Contents

Talk:Censorship of the Bible

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Bible High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Christianity: Catholicism / Lutheranism / Reformed Christianity Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Lutheranism (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Reformed Christianity (assessed as High-importance). Europe Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. European history Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Religious texts (defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles Freedom of speech High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Law High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Media High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Media on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MediaWikipedia:WikiProject MediaTemplate:WikiProject MediaMedia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Media To-do List: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Mackay Radio Cleanup : Media influence, Video game culture, Sound bite NPOV : Content (media and publishing) Verify : Multimedia, Alternative media, Alternative newspaper Other : Answer requests for comments Journalism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

A fact from Censorship of the Bible appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 April 2020 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that a Presbyterian–Catholic New Testament in Taiwanese Hokkien was confiscated by the government in 1975 for using the Latin alphabet instead of Chinese characters? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2020/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Censorship of the Bible.

This article contains a translationofBibelverbot from de.wikipedia.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[Yellow badge#Medieval Catholic Europe|Yellow badge § Medieval Catholic Europe]] The anchor (#Medieval Catholic Europe) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. [[Census of Quirinius#The Census in the New Testament|Luke 2:1]] The anchor (#The Census in the New Testament) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. [[Bible translations in the Middle Ages#Innocent III, "heretical" movements and "translation controversies"|Bible translations in the Middle Ages§ Innocent III, "heretical" movements and "translation controversies"]] The anchor (Innocent III, "heretical" movements and "translation controversies") has been deleted. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Kindly take a look at the Reference section; there are a lot of errors..

Csgir (talk) 07:33, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Think they are fixed now.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page name does not sit well with me: according to the Oxford dictionary, censorship is "the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered obscene, politically unacceptable, or a threat to security."

So I would expect this article to be about banning sentences or phrases. Instead it is about suppression or authorization or destruction of whole publications.

Also, I think the (and this is a wider issue) that "The Bible" is used where sometimes "scriptures" would be better. This is because, especially before the 1600s, (vernacular) scriptures were rarely collected into complete volumes: for example, the Wycliffite scriptures are often just the Gospels, or just the Psalms, or just the Hexeteuch.Rick Jelliffe (talk) 12:45, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. I would like to ask what the reference is for the information "During the short period of the Roman Republic in 1849, over 3,600 copies of the New Testament translated into in Italian were printed in Rome. After the revival of the Papal States, the government sealed the New Testaments, which were in the possession of the American ambassador. The police checked daily to see if the seals were still intact. After some time, the government purchased the Bibles in order to burn them gradually." Thank you!!Yetzer.C (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found a mention of this incident here. It is not suitable as a source unfortunately. Apparently a printer changed the word "publicans" to "republicans"!--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover: there is numerous unsourced paragraphs. I have added a Citation needed template next to some of them. Could you try to source each unsourced paragraph or remove said unsourced paragraphs? Veverve (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Translation#Include_citations stipulates that foreign language citations need not be included in translated articles; possibly you were unaware of this.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Epiphyllumlover: I was not aware, but the fact remains that numerous paragraphs are unsourced and should be sourced. Your link says: "All articles must comply with English Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including WP:Verifiability." Veverve (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should correct myself above; that was only for foreign sources where an English source also exists. Also see the second bullet point here: Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Translation_and_contextualizing; original translations of quotes into English are permissible and not considered original research, possibly you were unaware of this. Additionally, feel free to go into the German article to find any citations I missed and add them into this one.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not really address the fact that different versions of the Bible exist and that a good deal of banning was done of those that included material not considered to be legitimate. The term “apocrypha” is not used in the entire article. Some books, even today, purport to be the “Word of God” but have only tenuous connection to accepted scripture. This seems to come under the vague and insufficient term “translations” here. I would encourage someone better versed in the subject than I to make clear that banning a book calling itself a bible when it isn’t has that as the motivation.

An example might be the inclusion of “Lilith” in certain volumes as Adam’s first wife. No mainstream denomination would accept that and likely would not consider such a book to be a real Bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs) 12:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This source quotes the 1234 concile de Tarracon [sic, Tarragone] and the 1246 concile de Béziers. This more recent source states the interdiction of translating the Bible into vernacular was forbidden by the councils of Toulouse and Tarragona, and the synod of Sens (1528) and the French parliament (1543). Does anyone have recent RSs which directly contain those information, to support those claims? Veverve (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this sentence, which appears to make no sense: it has no grammatical Subject.

"In the course of a confirmation of the writings in 1215 at Fourth Council of the Lateran's condemnation of the writings of David of Dinant ordered Gregory IX. in 1231, to hand over all the theological books written in Latin to the diocesan bishops."

If anyone can make it a proper sentence with whatever meaning was intended in the source, please go ahead. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 18:55, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The Lateran Council confirmed Benedict XIII's bull Unigenitus dei filius."<ref name="bbkl">

I removed this sentence because 1) the last Lateran Council was 400 years earlier not after, and 2) the Ungenitus it adopted was a different document. See the Note on Unigenitus

Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A flaw in the current article is that it mentions starts of censorships, but not when they ended, or how they were implemented, etc. It sometimes does this by implication, by mentioning some other event (e.g. the publication of the Great Bible), but it is not systematic or coherant, I think. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is pretty shoddy, and full of dodgy material, all skewed one way: overstating the nature and extent of biblical restrictions.

• It gives a quote from the Council of Constance that was given by Arundel 3 years prior. (fixed)
  • And I am dubious about the Arundel quote too...

• It says that Tyndale was executed for bible translation. But that was not a crime nor one of the charges. (see the Tyndale article.) Not fixed at time of writing.

• It speaks of Wycliffe's bible as if there was only one version, and as if Wycliffe translayed himself, for which there is slight evidence, but much repeated.

• It has an interpretation of the burning of heretics law that is not sustained by reading the article.

• It fails to make the connection of heresy and sedition, of state action versus church action: for example, that the laws against Wyciffe-ite texts were banned after violent mob actions that had included murder.

There may be more. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Y I have added a Controversy subsection to the Middle Ages section, and added some initial material (...I will look for more citations). This is because it seems that there is so much dodgy material and partisan inference in the body that it would be a lot of work trying to make it NPOV or accurate to modern research. So it looked like a "Controversy" section to give some balance was the most Wikipedia-esque approach. It is a start rather than a perfectly formed solution. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]