Talk:Bible and Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
image added
 
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Image:Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux's marble sculpture 'Ugolino and his Sons', Metropolitan Museum of Art.jpg|thumb|right|400px|Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux's marble sculpture 'Ugolino and his Sons', Metropolitan Museum of Art]]
{{controversial}}
[[Image:Jean-Baptiste_Carpeaux_La_Danse.jpg|thumb|right|400px|La Danse (The Dance), Opera Garnier in Paris]]
{{talkheaderlong}}
{{Commonscat}}
{{WikiProjectBanners
|1={{WikiProject Judaism}}
|2={{ChristianityWikiProject|class=A|importance=Top|core-topics-work-group = yes}}
|3={{Project Catholicism|class=A|importance=high}}
|4={{WPCalvinism/Article Scope|class=B|importance=}}
|5={{WikiProject Lutheranism|class=B|importance=high}}
|6={{WikiProject Bible|class=B|importance=high}}
|7={{WikiProject Books|class=B}}
|8={{LDSproject}}
}}
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC
|action1date=22:22, 15 May 2006
|action1link=Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bible/archive1
|action1result=not promoted
|action1oldid=53383710


'''Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux''' ([[May 11]], [[1827]], [[Valenciennes]] –[[October 12]], [[1875]], [[Courbevoie]]) was a French sculptor and painter. His early studies were under [[François Rude]]. Carpeaux won the [[Prix de Rome]] in [[1854]], and moving to [[Rome]] to find inspiration, he there studied the works of [[Michelangelo Buonarroti|Michelangelo]], [[Donatello]] and [[Andrea del Verrocchio|Verrocchio]]. Staying in Rome from [[1854]] to [[1861]], he obtained a taste for movement and spontaneity, which he joined with the great principles of [[baroque art]]. In [[1861]] he made a bust of [[Mathilde Bonaparte|Princess Mathilde]], and this later brought him several commissions from [[Napoleon III]]. He worked at the pavilion of [[Flora (goddess)|Flora]], and the [[Opéra Garnier]]. His group La Danse (the Dance, [[1869]]), situated on the right side of the façade, was criticised as an offence to common decency.
|action2=AFD
|action2date=16:45, 25 October 2006
|action2link=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bible
|action2result=speedy keep
|action2oldid=83659800


He never managed to finish his last work, the famous Fountain of the Four Parts of the Earth, on the Place Camille Jullian. He did finish the terrestrial globe, supported by the four figures of [[Asia]], [[Europe]], [[North America|America]] and [[Africa]], and it was [[Emmanuel Frémiet]] who completed the work by adding the eight leaping horses, the tortoises and the dolphins of the basin.
|currentstatus=FFAC
}}
{{WP1.0|v0.5=pass|class=A|category=Philrelig|VA=yes|WPCD=yes|small=yes}}
Archives:
*[[Talk:Bible/Archive]]
*[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bible&oldid=23978944 Archive to September 2005]
*[[Talk:Bible/Archive 3]]
*[[Talk:Bible/Archive 4]]
*[[Talk:Bible/Archive 5]]
*[[Talk:Bible/Archive 6]]
*[[Talk:Bible/Archive 7]]
*[[Talk:Bible/Archive 8]]
*[[Talk:Bible/Archive 9]]
*[[Talk:Bible/Archive 10]]


== Sculptures by Carpeaux ==
===Categorization===
This entry must be split. There is much conflicting information. The Holy Bible and the Hebrew Bible are NOT the same thing and cannot both claim to be THE Bible. The Bible query needs to go to a page with a list of entries that includes these topics as well as other articles. There cannot be a Bible entry since these people cannot refrain from religious sniping and tryanny. 5/22/07


* Ugolin et ses fils - [[Ugolino della Gherardesca|Ugolino]] and his Sons (1861, in the permanent collection of the [[Metropolitan Museum of Art]])[[http://www.insecula.com/oeuvre/photo_ME0000009025.html]] with versions in other museums including the [[Musée d'Orsay]]
== Spoilers ==
* The Dance (commissioned for the [[Palais Garnier|Opera Garnier]])
* Jeune pêcheur à la coquille - [[Naples|Neapolitan]] Fisherboy - in the [[Louvre]], [[Paris]] [[http://www.insecula.com/oeuvre/photo_ME0000034255.html]]
* Girl with Shell
* [[Antoine Watteau]] monument, [[Valenciennes]]


==Neapolitan Fisherboy==
I vote that information containing the text should be marked with "here be spoilers"
*Yes, especially for those who plan to watch the movie version. [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 15:48, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Carpeaux submitted a plaster version of ''Pêcheur napolitain à la coquille'', the Neapolitan Fisherboy, to the [[French Academy]] while a student in [[Rome]]. He carved the marble version several years later, showing it in the Salon exhibition of 1863. It was purchased for [[Napoleon III]]'s empress, [[Eugénie de Montijo|Eugènie]]. The statue of the young smiling boy was very popular, and Carpeaux created a number of reproductions and variations in marble and bronze. There is a copy, for instance, in the Samuel H. Kress Collection in the [[National Gallery of Art]] in [[Washington D.C.]]
*Hi Folks! Just a reminder that the talk page is for discussing the content of the encyclopedia article. Have a great day! Best, --[[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]] 15:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Some years later, he carved the Girl with a Shell, a very similar study.
In all seriousness, no spoiler warnings are necessary for this sort of ancient text. [[User:Wesley|Wesley]] 16:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
*Hence my sarcastic remarks to what I took to be a sarcastic entry. Feel free to delete this entire section as being silly. :) [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 16:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


Carpeaux sought real life subjects in the streets and broke with the classical tradition. The Neapolitan Fisherboy's body is carved in intimate detail and shows an intricately balanced pose. Carpeaux claimed that he based the Neapolitan Fisherboy on a boy he had seen during a trip to [[Naples]].
Yeah, I read 7 chapters, so don't ruin it for me. I hope Noah gets out of that ark okay... --[[User:Valley2city|<b><span style="background:blue"><font face="Comic Sans MS"><font color="white">Valley</font></font></span>2<span style="background:skyblue"><font face="Arial"><font color="white">city</font></font></span></b>]][[User talk:Valley2city|<sup>₪‽</sup>]] 08:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
:The Book has a happy ending. For some. Did you get to the part about where Noah kept the bees? [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 11:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
::Spoiler: In the ark-hive. [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 11:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


==External links==
*Nah, its pretty no-surprises after genesis...
**So, at that point in reading, you made your exodus? [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 11:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


*[http://cartelfr.louvre.fr/cartelfr/visite?srv=rs_display_res&critere=jean+baptiste+carpeaux&operator=AND&nbToDisplay=5&langue=fr A page on the official Louvre site giving access to some of Carpeaux's works (French language only)]
Satan here, I decided to read the bible to "know my enemy" but I just read the ending and I noticed that I *lose*! I've decided not to bother with the Apocalypse so you humans go on up to heaven without the drama, keke thnx.
*[http://www.insecula.com/contact/A005511_oeuvre_1.html A page from insecula.com listing more views of Carpeaux's works (also in French;] it may be necessary to close an advertising window to view this page)
*[http://www.studiolo.org/MMA-Ugolino/Ugolino.htm A page analysing Carpeaux's ''Ugolino'', with numerous illustrations]


[[Category:French sculptors|Carpeaux, Jean-Baptiste]]
== Torah Section ==
[[Category:1827 births|Carpeaux, Jean-Baptiste]]
[[Category:1875 deaths|Carpeaux, Jean-Baptiste]]


[[de:Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux]]
The Torah section is awfully large for having it's own article. Maybe it should be shortened? --[[User:Vlmastra|Vlmastra]] 03:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC) Note: Let me clarify, I meant the "Hebrew "Bible" section.
[[fr:Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux]]

[[nl:Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux]]
The Torah is the old Testament, why doesn't it warrant as large a place as its younger brother? [[User:Henners91|Henners91]] 07:16, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[[pl:Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux]]

[[pt:Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux]]
:The Torah and the Hebrew Bible are not the same. In principle, I would think that it would be fair if half the article was about the Jewish Bible and half about the Christian Bible. In fact, the Jewish Bible occupies less than half the article. So i do not see why anyone could say it is "awfully large" unless you think it is awful that Judaism is treated as equal in merit to Christianity. [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 14:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
[[zh:让-巴蒂斯·卡尔波]]

== Apocrypha section? ==

The introduction states that some bibles have an Apocrypha section. It isn't my understanding that Apocrypha is can actual section, but simply additional books within the NT and OT. Is this incorrect? Please see wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Books_of_the_bible. [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 01:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposed introduction:

"The '''Bible''' is the [[Biblical canon|canonical]] collection of [[Religious text|sacred writings]] or books of [[Judaism]] and [[Christianity]].<ref>See Patrick H. Alexander The SBL Handbook of Style. Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers. ISBN 1-56563-487-X.</ref><ref>[http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Bible Dictionary.com]</ref>

The [[books of the Bible]] vary depending on tradition. The collection of books used by Judaism is called [[Tanakh]] or [[Hebrew Bible]]. The collection of books used in Christianity is called Holy Bible, Scriptures, Word of God, or Christian Bible. Christianity traditionally includes the books of the Tanakh in Christian Bible within a section called [[Old Testament]], though these books are organized differently and sometimes include additional books. Christian Bible canon also includes a second section called [[New Testament]]."

Additionally, I propose moving this paragraph to a more relevant section of the article:

"More than 14,000 [[manuscripts]] and fragments of the [[Hebrew Language|Hebrew]] Tanakh exist, as do numerous copies of the Septuagint, and 5,300 manuscripts of the Greek New Testament, more than any other work of [[ancient history|antiquity]].<ref>{{cite web
|title=Reliability of Ancient Manuscripts
|publisher=All About Truth
|url=http://www.allabouttruth.org/Origin-Of-The-Bible.htm
}}</ref>"

[[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 01:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)<br>
[[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 16:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, updated introduction. I left the 14,000 manuscripts statement for now because I couldn't find another article or section of this acticle where the information could be quickly moved. [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 19:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

===Objection and quibble===
It is true that before the 16th century, Bibles did not have apocrypha sections; the [[Old Testament]]s of Christian Bibles contained a mix of canonical and non-canonical books. However many (most?) 16th century (and later) editions did and do have apocrypha sections. Editions that have such a section include the [[Luther Bible]], the Authorized [[King James Bible]], and the Clementine [[Vulgate]]. See the article on [[Biblical apocrypha]] for the details. In the 19th century it became increasingly common for printers to drop these sections, but they can still be found in some printings. My 21st century "Oxford Classics" edition of the KJV has the apocrypha section.

For that reason I quibble with your opening statement, ''The Bible is the'' '''canonical''' ''collection of sacred writings or books of Judaism and Christianity.'' Before the 17th century, all Christian Bibles contained non-canonical works as well. Some still do. [[User:Rwflammang|Rwflammang]] 13:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose leaving the 14,000 manuscript quote. It is one of the things that makes the Bible especially noteworthy even from a saecular POV. [[User:Rwflammang|Rwflammang]] 14:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

:Well, how about being a little more obvious: "The Christian Bible is the holy book of Christianity, and the Jewish Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament) is the holy book of Judaism."

:Better yet, the "central religious text" of the religion, as it says with the [[Quran]]. Nice and neutral, and avoids arguments about "canon" and such. [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That is better, but I recommend changing "''what Christians call the Old Testament''" to "''contained in what Christians call the [[Old Testament]]''", since many Old Testaments contain [[Deuterocanonical books|considerably more]]. [[User:Rwflammang|Rwflammang]] 16:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
:Yes. The point I'm making is that Jews have a book they refer to as The Bible, which is obviously not the Christian Bible. [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 16:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:[edit]Just making the point that mention of variations of the bible such as Apocrypha is redundant to the opening sentence "The [[books of the Bible]] vary depending on tradition.", so it isn't necessary either way. Also, what is defined as apocrypha varies based on tradition. The Catholoic Church labels some books as apocrypha, but they aren't the ones labelled as apocrypha in Lutherian tradition. It's a term with no clear delineation. Again, the topic of variety is covered by the introducting sentence and by differentiation between Judaism and Christianity. [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 01:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

::Old Bibles used to have places to write the owners' family tree in them. I wouldn't say that's "canonical" either... more like a sales gimmick. [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 00:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

:::So, I'm guessing you are agreeing with my Apocrypha point, but may also be suggesting we remove all reference to what is canon in the introduction? I'm neutral on the use of "canon" in the introduction myself. If there is a consensus to remove that reference, then let's do it per the discussion above. [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 00:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that mention of the Apocrypha section is redundant to the phrase that the books of the Bible vary according to tradition. It is rather a statement that some editions contain a third section of books in addition to the Old and New Testaments. Clearly such books, which were found in all Christian bibles prior to the 16th century, constitute much more than family tree pages. You are quite right to note that Catholic editions as well as Protestant have included the Apocrypha section, all the more reason to mention it.

It seems to me that the variability of the contents in the Apocrypha section should no more preclude its mention than the variability in the Old Testament. I'm not sure what you mean by "no clear delineation"; it seems to me that the Apocrypha section is consistently used to mean "books of the Bible that are not considered by the publisher to be authoritatively canonical". The variability in the Apocrypha section is due to disputes about the canonicity of some books; as such it is directly complementary to the variability in the Old Testament. Each disputed book is placed either in the Old Testament or in the Apocrypha section, depending on the opinion of the publishing authority. The earliest Christian bible I know of that omitted entirely a disputed book was printed in the 17th century. [[User:Rwflammang|Rwflammang]] 12:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

:It's not that there is varibility in what is in a supposed Apocrypha section, it's that this is not a common consideration, as the ''edit'' to that Apocrypha section sentence points out. Most bibles simply do not add books that the author finds objectionable. The problem with mentioning Apocrypha is that it is a loaded term, that is pejorative in nature. What is called [[Apocrypha]] by some is called [[Deuterocanonical]] by others, and it is certainly not highlighted as Apocrypha by those others. It's too much to explain for the short introduction paragraph, and too loaded without explanation. Let the article (and all of the other wiki articles on the matter) speak for themselves. We don't need to add this one item at this particular point, since it is explained in context elsewhere. It's not ''nearly'' as notable as the fact that Judaism and Christianity have differences in their bibles. Also, no one is using those pre-17th Century bibles unless one is a scholar or something, so this makes it even less notable compared to the other comments in the introduction (though it is notable in context, ad I pointed out above). If we are getting in Acycrypha in the introduction, we might as well also start off with a mention of the [[First Council of Nicaea]] and why some books where included and others left off. It's just way too much for these short three paragraphs. [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 22:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No publisher adds books that he considers objectional; that is not what an apocrypha section is. It is simply a section apart from the Old and New Testaments for books that are not considered canonical. Obviously "apocrypha" is a loaded term, but that does not keep it from being used in some editions of the Bible. That use should be noted. The fact that the Apocrypha section is not highlighted by "those others" does not mean it is not included in, e.g., the King James Bible. It is certainly too much to explain it all in this article; fortunately there is no need. It does, after all, have its own article, but that does not mean it should not be mentioned or linked to.

If you have an alternative location for the apocrypha section to be mentioned in this article, I would be happy to hear a suggestion. I think a good place to mention the three-part division of some Christian bibles would be in the same paragraph where the two-part Old and New Testament divisions are first mentioned.

It is simply not true that no-one but a scholar uses versions with an Apocrypha section, as a quick perusal of the bible bookshelf in you local chain bookstore will reveal. These are not limited to pre-17th century editions; see, for instance [http://www.amazon.com/Annotated-Revised-Standard-Apocrypha-Hardcover/dp/019528478X/ref=sr_1_1/104-9695478-6009518?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177718782&sr=1-1], [http://www.amazon.com/Bible-Authorized-James-Version-Apocrypha/dp/0192835254/ref=sr_1_3/104-9695478-6009518?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177718782&sr=1-3], [http://www.amazon.com/Good-News-Bible-Deuterocanonicals-Apocrypha/dp/1585160687/ref=sr_1_6/104-9695478-6009518?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177718782&sr=1-6], [http://www.amazon.com/English-Bible-Apocrypha-Oxford-Cambridge/dp/B000EZKXFI/ref=sr_1_19/104-9695478-6009518?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177718782&sr=1-19], [http://www.amazon.com/Revised-English-Bible-Apocrypha-Reb/dp/0191000124/ref=sr_1_22/104-9695478-6009518?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177718782&sr=1-22], [http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Bible-Deuterocanonicals-Apocrypha-Contemporary/dp/1585160210/ref=sr_1_37/104-9695478-6009518?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177718949&sr=1-37], [http://www.amazon.com/Modern-Readers-Bible-Apocrypha-Introductions/dp/B000GU8YZW/ref=sr_1_49/104-9695478-6009518?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177719089&sr=1-49], and [http://www.amazon.com/Complete-American-Translation-Testament-Apocrypha/dp/B000LCBKZG/ref=sr_1_53/104-9695478-6009518?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1177719089&sr=1-53].

Since this is an article about the Bible, it seems to me that noting the three-part division of some Christian bibles is worthwhile. I agree with you that mentioning Nicaea is not worthwhile. [[User:Rwflammang|Rwflammang]] 00:31, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

::Of the books mentioned on the Amazon links, most of the bibles make a point of saying "Holy Bible ''and'' Apocrypha" in their titles, denoting a difference between the two. One of the bibles listed even says "Three Books of the Apocrypha" in the title, which goes to show that what is declared Apocrypha varies wildly between traditions, and it in no way has an established traditional core that bares that name. One bible linked above did have an Apocrypha section. Others didn't appear to have sections for Apocrypha, but appear to simply include such books in their traditional locations (either OT or NT). Which brings me to whats kinda the point here. Apocrypha books are traditionally a part of OT or the NT. Particular bibles having Apocrypha sections isn't ''as'' notable as the fact that Jews and Christians have different bibles. As mentioned above, many bibles also had family trees, many bibles concordances, cross-referencing, footnotes, and a bunch of other additions. The choice to break some books off in to an Apocrypha section isn't a far cry from these other features, particularly since (as stated before) ''Apocrypha'' is a perjorative term and requires a ton of explanation to use it in context. The introduction of this article just isn't the right place for that, unless we expand it drastically and employ tons of reduntant material. [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 01:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not one of the Bibles linked to says "Bible ''and'' Apocrypha". All say "Bible ''with'' Apocrypha". 6 of the 7 bibles linked to had separate sections for apocrypha. I'm not sure about the 7th; it may or may not have a separate section. No-one denies the contents vary; such variation is roughly complementary to variations in the [[Old Testament]] and are adequately described in the linked article, [[Biblical apocrypha]]. The tradition of including non-canonical books in the Old Testament seems to have died out around the 16th century with the invention of the apocrypha section. This post-16th century tradition seems worth mentioning to me. The fact that Jews and Christians have different bibles is very notable; one of those differences is that many Christian bibles of the 16th-19th centuries had apocrypha sections; some from the 19th-21st centuries still do. The apocrypha section is not an "addition" to the bible but a preservation of non-canonical books no longer placed in the OT section. Some do use ''apocrypha'' as a pejoritive term; does this mean we must pretend that apocrypha sections do not exist? I do not understand why you keep insisting we must "employ tons of redundant material"; you did not delete tons of redundant material; you deleted one sentence: ''some bibles include a third section for [[Biblical apocrypha|apocrypha]]'', or words to that effect. [[User:Rwflammang|Rwflammang]] 17:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::Most of your points are taken, but I must correct you on some. I never said we should pretend the apocrypha doesn't exist. I stated that it should be mentioned in context where it can be explained. And in other words, I also stated that it is already fully explained in wikipedia articles and to let the context speak for itself. As far as reduntant material goes, mentioning the apocrypha out of context introduces the requirement to explain it to bring it into context. As just stated above, it's already explained elsewhere. Further, we removed mention of ''canon'' in the introduction, which really leaves the addition of the mention of apocrypha section out in the cold, contextually speaking. Apocrypha sections are as you say, made from books no longer considered canonical, but I will again add (as stated above), they are traditionally a part of either the OT or the NT. It is simply a distinction on how the author wishes to organize those same books, and thus less notable than mention of the OT and NT. Simply saying some bibles have an apocrypha section suggests that there are ''different'' books from ''other origins'' in there. I'm not completely against mention an apocrypha section, but I currently haven't seen wording that does it justice within the introduction without being redundant or the opposite of being under-explained. [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 06:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing "pejorative" about the term [[Apocrypha]] in connection with the biblical Apocrypha. The "pejorative" usage is elsewhere, as the article notes, such as the fable about Washington and the cherry tree. The use of "apocryphal", which essentially means "non-canconical" is a satirical or trivializing usage of the term inother contexts. FYI, did you know where George's wooden false teeth came from? Well, I gonna tell ya. He whittled them out of cherrywood, after his father punched his teeth out. (That's some apocrypha about other apocrypha). :) [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 18:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:Cute Wahkeenah. :) However, I disagree with your statement by saying it is simply not true that aprocrypha is not a pejorative term. Pejorative means, "having a disparaging, derogatory, or belittling effect or force" or "depreciative, disparaging" The term suggests inferiority to other portions of the bible. I do thank you for making the distinction between aprocrypha and aprocryphal. [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 06:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
::You can thank the ''National Lampoon High School Yearbook Parody'' for that one. In terms of "inferiority", if you're a strict believer you could say it's true that the Apocrypha are "inferior" in the sense that the canonical books are supposed to be the word of God or divinely inspired, whereas the Aprocrypha are not; they are merely additional works of sufficient interest to be included in the Bible. [[User:Wahkeenah|Wahkeenah]] 10:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I think you are right on, but I'm not sure "additional" is the right word, since these books have been in the Bible since antiquity. "Non-canonical" or "of dubious canonicity" captures the meaning better, perhaps. I suspect that the apocrypha section was first invented by publishers who wanted to stress the distinction between canonical and non-canonical works, without kicking the books out of the Bible. Some earlier publications had made the distinction between canonical and non-canonical works in prologues. See [[Biblical apocrypha#Vulgate prologues]]. What is striking is that before the 19th century, Christians did not regard "canonical" to be a synonym for "biblical" like most seem to today. [[User:Rwflammang|Rwflammang]] 00:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


:::'''Proposal''' for additional wording following the NT mention. "Some versions or editions of the bible may have certain books listed separately within an [[apocrypha]] section."

:::'''Request''' for further edits: I also would like us to consider adding a little more detail about the NT (something we can fit into one additional sentence). [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 19:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Task complete. Archive this topic. [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 02:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

==Bible (Abyssinian)==

Manuscript 15th century, "Binding in wood, back sewn in the Chinese style"
[http://libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org/Turkey/treasures_en.xml third treasure] National Library of Turkey
Nice to include in the article?
[[User:Fleurstigter|Fleurstigter]] 14:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

== query ==

Can people who know much of the history of the canonization of the Gospels comment [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Biblical_canon#Does_anyone_else_find_these_statements_currently_in_the_article_to_be_unencyclopedic.3F here]? Thanks [[User:Slrubenstein|Slrubenstein]] | [[User talk:Slrubenstein|Talk]] 18:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

== Bible Societies ==

I propose removing the Bible Societies section under external links. All of the entries under this section are spam links, and I can't see how any non-spam links could be added given the nature of the section. [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 17:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

:There was nothing there at all that qualifies as spam. These are all legitimate societies. [[User:Dovi|Dovi]] 09:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

::I didn't say none of the sites where legit, but practically every single one was promoting a particular faith (either expressed or implied) and where not general bibilical groups. The whole catagory is naturally spam for every little group that wants their name linked on some official site to raise their profile. Also, I did leave this request for input up a few days. [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 19:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Bible societies are an important discussion regarding the bible; they have been instrumental in the promotion and distribution of bibles, and have also been at the forefront of translation efforts. Should we have a Bible Society page? [[User:Peterl|peterl]] 22:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Peter, good comment. There is already a bible society wiki article. I've added the link to Bible analysis section in the same format as other wiki article links. [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 03:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Great. Thank you [[User:Peterl|peterl]] 09:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I added a link to the [[Bible society]] article. Links to specific bible societies can go there, unless someone would prefer to compile a [[List of Bible societies]] article. --[[User:Shirahadasha|Shirahadasha]] 18:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Task complete. Archive topic [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 02:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

:Hang about! I think the heading "Bible Societies" should now be changed to something more general. It looks a bit un-professional to have a heading "Bible Societies" followed by a single bullet point "Bible Society". I would have changed it without this comment but just can't think of a more general heading at the moment. If anybody has an idea - please do change it. [[User:WikiJonathanpeter|WikiJonathanpeter]] 12:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
::OK - I've made an alteration. I've changed the bullet point to say... "See Bible Society for a list". Looks much better now. [[User:WikiJonathanpeter|WikiJonathanpeter]] 16:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
:::Looks good. I would prefer just listing it under one of the other categories, but this is fine. [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 01:20, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
::::Thanks. Yes, I do agree but we have the problem that it doesn't fit into one of the other catagories. Anyway - we can archive topic now everybody is happy :o). [[User:WikiJonathanpeter|WikiJonathanpeter]] 21:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

== Bible Texts ==

The links under "Bible Texts" are untidy. I'm not sure about the last link addition. Since I'm not an expect in this area and can't read websites in other languages other than English, please could somebody else take a look and sort it out. [[User:WikiJonathanpeter|WikiJonathanpeter]] 21:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

== Bible commentaries==

I have moved all the links to Biblical exegesis where there is already a list of links to Biblical commentaries [[User:WikiJonathanpeter|WikiJonathanpeter]] 12:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
::In fact, I deleted some of the poorer links in the process. [[User:WikiJonathanpeter|WikiJonathanpeter]] 13:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

== External links ==

I added http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ to external links, but it was removed. It provides substantial commentary and relevant content, and meets the [[WP:EL|external links criteria]]. While it's probably not from a neutral point of view, most of the current links are purely from the Cristian point of view; so this website provides some balance.

That said, there are a lot of other links which should be removed, either because they only duplicate content at wikisource, because they are merely linkfarms or because they are richmedia. --[[user:h2g2bob|h2g2bob]] ([[user talk:h2g2bob|talk]]) 20:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

:I understand why the link was removed. I also understand your criticisms of many of the other links. I don't think www.skepticsannotatedbible.com should be on the bible article. It's a POV link in this context. I do feel it is a valuable link, and is better served by being including on a new Bible Controversies article instead. (I'm actually surprized I couldn't find a Wikipedia article with the topic of Bible Controversy.) Thoughts? [[User:Fcsuper|Fcsuper]] 02:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

::Certainly. I have heard good arguments against many of the stated contradictions, thus the link would actually unbalance the article from that view point. It would be wrong to supply a list of contradictions without providing the counter arguments. As Fcsuper says, it would be much better to have a separate topic giving a balanced discussion in the area (if discussion is the right word). The links as you say do need reviewing. I guess this hasn't been done because of the time it will take to go through them all in order to do a thorough job. This is something I'll spend next Wednesday doing as I have the day off and have nothing better to do! [[User:WikiJonathanpeter|WikiJonathanpeter]] 09:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

:::The link has just been added to another article to do with Christianity. I am removing it of the page for now before more people see it and add it to more pages. [[User:WikiJonathanpeter|WikiJonathanpeter]] 08:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

:::: It is been added this many [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinksearch&target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skepticsannotatedbible.com pages]. The link should not be added here.--[[User:SkyWalker|SkyWalker]] 07:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

== "Holy Bible" vs. [[Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Islam-related articles)#Quran]] ==

The MoS explicitly states "'''''Holy Qur'an''' (or '''Holy Koran''', '''Holy Quran''', etc.) — '''''recommended action is to NPOV to "Qur'an"'''''. Reason: Calling a book "Holy" is making a value judgement that is inappropriate to Wikipedia.''" Does anyone actually disagree with that it is obvious bias to apply this to the Qur'an, but not to the Bible? --[[User:Servant Saber|Servant Saber]] 15:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:07, 19 June 2007

Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux's marble sculpture 'Ugolino and his Sons', Metropolitan Museum of Art
La Danse (The Dance), Opera Garnier in Paris
Wikimedia Commons has media related to Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux.

Jean-Baptiste Carpeaux (May 11, 1827, Valenciennes –October 12, 1875, Courbevoie) was a French sculptor and painter. His early studies were under François Rude. Carpeaux won the Prix de Rome in 1854, and moving to Rome to find inspiration, he there studied the works of Michelangelo, Donatello and Verrocchio. Staying in Rome from 1854 to 1861, he obtained a taste for movement and spontaneity, which he joined with the great principles of baroque art. In 1861 he made a bust of Princess Mathilde, and this later brought him several commissions from Napoleon III. He worked at the pavilion of Flora, and the Opéra Garnier. His group La Danse (the Dance, 1869), situated on the right side of the façade, was criticised as an offence to common decency.

He never managed to finish his last work, the famous Fountain of the Four Parts of the Earth, on the Place Camille Jullian. He did finish the terrestrial globe, supported by the four figures of Asia, Europe, America and Africa, and it was Emmanuel Frémiet who completed the work by adding the eight leaping horses, the tortoises and the dolphins of the basin.

Sculptures by Carpeaux

Neapolitan Fisherboy

Carpeaux submitted a plaster version of Pêcheur napolitain à la coquille, the Neapolitan Fisherboy, to the French Academy while a student in Rome. He carved the marble version several years later, showing it in the Salon exhibition of 1863. It was purchased for Napoleon III's empress, Eugènie. The statue of the young smiling boy was very popular, and Carpeaux created a number of reproductions and variations in marble and bronze. There is a copy, for instance, in the Samuel H. Kress Collection in the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C.

Some years later, he carved the Girl with a Shell, a very similar study.

Carpeaux sought real life subjects in the streets and broke with the classical tradition. The Neapolitan Fisherboy's body is carved in intimate detail and shows an intricately balanced pose. Carpeaux claimed that he based the Neapolitan Fisherboy on a boy he had seen during a trip to Naples.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bible&oldid=139104583"