Talk:Psalms

Reformatting individual psalm article leads

I noticed a great deal of inconsistency with the formatting of individual psalm articles, particularly in the lead sections. Some had the 'Bible chapter' infobox, others didn't. The same is true with using bold text for alternative names (i.e., Latin and English incipits), a topic discussed by myself and @Gerda Arendt at User_talk:EtheyB#Psalms. I contend that per MOS:BOLDALTNAMES at least Latin incipits (e.g. "Beati inmaculati in via") should be in bold, since they are (historically and presently) very commonly referred to by these names (i.e., in musical compositions, Latin rubrics, the Book of Common Prayer [1], the Roman Breviary [2] and other breviaries/psalters). English and Hebrew incipits may also be bold.

We want to bring this discussion to a broader forum to avert an edit war and would greatly appreciate the input of other users. Thank you. EtheyB (talk) 11:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

As said in the long previous discussion: I don't believe that we need to bold incipits of the psalms, be it in English, Latin or Hebrew. They are incipits and not really titles. The title of Psalm 119 is Psalm 119. The only alternative title to bold, imho, is Psalm 118, in the (often) different numbering system of the Vulgate. Both English (KJV) and Latin beginnings feature prominently in the infobox. The version I support is therefore what we had before bolding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

In general I agree with Gerda Arendt, but there are some Psalms whose alternative title meets the MOS:BOLDALTNAMES threshold of being a significant alternative title and/or a redirected title: an obvious example is Psalm 23, Vulgate Psalm 22, which is widely known in English as The Lord is my Shepherd, the latter being a redirect to the Psalm's page. BobKilcoyne (talk) 12:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Incipits should be treated as equivalent to titles. As our article Incipit points out "Before the development of titles, texts were often referred to by their incipits...", "...the practice of the incipit predates classical antiquity by several millennia and can be found in various parts of the world", and "the practice of referring to texts by their initial words remains commonplace." Psalm numbers are not informative and are ambiguous in many cases. I see no reason not to bold incipits in Psalm articles.--agr (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Masoretic vs LXX numbering

Confusing: enWiki used to link mainly to the Bible Gateway website (now BGW seems to have stopped cooperating, templates aren't working anymore), and with the oremus website. BGW uses the Masoretic numbers (all Cristian as well as the "Complete Jewish Bible" and "Orthodox Jewish Bible" versions), and so does oremus. One can check that for instance by comparing Ps. 113 at Mechon Mamre (Ps. 113 here) and on those two websites. To find the LXX numbers actually indicated in brackets, one must go for instance on Bible Hub.

MY PROBLEM:

1. Linking as we do, w/o explanation, leaves out those users who are accustomed to, and refer to, the LXX numbering.
2. There's no mention in that section of Protestant practice. It would be logical to think that they go with the Masoretic system, but it must be stated.

As it is now, enWiki id using one single harmonised numbering across the board, all-Madoretic, and that leaves some large denominations out.

The article only mentions that the official Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic texts use the Greek numbering, and that the Modern Catholic prefer the Hebrew numbering. Arminden (talk) 11:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

There is now a template {{Psalm nr}} as a very useful hatnote for the individual psalm articles. For instance at Psalm 126 it results in hatnote: This article is about Psalm 126 in Hebrew (Masoretic) numbering. For Psalm 126 in Greek Septuagint or Latin Vulgate numbering, see Psalm 127.

So I propose that we can remove the rather awkward and tedious psalm-number wording near the top of the text of such articles. (Continuing the Ps.126 example, that would be removing the now-unnecessary text currently saying In the slightly different numbering system used in the Greek Septuagint version of the Bible and in the Latin Vulgate, this psalm is Psalm 125.)

Any objections? If not, I'll make a start in a few days. Feline Hymnic (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal above promoted to its own section below for greater visibility. Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Second Book of the Poetry

This article says quite early on that the Book of Psalms is the first book of the Ketuvim. Should it not also say that some Christians see it as the second book of the five poetic books of the Old Testament, coming after the Book of Job but immediately before the Book of Proverbs and before the Book of Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs? YTKJ (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Simplify lead of the psalm articles

There is now a template {{Psalm nr}} as a very useful hatnote for the individual psalm articles. For instance at Psalm 126 it results in hatnote: This article is about Psalm 126 in Hebrew (Masoretic) numbering. For Psalm 126 in Greek Septuagint or Latin Vulgate numbering, see Psalm 127.

So I propose that we can remove the rather awkward and tedious psalm-number wording near the top of the text of such articles. (Continuing the Ps.126 example, that would be removing the now-unnecessary text currently saying In the slightly different numbering system used in the Greek Septuagint version of the Bible and in the Latin Vulgate, this psalm is Psalm 125.)

Any objections? If not, I'll make a start in a few days. Feline Hymnic (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2025 (UTC)