in Wiki Articles
- In a Wikipedia context, the Bible is a document just like any other document.
Two misunderstandings
[edit]Bible quotes are authorative
[edit]It is an easy error for editors, who personally view the Bible as authoritative, to inadvertently assume this in some of their editorial decisions. However,
- in a Wikipedia context, the Bible is a document like any other document.
Both its clarity and its reliability are as subject to questioning as all other sources.
The Bible is an unreliable source
[edit]It is an easy error for editors, who personally view the Bible as irrelevant or unhelpful, to inadvertently assume this in some of their editorial decisions. However,
- in a Wikipedia context, the Bible is a document just like any other document.
A quote from a book of the Bible is as reliable a reference for its own opinion, as is a quote from an article in an academic journal for the opinion of its author.
Miscellaneous issues
[edit]Translation
[edit]The Bible was not written in English, so shares some issues with other non-English sources. The article on Julius Caesar ultimately relies on primary sources in Latin (and other languages). The article on Joseph Stalin ultimately relies on primary sources in Russian. Strictly speaking these sources are not available as verification for an English language Wiki reader. Instead, published translations, rather than editors translations, are prefered because these have been:
- produced by an expert,
- available for criticism by other experts.
Translation sometimes involves differences of opinion between experts. When this is so, Wiki editors should seek information like:
- how many different opinions are there?
- do they interact with one another?
- have some old opinions been abandoned?
- are some new ones considered controversial?
- are there ideological divisions?
Answers to many of these questions are often found in tertiary sources, which should be cited in an article. However, although reliable answers can often be found to many questions. Editorial judgements are still sometimes necessary, like:
- how important to the topic of the article are the differences of opinion?
- how many of the opinions are really useful?
Editors often place the opinions considered most important in the text of the article, while the rest are footnoted, or included in the bibliographic section of the article.
The Bible is no different. Wiki does not endorse any particular translation
Neutral Point of View
[edit]Many positions regarding the Bible are possible.
Dating
[edit]To begin with, dating of the manuscripts from which we infer ancient editions of the text is not exact. However, of the thousands of manuscripts that have been publically displayed and submitted to the scrutiny of experts, nearly all can be dated within 50 years, that is they can be placed within a century, but not a decade.
The Bible contains less than 100 ancient documents out of hundreds of thousands of known ancient literary works. The dating of Biblical documents in particular, and ancient documents in general, is far from being a scholastic enterprise restricted to religious scholars.
Recensions
[edit]A much more significant question regarding the Bible, that does in fact lead to substantial divergance of opinion, is the history of textual transmission. The ancient manuscripts of the Bible tell us a great deal about both the specific words of the Biblical books at particular times and the value placed on reproducing those words exactly. By comparing the many manuscripts with one another, it becomes apparant that although word-for-word reproduction was normally the aim, some scribes, or their employers, believed they could "improve" the text (like the Wikipedia edit button).