Jump to content

Template:Did you know nominations/Biblical criticism

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Yoninah (talk) 22:52, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK toolbox

Biblical criticism

[edit]
(
)
  • ... that white male Protestants dominated the field of biblical criticism for over 200 years, but globalization and multiple new perspectives of the late 20th century permanently changed that? Source: several
  • Reviewed: Winchell's kingfisher
  • Comment: The reviewer, Farang Rak Tham, did an excellent job shaping the article, deserves credit.

Improved to Good Article status by Jenhawk777 (talk) and Farang Rak Tham (talk). Nominated by Gerda Arendt (talk) at 12:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC).

  • I usually try to make a reviewer's life easier by proposing ony one. This one is what we (author and nominator) agreed upon. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm not really sure about this hook: biblical criticism is a very interesting field of study that I'm personally interested in: surely there are other things that can be said about it too, right? The reason I'm asking about the hook is because, while it's fine, there's plenty more that can be said on the subject. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but DYK is not about saying plenty. - Just look at Druet: a great helper worded plenty (which was a good compromise after arguing since February), and while on the Main page, they reduced it to one a little quirky aspect (and I wasn't around, so noticed only afterwards, but you were around). DYK is to make curious, with something that is correct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Narutolovehinata5! I was concerned about the whole "white guy" thing--but it is one of the many things about biblical criticism that most people don't realize--it started out among Protestants and stayed predominantly Protestant until recently. As far as I am concerned you can pick anything you'd like to say, but how about one of these for an alternate?
  • (alternate 1) ...biblical criticism has permanently altered understanding of the Bible?
  • (alternate 2) ...biblical criticism began as a historical discipline and has become a field of disciplines with often conflicting views? or
  • (alternate 3) ...biblical criticism began in Germany and has now spread throughout the world even into non-Christian religions?
Do you like any of these better? I am okay with whatever the rest of you agree on. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5, Gerda Arendt, and Farang Rak Tham: Sorry--I realized after the fact I should have pinged you all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: I actually feel that the original hook is on the right track, but the description doesn't really give the field justice. These days biblical criticism (and indeed Christianity studies as a whole) now has input from varying fields, such as the various Christian denominations, and even from scholars who are Jewish, Muslim, and even irreligious. Describing that simply as "globalization and multiple new perspectives of the late 20th century" seems too simple and not really that attention-grabbing. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 20:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
That was actually Gerda's first response--she wanted more as well. What she ended up with--what's here--was Gerda doing her best to summarize the summary in the lead and make it usable. What you refer to is in the article--in more than one place--and as a DYK hook would be representative of the article. The problem--as I explained to Gerda then and explain to you now--is that it is more information than there is any possibility of including in a DYK hook. This is the third paragraph from the lead which is a summary of information in the article remember.
  • By the late twentieth century, scholars of different ethnicities, women, and those from the Jewish and Catholic traditions became prominent voices writing biblical criticism from new perspectives. Literary criticism changed understanding of method, goals, and philosophy. Globalization and academic disciplines like Near Eastern studies were impacting biblical criticism as well. Anthropology and sociology became the foundation of socio-scientific criticism. Psychology began making contributions to biblical criticism in areas of interpretation, definitions, the field of memory, cognitive science, and more. Post-modernism developed its own form of biblical criticism. Feminism developed its own theology of liberation, and post-critical interpretation began to question the role and function of biblical criticism altogether. For over two hundred years, white Protestant males were the dominant voices under the large umbrella of historical biblical criticism. Their work permanently altered views of the Bible. By 1990, biblical criticism had irrevocably changed from a single historical discipline to a field of disciplines with often conflicting views.
That could easily become the longest hook of all time. :-) But if you can figure out a way to pick and choose in a way that satisfies what you would like to see included, we will all listen to any suggestions you might have for accomplishing your goal. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Being an outsider and not Christian, but having read the Gospels once, I thought it was interesting to read that they may be based on an older source text called "Q":
ALT4: ... that many scholars of Biblical criticism argue the gospels partly originate from an older text called "Q"?
Just my two cents.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 04:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC) Removed second instance of that.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
While an interesting hook to non-Christians, that hook is slightly inaccurate: only Matthew and Luke are argued to have used the hypothetical Q source. Mark (which most scholars believe came first) did not (and was argued to have been used as an additional source for both Matthew and Luke, hence the so-called "two-source hypothesis"), while John is believed to not have used Q at all due to having a vastly different Christology. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
I knew that, but I thought that the word partly covered that ...--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 12:19, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I am distressed that we are at a standstill. I actually like alternate suggestion number two, which is about the results of the kinds of changes you mention that there isn't space to list separately. If you don't like it, the only alternative I can see is to lengthen Gerda's original suggestion or exclude the first part of it:
  • (alternate 5)that white male Protestants dominated the field of biblical criticism for over 200 years, but by 1990, globalization, multiple new perspectives, and other academic fields of discipline changed that?
  • (alternate 6)that globalization, other academic disciplines, feminism, ethnicity, Catholicism and Judaism have developed multiple new perspectives in Biblical criticism?
I don't really like alternate 6, but I did like Gerda's original suggestion--even if I was mildly concerned about the whole "white guy" thing. If alternate 5 isn't too long, does it reflect your concerns?
An alternative (7) is a combination of these:
  • that white male Protestants dominated the field of biblical criticism for over 200 years, but by 1990, globalization, feminism, ethnic scholars, Catholicism, Judaism, and other academic fields of discipline changed that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt and Jenhawk777: I actually think that ALT6 (or at least a rephrasing of it) might be the best one moving forward, since I'm not really fond of the "but X changed that?" wording. It doesn't solely focus on white male Protestants but all perspectives as well, which would be appropriate for a field as varied as Biblical studies. ALT7 is obviously way too long. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I agree with everything you said: #7 is too long. #6 will work, thank you so much for your flexibility in this! Take out the multiple maybe? "...globalization, other academic disciplines, feminism, ethnicity, Catholicism and Judaism have developed new perspectives in Biblical criticism?" What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt and Jenhawk777: What about something like "... that globalization, feminism, ethnicity, historical studies, Catholicism, Judaism, and other academic disciplines have developed new perspectives in biblical criticism?" Are you two fine with such wording? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:27, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
I am if you are! It still seems awfully long to me, but if that's okay, then I'm okay with it. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Noted. I'll just wait for a response from Gerda regarding this. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew
Don't wait for me ;) - Fine with me, - I tried not to interfere. Please strike all others, it's not easy to find for a prep builder. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: No - ?
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: No - I proposed a new hook so this needs a second review

Image eligibility:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Formally proposing this as a hook: ALT8: ... that globalization, feminism, ethnicity, historical studies, Catholicism, Judaism, and other academic disciplines have developed new perspectives in biblical criticism? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me. But i'd put the religions first, and followed by the historical studies and other academic disciplines, which looks clearer to me.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Formally listing Farang Rak Tham's proposed alteration to the ALT1 hook as its own hook so it's clear to a new reviewer, since Narutolovehinata5 cannot review their own hook or this reordering of it:
  • ALT8a: ... that Catholicism, Judaism, globalization, feminism, ethnicity, historical studies, and other academic disciplines have developed new perspectives in biblical criticism? —BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: I like ALT8a—it's short, snappy, interesting, and in the article—but could you please add a citation for it? Catrìona (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Happy to oblige.
  • Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler (2014). Feminist Biblical Studies in the Twentieth Century: Scholarship and Movement. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature. ISBN 978-1-58983-583-2. Page 1 is where the "untapped world" reference is but this discussion goes to page 4 as well.
  • Soulen, Richard N.; Soulen, R. Kendall (2001). "Biblical criticism". Handbook of Biblical Criticism (Third ed.). Lexington, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 978-0-664-22314-4. Page 22 under conclusion, but discussion of these ideas begins on page 19

There are several more, if you need more, on each individual area. I didn't want to overwhelm--these two support what is said. I do have a suggestion though, since biblical criticism was a historical pursuit, having "historical studies" in the list of things that changed it seems slightly off. I would suggest:

  • Alt 8b: ... that Catholicism, Judaism, globalization, feminism, ethnicity, and other academic disciplines have developed new perspectives in biblical criticism? This is what's supported by the sources. Thank you so much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
No, it's still "other academic disciplines" it's just that the addition is to the academic discipline of biblical criticism. Fields from outside biblical criticism such as psychology, anthropology, Near Eastern studies, etc. etc. were added to the field of biblical criticism changing it forever. Only I can't say forever in the article. You would fuss at me. Even if that's what the sources say. But other academic disciplines is still correct. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
We could say additional instead if it reads any differently for anyone else. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
My mistake. You are completely right.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:14, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I am okay with alt 8b.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Now that we've settled on ALT8b, new reviewer needed to approved the hook. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777, Farang Rak Tham, Gerda Arendt, Narutolovehinata5, and BlueMoonset: I have taken a look at this.
Great work on an important article – well done!
As to Alt 8b, i’m really sorry to say this but I don’t think it’s good enough. Not only is developing “new perspectives” ordinary course in any field of study, but the examples chosen feel cherry picked rather than following any comprehensive or otherwise logical list. Most importantly, having read the sources proposed, the text feels synthy.
Having read the sources I have another proposal:
  • Alt 9: ... that biblical criticism has lost some of its "superiority" as scholars have become more aware of their own biases?
    Source: Richard N. Soulen; R. Kendall Soulen (September 2002). Handbook of Biblical Criticism. James Clarke & Co. p. 22. ISBN 978-0-227-17037-3. As the 21st cent. begins, modem biblical criticism has lost some of the luster of inevitability and superiority that it once had. Biblical scholars are now more aware that the Bible can be interpreted rationally from a variety of perspectives. The goal of applying neutral criteria of judgment to the Bible has largely given way to the goal of becoming critically aware of the premises (methodological, philosophical, cultural, and theological) that the interpreter brings to the study of the text. In the new situation, biblical scholars are as likely to draw inspiration from precritical interpretation or from contemporary philosophical and social movements, not to mention from the church and synagogue, as from the inaugurating concerns of modern biblical criticism.
To my mind this should draw interest in the article from a wider audience. It is covered in the article in the penultimate sentence of the last paragraph of “The twentieth century”.
Onceinawhile (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Ok. I'm in. Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
I really like ALT9. It's interesting to a broader audience than are previous suggestions. Catrìona (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Re-opening, with due apologies. The latest hook, the one that has been promoted, seems to be supported by the source but I cannot actually find it in the article. @Farang Rak Tham, Yoninah, Catrìona, Onceinawhile, and Jenhawk777: If one you are able to address this quickly, I won't have to pull it. Vanamonde (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
At the bottom of Twentieth century in the history section it says: "In turn, this awareness changed biblical criticism's central concept from the criteria of neutral judgment to that of beginning from a recognition of the various biases the reader brings to the study of the texts. By 1990, biblical criticism was no longer primarily a historical discipline but was instead a field of disciplines with often conflicting interests." Is that good enough? Jenhawk777 16:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
I went and added that sentence: As the 21st cent. begins, modem biblical criticism has lost some of the luster of inevitability and superiority that it once had. It is now the last sentence of the last paragraph of the twentieth century. Jenhawk777 16:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: Sorry--just realized I probably should have pinged you with this. Jenhawk777 16:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
Due apologies, but I don't think this is quite there yet. While we now have the quote in the article, it would seem to be the view of two scholars, and is described as such inline. We cannot then state it definitively in the hook. We would have to say "according to ...", which is not hooky at all. Alternatively, the article could include the definitive statement, but that change should be made only if it's truly the view of most reliable sources. So I've pulled this to allow the issues to be addressed thoroughly. @Farang Rak Tham, Gerda Arendt, Catrìona, Onceinawhile, and Jenhawk777:Vanamonde (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: I wrote--in one version of this article--that by the 1990's, the changes to biblical criticism had "irrevocably changed it." An advisor said I couldn't know that--even though everyone in biblical criticism does know that and it's in every reference on it. I took it out because he didn't like it. But it is not just the majority view. There is no other view. The opening sentence of the article says there are two primary qualities to biblical criticism: that it have a particular point of view and be historical. Those characteristics were replaced at the end of the twentieth century. That's why the end of the lead says biblical criticism can be considered a period, an age, with a beginning and an end. Biblical criticism did change irrevocably. The Soulens sum that up in one nice neat sentence.
Since I used the direct quote from the Soulens, I had to attribute, but it is not simply a lone opinion. It is not the view of two scholars. It is the only view there is. If I don't reference the Soulens, I can't use the quote, I can't even justly use their phrasing without attributing, and if I don't use the quote, we can't use the hook. But if I do use the quote, we can't use the hook because the quote is attributed. I don't know what can be done here. I guess I am just SOL. Jenhawk777 16:45, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I was pinged. How about keeping it simple, even simpler than the beginning?
ALT10: ... that white male Protestants dominated the field of biblical criticism for over 200 years, but multiple new perspectives of the late 20th century changed that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Gerda, it is normal for me to agree with what you say, and at this point--I am doubly inclined. Whatever you suggest, I support. Jenhawk777 03:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt and Jenhawk777: Interesting, but safer to stick to specifics from the text: so I'd suggest
ALT10b ... that white male Protestants have historically dominated the field of biblical criticism, but this had changed by 1990, with the entry of perspectives from different backgrounds?
Vanamonde (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Fine with me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
ps: Jenhawk, any chance for an image of a not-white woman in the article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I'll look. But version Alt10b is awkward wording in my view: with the entry of perspectives from?? And "historically" isn't in the text either. I can come up with alternatives if we can't do better on this one. 06:05, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Hermann Samuel Reimarus in 1749
Hermann Samuel Reimarus in 1749
ALT11: ... that white male Protestants dominated the field of biblical criticism, such as Hermann Samuel Reimarus (pictured), but this changed by new perspectives from different backgrounds?
replacing "historically" by an image, and dropping date for change - that was a period rather than a specific event. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
No, no, no I can't support Reimarus being singled out in this manner. There are too many people much more important than he. The historical Jesus is only a small portion of the field anyway. This would not be good.
How about even simpler? Alt10c ...biblical criticism was dominated by white, male, Protestant, Christians until the late twentieth century? (Most people think biblical criticism is secular.)
The truth is I like Alt9 the best. It's in the article. I removed the Soulen's name by removing half the quote and just referencing them.

Here's another alternative:

  • Alt12 By 1990, biblical criticism was no longer a historical discipline but was instead a field of disciplines with often conflicting interests. There are other alternatives that could be used as well, but please, not Reimarus. Jenhawk777 06:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
I have insufficient experience with DYK to really understand what's expected here. Does a hook have to be in the article word for word or is it sufficient that the ideas are there? I feel like we have, from the beginning, kept trying to make the "white male Protestant" line work, and have not been able to come up with a version of it that everyone likes. I have actually rewritten that last paragraph in the "Twentieth century," repeatedly, toward that end, with it always including variations of the same exact ideas but not necessarily the same exact wording. Perhaps--maybe--could it be time we moved on to some other aspect as Onceinawhile suggested? I believe that's what Vanamonde93 was attempting with Reimarus, and if this were an article on the historical Jesus or mythicism, this idea would be brilliant, but it's not representative of biblical criticism overall. Could we go back and re-examine a version of Alt9? Or come up with something completely new? How close to wording in the article do hooks have to be? Jenhawk777 16:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I would be willing to pass ALT10c: I think the juxtaposition of "biblical criticism" with "protestants" makes it hooky, and it's in the article. Is it okay with you both? @Jenhawk777: The hook doesn't have to appear word for word, but it shouldn't contain information that isn't in the article. So ALT10c works. Also: I suspect you've done something odd with your signature, as a result of which none of your pings are working (the ping function requires a signature in the same edit as the ping template). Vanamonde (talk) 06:28, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
no no no ;) - It doesn't work gramatically, saying it was dominated by white, and suggesting that Protestests are not Christians ;)
ALT13: ... that biblical criticism was dominated by white male Protestant Christians until the late twentieth century?
Different topic: the German article linked in "Other languages" is de:Biblische Exegese which seems a different topic, interpretation rather than criticism. It has no article in German, de:Bibelkritik is a dab page, and none of the two linked articles there covers this. I wonder if it was better to completely drop the language, or link to the dab. What we have is misleading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Gerda, I don't know who added that link. But it does sound like it should be removed.Jenhawk777 07:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
I hadn't read it carefully enough: ALT13 is better. GTG, based on the previous reviews of the article and my verification of the hook. Vanamonde (talk) 07:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Okay--no commas. Alt13is fine with me too. Vanamonde93 I haven't intentionally done anything with my signature and haven't a clue what the problem could be. I didn't know my pings weren't working. I just checked over my "Preferences"--nothing weird has happened that I noticed. Where else can I look? Jenhawk777 07:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 So have we agreed on Alt13? Do we need to wait now for another uninvolved reviewer, like last time? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:18, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: No, I've approved the hook. A prep-builder will come along and promote this at some point. Vanamonde (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Biblical_criticism&oldid=856682750"