Category talk:Hebrew Bible verses

How might we consistently arrange this category?

This category could end up with many useful, fun and controversial pages!

Probably we can start debating now about ordering and numbering the verses in light of different canons -- do we use the Jewish Study Bible (Oxford) or the (Christian) New Oxford Annotated Bible, etc ?! Or maybe a POV filter for readers who only want to see their religion's ordering and verse analysis!

How about proposing a default template or ideal/potential organization for each new verse or group of verses? For instance:

Introduction) Open w/an overview statement and Biblical context (previous and succeeding verses), fun/catchy points/trivia 1) Text -- see examples Gen 1:1-2--

(a) Hebrew text with

(b) Various translations -- I would recommend also Everett Fox's poetic/literal and an Aramaic Targum (either text itself or relevant points from targum) and Septuagint (text or relevant points). Maybe RSV. Probably drop some less important/novel choices.

(c) Technical/linguistic notes on the tex:. Eg (a) grammatical, lexical info (b) concordance info; (c) accents, masora, variant readings/spellings, special marks, and other critical apparatus items; (d) misc tech/linguistic info....

2) Analysis, commentary and intepretation of the verse

(a) Academic "neutral" analysis, eg, (a) higher/lower text critical analysis,(b) archaeological, (c) sociohistorical, (d) political, feminist, etc. etc. I put this first partly due to NPOV and partly because it will be catchier for most readers.

(b) Inter-biblical interpretation (e.g., Fishbane's data in Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel), e.g. Psalms on Exodus verses

(c) Classical religious exegesis, maybe arranged chronologically by author/source, or typologically by Jewish, Christian, Moslem, etc., e.g., Qumranic, Philo, NT, Mishnah, Church Fathers, Midrash, Quranic, Medieval, etc. etc. [Maybe best to do it chronologically by source within ~5 major groupings: Ancient, Samaritan, Rabbinic, Karaitic, Pre-Reformation Christian, Moslem, Catholic, Protestant, [non-Abrahamic religions?!] etc.

(I don't think this can be divided by genre, eg allegorical - legal - midrashic etc, without constant nitpicking)

(d) Misc. literary, polemical and other exegesis

3) Usage of the verse, e.g.,

(a) Interesting popular and historical uses -- maybe put this at front of article, esp if catchy / noteworthy /fun

(b) Liturgical, again arranged by source or by religion/denomination

(c) Normative uses for religious law (e.g. halakha) and ethics (e.g. Catholic social teachings)

(d) Theological and philosophical

4) References, external links, etc

Yikes, this is way too ambitious for any given verse. Sorry if I've wasted our time/space. It could be an ideal arrangement.

Maybe do: For each verse, do the (1) text, as above. For groups of verses: do (2) Analysis, (3) Usage. It would be fine to have overlap in groupings because different exegeses/analyses cover different groupings. That's how the bibliographic databases handle the problem (e.g., ATLA Religion database).

Kudos for naming this "Hebrew Bible" and not a more POV term! Take care. --HG 05:18, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To add or continue discussion/s: See also Talk:Genesis 1:1 IZAK 01:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Posting this discussion at Genesis 1:1 article

I am posting this discussion to the article on Genesis 1:1 where it rightly belongs. The nature of the category is not really under the microscope because the discussion begins with how the verses are to be presented. IZAK 00:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really going to include all verses of the bible???

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Markus Schmaus (talk • contribs) 01:55, 17 January 2006

No. That's been discussed elsewhere. Only those of encyclopedic interest. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category merger

Category:Hebrew Bible quotations was merged here on 3 December 2007. See discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 23#Category:Hebrew Bible quotations. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]