Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Biblical criticism/archive2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 13 December 2020 [1].

Biblical criticism

[edit]
Nominator(s): Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history, major types, and impact of Biblical criticism. Biblical criticism permanently changed our understanding of the Bible, which in turn, has permanently changed our Western culture. This is an important topic. This article is thorough, makes complex concepts clear and accessible, discusses both pros and cons, strengths and conflicts, and does so better than any other article in any other online source on this topic that I have ever seen. This is, and should be, among Wikipedia's best because of the significance of the topic. It's obscure to the average person, and it shouldn't be. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG comments

[edit]

Moving all of my section to the talk page of this FAC, as the FAC is now so long and filled with templates that it is causing a problem with the entire page. (A reminder please, not to use templates on this page like smiley faces, as they cause the entire FAC page to reach template transclusion limits, that cuts off other FACs on the page and in archives.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know and no one said before this. I have now removed them all. Hope that helps. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

[edit]
  • Images appear to be freely licensed
  • Too many images in "Textual" and "Contemporary developments" sections. This causes sandwiching which is against MOS. Suggest removing some images or putting them side-by side. (IMO, the "Contemporary developments" section looks better without any images at all: I don't know how the physical appearance of any of these people helps advance my understanding of biblical criticism). (t · c) buidhe 12:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Images removed. 21:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
User:Buidhe images are still changing (see talk); a new review will be needed further down the road. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Buidhe Hello! I am so glad to see you here. I removed the images of people, agreeing with you that they didn't further understanding, so Contemporary developments is now image free, as you suggested, and textual has fewer. No more sandwiching. I added one new image at the front by the lead if you want to check it. I believe it is copyright free and had its alt text. I also had a question about including a diagram of Wellhausen's theory that's in German. Do you have an opinion about including an image that isn't in English? File:WellhausensTheory.png Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can read Czech, but I highly doubt that most enwiki readers can. I cannot recommend the inclusion of foreign language graphics; however, it wouldn't be too difficult to recreate this image in English using a free flowchart generator. (t · c) buidhe 12:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then. I can't read Czech but meine Deutsch is -- mediocre anyway. I tried looking up Flowcharts and couldn't find it. Can you direct me? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was a WP tool! I will google it, thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Buidhe So what do you think of the image changes? Are they good? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied with the images in their current state. (t · c) buidhe 18:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! Thank you. I believe they will remain stable as they are now too. No reason to make other changes. Thanx again Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Buidhe Would you mind marking these as resolved, or striking through them, or something so they don't appear active? I would appreciate it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Buidhe Am I being paranoid? I am afraid there is a connection between no one else showing up to review this and it looking like there are things that haven't been done. I would appreciate your help with that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, see my essay. It is a very long article. It was nominated before bringing in all the previous supporters to a new peer review to make sure all ducks are in a row. It was nominated while a source review was unfinished. Under that scenario, it will be difficult to get people to show up. (If it were my article, I would split it to two articles, history and contemporary, start a peer review, and invite all previous participants first. Get two FAs out of it, each more digestible, each more likely to be reviewed. But that is just an opinion. From someone who never supports 10,000 words of prose and prefers tight use of summary style.) And reviewers will be shy when the previous supports were evidenced to have been premature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:SandyGeorgia I addressed most of this below, but I will add here that prior supporters passed only the aspects they reviewed: the editor who reviewed images passed the images, which have once again passed, which indicates that particular support was not premature. The editors who reviewed the prose - which has not yet been re-reviewed here - passed the prose, and there is nothing to indicate that was premature. The editors involved in reviewing the references found problems, and I contacted each of them to come take another look before I renominated, believing I had fixed them all because I was only focusing on their accuracy and not formatting. I don't believe it's a fair comment to say what support was there was premature. The passes and holds were for different aspects of the review. No one else ever did a formatting review like yours. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Buidhe Your essay? User:SandyGeorgia linked an essay of hers that I read twice, and she linked an essay of User:Tony1 that I also read, and I have looked back over both pages to see if I missed yours somewhere, but I don't find a reference to an essay of yours. I would never ignore something like that - not knowingly.
Sorry, I see now this was a comment by User:SandyGeorgia and not User:Buidhe. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did ask someone to look the article over before nominating. They did, and then they left and were out of contact for a good while. I queried them, and got no response, so I took that to mean they were done. Clearly, any and all confusion about this was mine, but I had reason to believe the article's only problems were a few references that I had since repaired, and that all its ducks were indeed in a row. I apologize for any problems my inexperience has created.
No one, and nowhere that I can find in any set of instructions, did anyone ever tell me to contact prior reviewers - though I did in fact do so on my own when I was looking for a previewer. They mostly declined to get involved again. What can I do about this?
Splitting the article in two is an interesting idea, but despite its length I am unsure of the wisdom of this, as most of these topics are already separate pages, and the topic itself is long and complex and correctly encompasses a lot of subtopics. But if others agree it would be a good thing to do, I will cooperate.
Thank you for responding to my request. I apologize for my ignorance of protocol. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are referring to SandyGeorgia's comments/essays linked, not mine. I personally don't think that there would be benefit to splitting the article, although I could be persuaded otherwise. (t · c) buidhe 00:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that now. Sorry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Axl

[edit]
  • The first sentence: "... the belief that reconstructing its history according to contemporary understanding will correctly illuminate the texts." The word "illuminate" here might be confused with "illuminated manuscripts". How about something like "... the belief that reconstructing its history according to contemporary understanding will lead to the correct interpretation"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Axl Okay, sure. Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second sentence: "This basis in critical thinking set it apart from the precritical, the anti–critical and the post–critical methods that came before and after it." I can infer what "precritical" and "post-critical" mean, but I have no idea what "anti-critical" means. Does "anti-critical" come before or after? Also, it seems odd that "anti-critical" and "post-critical" are hyphenated, but "precritical" is not. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Axl I wondered about defining those. So I went and made those changes. If you don't like them we can change them some other way. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
I am still not entirely sure what "anticritical" means, but I take your word for it that this is the correct definition. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
It's what it sounds like. It's google-able - is that a word? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
User:Axl Is there a way you can think of in which I might explain it better? Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I am fine with the current statement, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool Thanx. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "History", subsection "Eighteenth century", paragraph 3: ""Despite the difference in attitudes between the thinkers and the historians [of the German enlightenment], all viewed history as the key to unlocking the meaning of life." This sentence seems to start with a quotation mark, but there is no closing quotation mark. Is this supposed to be a direct quote? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes! It's a common error of mine. I apparently forget what I'm doing by the end of the sentence - sort of like walking into a room and wondering why you're there... Fixed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "History", subsection "Eighteenth century", paragraph four mentions "English deism", while paragraph five mentions "British deism". Perhaps this is a minor distinction between "English" and "British". Is there a significant difference here? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No there's no difference, that's just a mistake on my part. It is referred to both ways in different sources and I wasn't careful enough and I missed changing the one. Fixed now. Thank you so much for catching that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Quebec99 corrected the problem. Jenhawk, if you can confirm that the problem is now fixed, that would be helpful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, either a miracle occurred (humor) or Quebec99 fixed it. It is fixed. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (Also, thank you, Quebec99.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "History", subsection "Eighteenth century", paragraph 4: "Rogerson adds that, among the early scholars of the Reformation who are considered to have laid the intellectual foundations of biblical criticism, are...". This statement is a little clumsy. I don't think that we need to say that this is Rogerson's opinion. (I note that the reference used is Baier, not Rogerson.) How about: "Three Reformation scholars who laid the intellectual foundations of biblical criticism are...". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Vastly superior. Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have changed it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "History", subsection "Eighteenth century", subsection "Historical Jesus: the first quest", paragraph 2: "Semler effectively refuted Reimarus' biblical arguments using biblical criticism." Did Semler really effectively refute Reimarus? Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I will go back and find what source claimed that. I don't remember if it was one I used. I'll find it or remove it - in a couple of days. I should be home by Tuesday at the latest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am more concerned by the semantics of the phrase "effectively refuted". This implies that Semler has disproven Reimarus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am home! I am so glad! Questioning that phrase was a good call on your part. I checked 8 more sources and now think 'effectively' is an overstatement. I have replaced it. Please give it a look and see if it's better in your thinking as well as mine. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The third party description of Semler's work by Schweitzer is much better. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "History", subsection "Nineteenth century", paragraph 1: "Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies Richard Soulen and Professor of Systematic Theology Kendall Soulen write in the Handbook of biblical criticism." This is only a minor point, but shouldn't "biblical criticism" be capitalized as part of the title of the book? Also, is it really necesssary to state this source in the text? A reference to the handbook is already provided. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I didn't think it was necessary and it wasn't there originally, but GA requested it, so I added it and should have capitalized it as it is in the title of the book and not followed WP titling - just habit. Fixed now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am not happy about leaving the name of the book in the text. I am not convinced that the book is so important that it must be mentioned. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not happy then I am not happy. It's gone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "History", subsection "Nineteenth century", subsection "Historical Jesus: the second quest", paragraph 2: "In 1896, Martin Kähler wrote The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ. It critiqued the quest's methodology, with a reminder of the limits of historical inquiry, saying it is impossible to separate one Jesus from another since the Jesus of history is only known through documents about the Christ of faith." Separating "one Jesus from another" sounds a little clumsy. How about "separate the historical Jesus from Christ the Messiah"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "History", subsection "Twentieth century", paragraph 5: "The rise of redaction criticism closed it by bringing about a greater emphasis on diversity." Does "it" refer to the "massive debate" mentioned in the preceding sentence? If so, how about "The rise of redaction criticism closed this debate by bringing about a greater emphasis on diversity." [Would the participants of the "massive debate" be called "mass debaters"?] Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I like it! Done. Mass debaters - that was humor wasn't it? Maintaining one's sense of humor when under stress is an important mantra of mine. I value it in others as well. Thank you!Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, thanks. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Major Methods", subsection "Textual criticism", paragraph 1: "The dates of these manuscripts range from c.110–125 (the 𝔓52 papyrus) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century." I am not familiar with the symbol used for the P52 papyrus. I see that the article "Rylands Library Papyrus P52" uses a different symbol: 𝔅52. (As an aside, I was unaware that the earliest surviving documentation of the New Testament is from the second century CE. That's very interesting.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    P52 is the correct designation for the Ryland's fragment. I believe B52 is a fragment of Homer's Iliad, though I am not a classics scholar. I think it is in a museum in Berlin (hence the B) and that it has been used as a comparison for dating, The Ryland's fragment has been dated anywhere from the first century to the third. It was found in Egypt and scholars think it would have taken some time after being written for the papyrus to travel there. It's part of the ongoing debate about when the gospel of John was written. It is interesting! I am so glad to hear someone outside my obscure little field say so! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that "P52" is the correct designation. My concern is with the symbol used: 𝔓52. Is this the symbol used in the reference? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So since you asked, I went and checked to be sure, and yes it is and referenced accordingly on pages 77, 78 and 79.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since you have re-checked this matter, I am taking your word for it. Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Axl, P is just a filing number that stands for papyrus, that's all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Major Methods", subsection "Textual criticism", paragraph 4: "Textual scholar Kurt Aland explains that charting the variants in the New Testament shows it is 62.9% variant-free." Is that actually what he says? It may be more helpful (and honest?) to say that 37.1% of the New Testament's text has more than one variant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if I understood it correctly, yes. On page 29 there is a chart: Table 1. The Table lists, by book, three categories: the total number of verses, the total number of variant free verses, and what percentage of the overall text they represent. The total of these totals, given at the bottom of the Table has 7947 verses in the New Testament, 4999 as variant free, and 62.9 percent as the total overall percentage. The next paragraph says "nearly two-thirds of the New Testament texts in the seven editions of the Greek New Testament (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk and Bover with the text of Nestle-Aland, considered the best at the time of Aland's work) ... demonstrate a far greater agreement among the Greek texts than textual scholars suspected." 62.9% is in the source but 37.1% isn't. I think that if I wrote that in, it would qualify as Synth or OR or something equally terrible and earth shattering. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Major Methods", subsection "Textual criticism", paragraph 5: "Over time the texts descended from 'A' that share the error, and those from 'B' that do not share it, will diverge further, but later texts will still be identifiable as descended from one or the other because of the presence or absence of that original mistake"." This sentence has a closing quotation mark " but does not appear to have an opening quotation mark. (I am pleased to see Bart Ehrman mentioned in the article. He is particularly fond of parablepsis due to homeoteleuton.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dang it. Quotation marks will be the death of me I swear. Fixed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (I was wondering if scribe 'J' introduced an error into the manuscript of scribe 'E'.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hah ha! I love your wit! Scribe J did indeed introduce an error into the manuscript of scribe E! He he! I love it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Major methods", subsection "Textual criticism", paragraph 1: "Textual criticism examines the text itself," and paragraph 5: "Textual criticism studies the differences between these families." Perhaps this is only a trivial complaint, but textual criticism itself doesn't examine or study anything. Rather, textual criticism is a technique used by scholars ("critics"?) to examine/study texts. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Major methods", subsection "Textual criticism", paragraph 5: "Sorting out the wealth of source material is complex, so textual families were sorted into categories tied to geographical areas. The divisions of the New Testament textual families were Alexandrian (also called the "Neutral text"), Western (Latin translations), and Eastern (used by Antioch and Constantinople)." It is unclear to me why the past tense is used in these two sentences. Is the historical context of this sorting important? If so, perhaps add a year/time period when it was done? If not, perhaps change it to the present tense ("are sorted" and "are Alexandrian")? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Biblical criticism as it is defined in this article is a thing of the past. What was created in the German Enlightenment ended in the second half of the twentieth century. It has progeny that live on, but BC itself ended. This whole article is historical. I don't know how important that is. I use the past tense wherever possible to convey that historical criticism as it was fashioned in the 1700s has ended, but there are 'aspects' that continue, so that creates some problems and confusion in communicating that I am unsure how to make clearer. I said it in the historical section at the end of the twentieth century. If you can figure out a way to make it clearer, that would be genuinely appreciated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Axl That was a super good catch. Pat yourself on the back, please, from me. I have gone back and rewritten parts of the lead from the first sentence on in hopes of clarifying. Please take a look see and tell me if it is clearer now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that seems to be fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 03:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Major methods", subsection "Textual criticism", subsection "Problems of textual criticism", paragraph 3: " Some scholars have recently called to abandon older approaches to textual criticism." This phrase is a little clunky. Perhaps something like: "Some modern scholars have abandoned older approaches to textual criticism"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If I use the terms 'modern' or 'contemporary' someone inevitably jumps all over me even though they are perfectly good terms imo. How about twenty first century scholars? Even though the ref doesn't actually say that, it's a reasonable rephrase I think. I hope. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Major methods", subsection "Source criticism", subsection "Source criticism of the Old Testament: Wellhausen's hypothesis", paragraph 2: "Wellhausen said P (for the Priestly source) was composed during the exile under the influence of Ezechiel." The P source was already introduced in the first sentence of the paragraph. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I reorganized a bit, see if that works. The dates are the thing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have adjusted the text slightly. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You adjust anything you please anytime you please. I am grateful. I wish someone who likes to do reference checks would show up. You are the only one here right now, so I am really happy every time I see your name. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure why this is a quotation, presumably from Peter Enns? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! It is a quote. I have now added the attribution. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this needs to be a quote. I have paraphrased the information and removed the quotation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
okayJenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Major methods", subsection "Source criticism", subsection "Source criticism of the Old Testament: Wellhausen's hypothesis", paragraph 3: "Later scholars of the Newer Documentary Thesis inferred more sources." I am unsure what the "Newer Documentary Thesis" is. Is it the same as Wellhausen's (1878) description of the Documentary hypothesis? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I added an intro sentence that I think clarifies it and pulls the whole paragraph together better. See if you agree and I will change it if it is insufficient. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Major methods", subsection "Source criticism", subsection "Source criticism of the Old Testament: Wellhausen's hypothesis", paragraph 3: " Proponents of this view assert three sources for the Pentateuch, with the Deuteronomist as the oldest source, and the Torah assembled from a central core document, the Elohist, then supplemented by fragments taken from other sources." This doesn't seem to be "three sources". Are there perhaps two major sources (Elohist and Deuteronomist) and several minor sources? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Axl bless your heart for hanging in with me. The three sources are referenced here are, as you say, the Deuteronomist, the Elohist and the fragments -- which could certainly be seen as minor, I suppose, but are not qualified in that manner in the reference. It doesn't call them major or minor, just three sources. Also, I went through your last edit and the I think I fixed all the issues you found. Thank you for those and for changing all the dates to year. I use the template and date is what it has. I will change that manually in the future. Axl thank you. I don't feel like I can say it enough. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I am unhappy with the implication that "other sources" are characterized as a single source, added to the other two sources (E and D). I call into question the suitability of the reference (John Van Seters), at least on this point. If you really think that Van Seters is the best reference for this point, perhaps we should change the text to something like: "Proponents of this view assert that the Torah was assembled mainly from the Elohist and Deuteronomist sources, supplemented by fragments taken from other sources." Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Van Seters is a well known Distinguished professor, and one of his specialties is the Hebrew Bible - he has a page here on WP John Van Seters. Here is a review of his book: [1] I went back to the source and checked others, and tweaked the sentence a little, adding one additional comment. Don't be put off by the sources of ancient literature being fragments. It's just the way it is for everything. In truth, all the sources of the Pentateuch are fragments, the scholars have assumed that some of them were originally whole documents, but every one of those assumptions have been challenged. Here, the Elohist is assumed to be a complete document, but later critics of this theory took that assumption apart. It's the way scholarship progresses. The best way to get your theory forward is to disassemble the previous one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that Van Seters is, in general, a reliable source for information about biblical criticism. I don't accept that Van Seters is a reliable source for the implication that two sources plus fragments from several other sources equals a total of three sources. (In case you're worried, I am not gonna oppose over this matter.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Axl This one has not been struck though it has been adjusted in the text. Is the change sufficient? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. My point has not been fixed. I am not striking this through. But let's not obsess over this matter. I am not gonna oppose over it. Let's move on to more productive discussion and editing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Form criticism", subsection "Critique of form criticism", paragraph 1: "Instead, in the 1970s, New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders wrote that: "There are no hard and fast laws of the development of the Synoptic tradition. On all counts the tradition developed in opposite directions. It became both longer and shorter, both more or less detailed, and both more and less Semitic. 'Even the tendency to use direct discourse for indirect, which was uniform in the post-canonical material which we studied, was not uniform in the Synoptics themselves'..."." There seems to be a double layer of quotation here. Why is this? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because apparently I have some kind of issue with quotation marks. I was scared by one as a baby and forever after have had a mental block about them! Or something! Anyway, the extras are gone. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
lol Thanks for removing the extra quotation marks. (By the way, it is rather a long quotation. Couldn't this be paraphrased? If you really think that we should keep it as a direct quotation, then I shall respect that.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a minor inconsistency regarding the punctuation before direct quotations. For example, the last sentence of "Critique of Wellhausen" doesn't have any extra punctuation, but a quotation by N. T. Wright in "Critique of form criticism" includes a comma. Meanwhile, various quotations use a colon. I am unsure what our guideline at Wikipedia is on this matter, so I haven't changed any of them myself. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure the correct use for introducing a quote is a colon, but I might have copied what was done in the source. Let me know when you find out - or not. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What about this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is still an open question, because we are unsure what the solution is. (Again, I am not gonna oppose over this matter.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Axl Okay, so I don't want anything left unresolved - least of all for you after all the work you've put in here - so I went and looked at every quote. Really. What I found is that most of them have no introductory punctuation at all, beyond the quotes themselves, as they they are part of the sentence structure. For example: "Semler supported the view that revelation was "divine disclosure of the truth perceived through the depth of human experience."
Those that have a comma do so because they are an interruptor in the sentence, yet still part of the sentence structure, which means they require commas on both sides of the quote. For example: "In addition, Reimarus' central question, "How political was Jesus?", continues to be debated in the twenty-first century by theologians and historians such as Wolfgang Stegemann [de], Gerd Thiessen and Craig S. Keener."
For those quotes that use colons, they are independent clauses but connected to the previous complete sentence, so they require either a semi-colon or a colon. For example: Turretin believed in the divine revelation of the Bible, but insisted that revelation must be consistent with nature and in harmony with reason: "For God who is the author of revelation is likewise the author of reason."
I think I did them all in that manner, but as Nikomaria will attest to, I am prone to missing these small details, so even though I checked them, that doesn't mean I'm right! This is my habit however, so chances are it's how they all are written. Is explaining the differences sufficient, or do you think I need to make alterations? I want you happy. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping that Wikipedia had a guideline on the (consistent) formatting of punctuation before quotations. However neither of us found such a guideline. Therefore I suppose that there is nothing for me to complain about. Your rather lengthy recent response implies that you might think that this matter is big deal for me. It is not a big deal. I am striking through the point to show that no further action needs to be taken. Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it's a minor deal for you, but that doesn't make it unimportant to me. I expected a rule too - WP has a rule for everything - but I couldn't find one either. The ones I used above are from "The Brief English Handbook". Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Major methods", subsection "Redaction criticism", paragraph 1: "Form criticism saw the synoptic writers as mere collectors and focused on the Sitz im Leben as the creator of the texts, whereas redaction criticism deals more positively with the Gospel writers, asserting an understanding of them as theologians of the early church." In this sentence, form criticism is associated with the past tense ("saw") while redaction criticism is associated with the present tense ("deals"). Why is this? Also, we have more personification of form criticism, which continues into the next subsection. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the verb agreement problem. You are the only one who caught that. :-) I have done my best to go through and deal with this, but please note, in the quotes, that's how these are referred to: form criticism does this and it does that. Check and see if I missed any! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Major methods", subsection "Redaction criticism", the diagram of "Relationships between the Synoptic Gospels" requires a reference. Also, I would prefer it to be called perhaps "Correlations between the synoptic gospels" rather than its current title, but I am unsure how difficult this is to change. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I have added a reference, but you may want to adjust the formatting in line with the standard that you have applied to the rest of the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did not add that illustration. I thought the one above in the section that actually discusses it was entirely sufficient. what does this one have that the other doesn't? But someone wanted it so I left it. Title it however you please. Your ref is good but it has an ISSN instead of an ISBN. Why is that? Does it matter? I really don't understand most of this formatting stuff. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The diagram gives percentage values for the correlations between the gospels. I found the reference in the article "Synoptic Gospels". I don't mind keeping it in "Biblical criticism". International Standard Serial Number is used to identify serial publications, i.e. journals and magazines. International Standard Book Number is used to identify books. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done then Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed the caption. I don't know how to alter the title in the image itself, but this is good enough. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Major methods", subsection "Literary criticism", subsection "Narrative criticism", paragraph 1: "Historical critics began to recognize the Bible was not being studied in the manner other ancient writings were studied." When did these historical critics begin to recognize this? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • From "Major methods", subsection "Literary criticism", subsection "Narrative criticism", paragraph 2: "Narrative criticism analyzes narratives as "a complete tapestry, an organic whole". "It attends to the constitutive features of narratives, such as characterization, setting, plot, literary devices, point of view, narrator, implied author, and implied reader"." This seems to be two separate quotations, placed one after another. This is not elegant. Also, I guess that is not intended to be continuation of Christopher T. Paris' opinion from the previous sentence? Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Legacy", paragraph 5, mentions "the creation of the modern world itself" and "creating the modern world." I am slightly concerned that "creation/creating" implies a creator, i.e. a conscious agent with deliberate intent. Indeed when I first read the paragraph, I thought that it might be referring to Genesis 1 where God creates everything. Perhaps an alternative such as "mo[u]lding" or "changing" or "forming" might be better? Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (I am not convinced that humans "created the modern world", except perhaps in a metaphorical sense where humans created the modern parts of the world as opposed to the ancient parts of the world, but this isn't relevant to the article.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 02:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. (I am wary of correcting mistakes in direct quotations. Usually it is better to add the confirmation "[sic]" after the mistake.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, but the MOS does say "insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected (for example, correct basicly to basically)." [2] Original wording.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda

[edit]

Thank you for an article with an amazing scope article, Jen. I'm afraid I'm not at all familiar with academic looks at religious topics, but that may be an advantage for testing how a lay reader may react. I'll skip the lead for now, and can read only in bits at a time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

TOC

  • I remember having talked about it long ago, and it looks much to the point in general, almost too much so for my taste. It should help a reader to an overview, and help to jump to a section s/he may be be interested in. For the latter purpose I'd like a bit more context.
    I don't understand. We discussed TOC limits on another article. There is no TOC on this article. The section titles were shortened at Sandy Georgia's request. What additional context would you like to see? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    not about limit, - I guess I'll try to explain below. --GA
  • I'd understand "Eighteenth Century" without "Beginnings".
    Okay, done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you --GA
  • The "historical Jesus" subheaders look very much alike. Perhaps I'll understand when reading.
    If not let me know and I will see what I can do to fix that. There have been four quests at different times with lulls between them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    fine --GA
  • Under "Responses" we have "Methods" - how is that responsive? Same for "Legacy".
    Biblical criticism is a method - so changes in new methods are responses to both its findings and the changes those findings wrought. Legacy embraces all the results of BC, but it can be a category by itself if you don't think it belongs in response. I was limiting the number of categories. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have Legacy a level higher, and take the other --GA
    A level higher on the page as in physically above responses? A level higher as in fewer colons? Like make it section 3? Then all the reactions and responses could logically be under Legacy I guess, is that what you mean? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It - the TOC - looks good to me now! Will check the "Critique" thing - needed or not? - when reading further. --GA
  • I'd understand "Methods" without "Major".
    This indicates there are minor methods this article doesn't discuss. There are a whole bunch of them. Imo that should remain. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    accepted --GA
  • Can you word the methods more uniformly, - "Textual" is an adjective, while "Source" is a noun?
    Hmmm, Idk. Textual criticism is the actual name of it, not named by me, and source criticism is the actual name of it as well, also not penned by me. Our WP articles to each of these topics are titled that way, and even if you type in "text criticism", google will direct you to "textual" instead. It seems appropriate to stick with titles that have been long established by those who are in each of these fields. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, if these are specific terms I'd write them complete, even if repetititive: "Textual criticism", "Source criticism". - I don't believe a header should ever be an adjective alone. Imagine a reader scrolling, and seeing just "Textual". --GA
    OMG I so agree with you! It's how they were originally. Consider that done! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 as methods.
    They are important examples of the method of Source criticism. Examples are necessary and are included in every section. It's impossible to explain what source criticism does without demonstrating it in my way of thinking. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    accepted --GA
  • What is 2.4.1 "Types" good for?
    Idk. It was added by someone else. I always thought it was an unnecessary addition. This gives me the freedom to remove it. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    fine ;) --GA
  • "Contemporary" is an ambiguous word. I know we should avoid "Current" and similar, but for me, "contemporary is meaningless without saying to what. Bach and his contemporaries, for example.
    I have removed all the uses of contemporary that I could. Those left are in titles of books or articles. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you --GA

18th century

  • I miss a link to Enlightenment. Common practice: link in both lead and body on first occurrence. I will not list other terms in the following.
    Linked. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you, did you look for others of the kind? --GA
    I did, but I will continue to do so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I grew up here to no life data (years in brackets) for people with a link.
    I don't understand, could you clarify? Are you saying I should remove all these dates? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    please never take anything I say as "you should", - it's my observations, and you can act or not, your free choice. When I mention people with an article, I don't add from when to when they lived, - I only do that for people without article. --GA
    Okay. There are so many dates in this very long article that without dates next to them I think it would become impossible to place people and keep anything straight. With the dates right there, it is difficult but doable. That was my thinking anyway. Sorry for the alarm! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    accepted - sometimes, however, a place or school of thinking might help more than dates alone, - we said 18th century in the title, so no big surprise/information that they are from that period --GA
    I get what you are saying - the 18th century did all happen in the 18th century - so true! But who came first or last within that period matters to some readers. A reader can assume I put them in order within each category - which I did in fact try to do - but with dates they can be sure. I have had one or two people ask. I agree it clutters things a bit, but for accuracy's sake I would like to leave them unless you feel very strongly about it. I feel kind of mildly strong about it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tradition" is an Easter Egg link, because a reader expecting that it will only explain what "tradition" means will skip it and miss a lot, Mosaic authorship. I suggest to include Moses in the piped link, - the linked article will supply a link to Moses for those who don't know who that was.
    I don't understand, Mosaic authorship is the link where tradition is blue, it doesn't define the word tradition. Moses is linked two words later. ??? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Trying harder - and coming from a discussion where I was told that Germany is an Easter Egg, because the reader doesn't arrive where expected. Here, the expectation would be tradition, and readers who think they know what tradition is will not click at all. You could pipe to the tradition, at least, indicating that it's a specific tradition. Or you could pipe further, including Moses in the pipe link. I bet someone still reading this article until there knows who Moses was ;) --GA
    Changed to Mosaic tradition, instead of just tradition, and Moses is already linked there, in that same sentence, just two words later.Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you - and good to link Moses as well because for us unprepared "mosaic" reads like artwork, - no connection to the name apparent. Next question: can a tradition "say" something? ... or is there a better word? --GA
Yes absolutely. Literature 'speaks' to us, traditions 'speak' and plenty of other things that are things can be correctly referenced as saying something. In this case, a tradition was the thing being questioned. It's always legitimate to question tradition. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Easy to fix: ref order ascending.
    I'm sorry, I must be tired as well. I don't understand what this means. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Minor formality to have refs in ascending numerical order, first 6, then 8. It pleases some reviewers ;)
    I thought that was automatically done by WP. I don't know how to do it or not do it! I am trying to be sure that the first reference to any source is always the full reference, but I sometimes go back and refer to an author I previously referenced--often multiple times--because the topic changed. What can I do about that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "easy" means: if 8 shows before 6, just switch the order of the two. --GA
    I'm sorry if this seems like it's totally freaking me out - because it is! Where the refs are located is 100% driven by content and topic. Part of the work put in on this article was forming a logical order of the presentation of ideas. They can't just be bounced around willy-nilly! I want to do anything you ask, but I am completely bumfuzzled by this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just that you can rest: it's no longer there. I saw to refs for one fact, and the higher number first, and it was like it in this version, but is no more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too tired for more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next level of replies --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And another --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are they Gerda? There's nothing here! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are above, four indents, mostly fine / accept ... - I'm about to read further but will start a new header to avoid edit conflicts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:13, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

18th century

  • "John W. Rogerson says" - I conclude from the "says" that he is not from the 18th century, but how about giving years of birth and death for him also, - or introduce him, perhaps also say when he said that?
    He is already blue linked with that info coming up when arrowed over. Do you think it needs to be in the text as well? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    blue-linked is true also for the others where you defended more detail, no? How about "wrote" instead of "says", and a year, to put it in perspective? ... actually that's true for many of the other "says" - when? "now"? imagine a reader in ten years. --GA
    Two different categories of people. The people who's dates I defended are the historically significant people who participated in the development of BC. Rogerson is just a modern scholar who writes about it. He himself is not significant to the topic. What he says is. So he is blue-linked and his book is referenced. I can go back and attribute which publication of every scholar it is that I use - but this is already a really long article. Is that really what you want? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How about just "wrote in 20xx" - don't overestimate the readiness of a casual reader to study the source itself. He died in 2018, so can't say it "now" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't say that about any other scholar I reference. How about this: "John W. Rogerson writes that there are two twenty-first century views on biblical criticism's origins"? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    History is past tense, literature is always referred to in the present tense, but perhaps this should be past as it refers to him and not what. he wrote? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    accepted --GA
  • A bit surprised that we now get to the Reformation, which was before.
    We don't really. The Reformation, as such, is not discussed. This paragraph mentions an "alternate" theory on BC's origins that's all. It has to be mentioned but not at any length. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    understand better --GA
  • "that Jesus taught natural religion, an undogmatic faith that the Church later changed" - not exactly sure what faith refers to, the writer*s, or what Jesus taught?
    so I added "that Tindall characterized as an undogmatic faith" does that help? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    tough to express, I see, so Tindal believed that natural religion in an undogmatic faith? ... and which view did the church change, just that natural religion was an undogmatic faith, or that Jesus taught Natural religion? --GA
    The church taught dogma. Hmmmm, would that clear it up? Added: "that the Church later changed with its dogma". Is that clearer? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    sorry, no, then we get in the dangerous field of which church which dogma, - isn't "natural religion" good enough without an explanation that causes problems? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, you have lost me now - I must have misunderstood what you said the problem was initially. Explain? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I rewrote the sentence - is it better? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    yes! --GA
  • Do I have to read now what deism is, or get a brief summary?
    OOOh! Good question! I moved the link up as that is the first mention of deism, and it should have been there. The link has a brief summary unless you think it should be added to the text.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    good like that --GA
  • Einleitung ins Alte Testament - I understand it but how about others? ... that author probably coined a German phrase, not "higher criticism".
    I added the English and a brief phrase that hopefully explains why we care. Tell me if that's insufficient. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    fine --GA
  • I confess that the whole higher lower historical textual remains a bit murky to me, - perhaps I'll have to read more below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hopefully that extra phrase - that BC is aka higher criticism - explains. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    better, thank you --GA

first quest

19th century

  • Theologians Richard and Kendall Soulen, - we need to know who they are if we are given several quotes. I looked above for someone with last name Richard. Best solution, write their article(s).
    They have been referenced before this, the last name is Soulen, but I added the book title. See if that works. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see them referenced before. --GA
    No, my mistake! The 19th cent is the first time they are named. I added their bona fides does that work? Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... with many modern concepts having their roots here" - this - that it's still of influence - should be said more elegantly, or doesn't need to be said at all.
    I have throughout mentioned a few of the concepts that have continued to be an influence. It's just a mention in every case as this is about history. It does seem worth noting for modern readers - why BC is still significant - and yet not worth spending a lot of time on - since this isn't really about the modern day. So what would more elegant be? More specific detail beyond the one example I give? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the English expert, but know that the "with" construction and "having their roots" doesn't sound convincing to me. --GA
    I changed it, see if that suits. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Pauline studies, New Testament studies, early-church studies, Jewish Law, the theology of grace, and the doctrine of justification" - some might deserve a link, no?
    Done.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2nd quest

today's batch --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you deeply Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All explanations taken without individual cmts. Very few minor points left, then we can collapse until here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20th century

  • link myth, denomination, Near Easter studies?
    linked
  • "as well as to the challenges it presented to various aspects of biblical criticism" - don't get what that adds
    Two different ideas: 1) contributions to biblical studies and 2) challenges to biblical criticism. They are not the same. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    how would "as well posing challenges to aspects of biblical criticism" sound? --GA
    Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3rd and 4th quest

today's batch is shorter, - I think I get better in understanding ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think your understanding is wonderful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To little ones left above, - too tired for reading further today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am traveling for the next three days. I will have limited access on my phone. Thank you for your patience. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I read through the Major methods without difficulties. Take care. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am home now! So glad to hear that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • I'd be happier if "One way this has occurred has been through the forging of what Jonathon Sheehan calls a "cultural Bible"." came later or not at all. The sentence is long before reaching "cultural Bible", and I am not sure I understand "forging" right. The following sentence connects better to the previous one, at least for me.
    I rewrote it see if it makes any more sense to you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, but could we now avoid "forge a cultural Bible" - then almost a bible, no? - saying twice in a row? --GA
    done - I hope. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • '"no culturally literate person" can afford to be ignorant of what the Bible says' made me curious how he finished the sentence, because "Bible says" sounds a bit like not his style ;)
    It's a summation. It means the same thing I think. I can remove it if you don't agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    could you perhaps have the complete sentence in a footnote? --GA
    it didn't really add much to understanding the actual points here I decided, so it's gone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its cultural impact is therefore studied in multiple academic fields." - the "therefore" could mean so many of the previous facts that I'd strike it.
    Done.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The longish quote beginning "By 1800 ..." has no attribution unless it's the author before or after.
    Fixed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "What this means for the community of faith is the question on the other hand" - why another "other hand"? ... and I'm not sure what "community of faith" describes.
    the hand is gone, reworded, hope it's clearer Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    it's clearer, but I still don't know what a "community of faith" or "believing community" means, - people in different denominations believing sooo different things --GA
    Okay, added "any Jewish or Christian" as denomination doesn't matter for this point. Is that enough? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are three words italic in Fishbane's musing about traditional Judaism?
    for emphasis. I removed them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you, - too bad that italics have to serve so many different purposes, and that we don't really have means for a mild emphasis --GA
  • What do the square brackets mean, and would I know that the quotation following is Fishbane's (while before what he said was described, not quoted)?
    They meant 'this is an addition to the quote', but I removed them and moved crap around, and hopefully it's actually an improvement. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    helped! --GA

Evangelical

  • That's a very ambiguous word, and should perhaps be defined. (Some just use it as a synonym of Protestant.)
    In the sociology of religion it has a very specific meaning. PEW uses it that way, and the source The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought refers to Smith as a "convinced evangelical". It is linked in the sentence about Smith. I think it's an accurate nomenclature for conservative Protestantism as opposed to liberal. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that all this is right, but we still have readers who come from Evangelical Church in Germany and think that Evangelical may mean anything Protestant. (Long discussions on the article talk, nutshell: that's the organisation's official English name. Too bad the organisation has no idea what Evangelical normally means, - not "evangelisch" = any church mostly bosed on the Gospel = Evangelium.) This - equal to Protestant - looks even more likely when opposed to Catholic. ... how about a header "Conservative Protestant", and bring Evangelical only in the text? --GA
    I changed it, but just so you know, "conservative" is one of those loaded words in the U.S. as it has political implications here. I'm concerned its use might convey a false impression, but there it is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    learning: what would be a better expression? Orthodox? Fundamental? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not fundamentalism which is a particular movement that started in the 1920s; not Orthodox because that too is associated with a particular group in the East: Eastern, Greek or Russian. I did a little reading on the Evangelical church of Germany and they are more ecumenical than American evangelicals but theologically appear to agree with American evangelicals on most critical doctrines such as justification by faith. They seem to be very like the Methodists I know, and I consider the Methodists as more Mainline in America than evangelical. There doesn't seem to be a term that encompasses all the different views, so my vote is let's just leave it as it is. Conservative can refer to more than politics while evangelical is a more limited term.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "evangelisch" is the mainstream Protestant United church, in Germany, - far from what "evangelical" carries for Americans (in German two words, "evangelisch" and evangelikal", the latter not a nice attribute). The EKD obviosly has no idea, or would not have chosen that translation. United: Lutherans and Reformed together. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "German ideas of higher criticism, please?
    I took it from the source because it communicates in a short phrase all the things the fundies feared: the ideas of biblical criticism were 'foreign', liberal, scholastically based, and beyond their comprehension. I could say all that instead I guess. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    yes please --GA
    it's just as clear without it and adding more verbosity seemed counterproductive so I just removed it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic

Jewish

  • The linked Schechter was not born in 1903, and someone born then would likely be dead.
    He is dead! The link is correct, the date is wrongly written as a birth date. It's actually the date for when he said the 'higher anti-semitism' quote. I removed it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in Methods

Thank you for the article! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking so much time and effort to go over it Gerda. It has benefitted from your input, and I am deeply grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for adopting ideas. - I have some tasks today - new article and such - but will then turn to the lead, - remember, I always look there last. One point at the end is the presentation of the footnotes, great detail, but could look a bit more uniformly perhaps. I like last ones, hint hint. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry dearheart I don't understand your hint. Last ones? The last note? The bulleted approach makes the other notes readable. There is too much info in them to have them in a single paragraph - I tried that first and it was just a mess: an indecipherable wall of text. If you want them all formatted alike, I can bullet the last note, but changing all the others would not be an improvement in my view. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
fine, just one q above, for my illumination --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did I answer that one q? I hope I have addressed everything. If not, let me know. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yes --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • link Bible?
    Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • not sure about the italics for scientific
    for emphasis of course! :-) biblical criticism was base on tradition before this Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This basis in critical thinking set it apart from the pre-critical methods that came before it, the anti-critical methods of those who oppose critically based study, and the post-critical orientation that came after it." - I think the sentence is more or less a Latin lesson, saying that "pre" means "before" and "post" means "after". Can you reword that? I'd also prefer "critical methods" vs. "critical thinking" because "methods" will play a role later.
    I am laughing out loud. I'm sure you can hear me from there. This sentence was changed to include those definitions at the request of this FA. Please see comments by Axl. I understand the use of method, so I changed it, but thinking seems more accurate to me. Critical thinking led to the development of critical method. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you laughing ;) - Will you find a way to please the other reviewer - I intentionally didn't look what others said, I say my thing and you take it or not - without language on kindergarden level, "that came before it", "that came after it". My take: "The basis in critical thinking set it apart from earlier pre-critical methods, from anti-critical methods of opponents of any critically based study, and from later post-critical orientation." --GA
    I changed it as you suggested and I not only like it better, it's shorter! An infinite benefit! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Biblical criticism historically included a wide range of approaches", what does "historically" add?
    It places it in time in my mind. It says that this is a practice that is now over as we are speaking of it here. It's past. It's historical. That's what I meant anyway. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The past tense ("included") tells me all that. If history, then please not as an ambiguous adverb (which has nothing to do with the verb here, as far as I understand). How about then "In history, Biblical criticism included a wide range of approaches"? --GA
    I see your point. Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Textual criticism examines the text and its manuscripts to identify what the original text would have said." - I see a problem in the first "text" as if there was only one. Isn't the problem that often there are "texts" for the same thing?
    A text is the written word - it may be one or a hundred words - and would still be referred to as the text. A manuscript is the document that contains the texts. Brittanica defines text as writings. What would make this clearer for you ? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know that "text" would be used as a plural word, like "money", sorry about that. For me, "texts and their manuscript" would be clearer --GA
    It can be either single or plural - it's one of those words. :-). I can add s's if you insist. But it will be a lot of s's! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Form criticism identifies short units of text and seeks to identify their original setting." - not sure what "setting" means here.
    changed it though I am unsure it's any clearer Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the other hand" - there was no one hand ;) - how about "While these approaches were .... , literary cr... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The sentence before it was the one hand. See if it seems clearer now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The rise of modern culture in the European West, in the form of the German Enlightenment," - sorry, "modern" is what we call wishi-washi, even with a link, - how about "The German Enlightenment era, identified as the rise of modern culture in the European West,"?
    How does moving it to the middle of the sentence make it less wishy-washy? Some may call it a wishy-washy term, but in sociology and anthropology and a few other fields, like history, and history of the humanities which is how its used here, modern refers to a particular era in human history. We have this: Modernity and a search for 'the rise of modern culture' will yield more. It's not an unusual phrase, and it is used correctly. Early modern is between the 15th century and the 18th. Perhaps I should add that. Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    works much better for me, only I won't need "This German Enlightenment" right after it, too much German ;) - Do we need "German" at all? ... if yes, within the link to something without it? - How about: While many scholars regard Enlightenment as the leading factor ..., others ..."?
    Also (on re-reading): if "age" or "era" at all, I'd mention that on the first occurrence, instead of the third, and only the first time with a link. --GA
    No no! German enlightenment must be there! BC is a product of German thought and everyone else followed. German ideas!! I changed it - and it's shorter too! Yay! See if it passes muster now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "field" twice in short succession
    fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What does the sentence "These additional world views changed the nature of biblical criticism." add?
    It explains the two sentences that follow. It underlines that biblical criticism as it once was is now done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah heck. I removed it. Less verbosity is good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Amen --GA

I like the conclusion! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jen, thanks a lot, - I'm ready to support at this point, for enlightening me with enough clarity about a complex subject. I have no time, nor the scientific background, to check the sources and their representation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done now I think! Thank you so much. I do need someone to come and check the source but hopefully that will happen! Thanx again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment

[edit]

This has been open for five weeks and has only received a limited amount of attention. It is already in urgents, and if it doesn't attract further reviewers soon I shall be considering archiving it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't! This is already its second attempt at FA and archiving it will sink it forever I'm sure. It just needs a source review. This is an important topic and needs to be among WP's best. I was so thrilled to see your name on my watchlist. I hoped you had come for that review, but my heart sank when I saw this instead. What can I do about this? Perhaps I have enough friends here I can ask them for help. Give me time to try. Please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest pinging anyone who has previously reviewed or commented on the article to see if you can get a review out of them. Plus calling in any Wiki-favours you can. In particular it needs thorough source review. I would like to review it myself, and if time permits will recuse from coordinator duties to do so, but things are busy for me at the moment. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just been pinging everyone I know on WP! I asked the original source reviewers for a peer-review kind of look before nominating it this time, and they declined then. Should I re-ask do you think - since it's urgent now - or would that be pesty and rude? I don't want to be rude, not knowingly anyway. :-) Even if I'm not rude, I think I am annoyingly persistent some times, and every contact I make here doesn't automatically result in a friend. I have asked about a dozen people for a source review, but that pretty much exhausts everyone I know. I was still relatively new to WP when I was run off a couple years ago and have only been back a few months, so I don't have a lot of established relationships. I'll just have to wait and see if anyone shows up. If you could find the time for this, I would be forever in your debt. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, when I want a review I am shameless, although hopefully polite. This is getting an important topic to FA; if people don't wish to review, they can politely decline. Try some of the regular multiple reviewers - see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC reviewing statistics for October 2020 Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will do Chief! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gog the Mild User:Sdkb had some questions I couldn't answer: the location of the sidebar which another reviewer had me move to the bottom, how many images are good? as another reviewer had me remove a bunch of them, some line break thing in notes that I don't understand, and the access dates in further reading. Also, do all the ISBNs need to have dashes? They are copy-pasted from the sources and are accessible as they are. It's not that I mind doing the work but I mind doing unnecessary work. This would be time consuming for no real benefit to my thinking but I will of course bow to your judgment. You say and I will make it so.
Gog, this is now my third formatting review, and don't get me wrong, I apparently need it and people are showing up and being kind and careful and genuinely improving the look of the references and I'm grateful for that. But no one is doing the kind of reference check I asked for. No one is checking for accuracy. What am I gonna do Gog? I am getting so stressed I can't eat. I love Wikipedia but this is crazy! This is a hobby! But I so very much want this FA for this article. I'm going to need therapy after this, however it goes. If only WP provided that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Sdkb

[edit]

Responding to the plea I noticed on AlanM1's talk page. Bible-related topics strike me as one of those areas that probably has a lot more interest from readers than editors, so I share the sentiment that getting this page over the finish line should probably be prioritized over pages in other, more niche areas. I'm relatively new to the FC nomination process, so I regretfully don't have the time or expertise to dive into a full source review, but I'll take a skim over the sources and leave some comments with anything I find. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sdkb Thank you, thank you, thank you! I am so grateful you are here! Responses follow! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments

Non-source comments

Take the below with the caveat that I don't have any subject-specific expertise in biblical criticism, so if some of these points just reflect my ignorance, take them as indicative only of that.

  • I shortened the short description to get it closer to the 40-character target.
    I love it. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In "Most scholars agree the German Enlightenment (1650 and 1800)", it's unclear what the years in parentheses refer to.
    It refers to the dates of the German Enlightenment period. Perhaps I can make that clearer. Better? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, that's fine. "(1650–1800)" would also work if we want to keep it shorter. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How - without putting those dates back in parenthesis? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was the "and" that was the issue ("and" doesn't signify a range), not the parentheses. I changed it to this; does that look alright? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! Of course! I don't know why there was an and instead of a dash, but it looks fine now. Thank you. Are there 'circas' on the other dates? If not they should probably not be here either. I'll get in trouble for inconsistency. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead has me a little confused about the past vs. present tense. Most of it is in the past tense, but the third paragraph uses the present tense to describe the different forms, and states that literary criticism is still happening in the 21st century. Saying "other academic disciplines...formed new methods of biblical criticism" in the 21st century also seems to imply it's not an entirely dead discipline.
    I have really struggled with effectively communicating that the biblical criticism as described in this article has come to an end, but that it has done so by transforming into multiple other forms with a different basic criteria and different goals. It is no longer what it was, but its progeny live on doing things the parent never dreamed of. I have tried again. If it isn't good enough yet, tell me and I will try again. Or if there is anything you can think of, feel free to act! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Sdkb Is it okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the changes have definitely helped. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The passage "Biblical criticism's legacy is both undeniable and mixed. It permanently changed perception of the Bible, and in the process, changed itself." strikes me as a little flowery and not fully encyclopedic/neutral. Something like "Biblical criticism has had an influential and mixed legacy" for the first sentence and more specificity in the second sentence would help.
    The "permanently changed perception of the Bible" part is a direct quote that is attributed in the Legacy section's first sentence. "Mixed" is a summation of the three paragraphs that follow it. I'd really like to keep the quote if possible, but if you say you feel strongly about it not sounding encyclopedic, I will change it. I had one other really beautiful sentence that two reviewers really hated that I had to ditch, so this one can go too if required. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The history and legacy sections feel a little sparse on illustration; if there are suitable options available, they might help break up the text a bit.
    This is also in response to a previous reviewer. I removed images that were in those sections that were mostly pictures of the people referred to in the article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar to the above, I think this is somewhat a matter of personal approach. I interpret MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE to allow for portraits of people mentioned at reasonable length, especially if they're kept to a small size, but I'll defer to whatever the consensus is here. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source comments

  • Pages "none available" is a little weird in ref 10. I think the citation templates have some parameters for marking where things are in sources that don't use explicit page numbers.
    I would love to learn how to do this. Usually if a source doesn't have page numbers I just don't use it which eliminates some really good sources. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See above about |at=. URL adjustments can help sometimes, too (for an FLC I'm working on, I recently adjusted all the PDFs like this to link to the correct spot).
    Thanx. This is a German book, in German, with no page numbers. I have put in an ask to a German friend to see if they have access to it through something other than Google to see if there is a version out there with with page numbers, but until then I just removed the page reference.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Found page numbers. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if this is based in PAG, but I dislike seeing access dates in further reading sections, since the anti-link rot function they serve for the references section doesn't really apply.
    This is Greek to me - no wait - I do understand a little Greek and I am clueless about this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the "Retrieved on..." lines. They just feel off to me, since they're an artifact of when a page was edited, rather than anything about the subject itself, and therefore I don't feel like they should show up outside of the reference section. That view might be totally contrary to the general consensus, though. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is above my pay grade. Will need official input from coordinator User:Gog the Mild on this one I think. Also the question of the location of the sidebar, how many images?, that line break thing in notes that you asked about, and the access dates in further reading. Those were all questions you had that I do not know the answers to - oh, and for my sake, if the ISBNs all need to have dashes added. Gog will know. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gog apparently is not allowed to address such questions directly so other input is needed. I don't know how to answer this question. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over what I just did, maybe that does count as a source review; I'll leave that to the coordinators as I haven't done a source review before. I was mostly just looking at how they display, not diving into the links to see if they adequately support the article text. Pretty much all the references are scholarly, so I don't really anticipate issues with reliability. Hopefully this will at least make it easier for someone else to complete the review. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Sdkb A thousand blessings upon you for showing up and doing something. If you ever need a favor or a friend, please call on me. Unfortunately, this is not a source review, this was formatting - which apparently I still needed! So not a waste, valuable, but not yet the thing I am in such desperate need of. Still, thank you. Don't think for a second that I am not grateful for what you have done. If you are up to it and could finish up with my responses and either strike through, or support, or something, that would be great. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope someone else comes along and is able to complete it! I'm not sure whether I ought to give a bolded !vote as I don't think I've looked at the page outside the reference section closely enough to be able to judge it comprehensively, but once we take care of the few remaining items above I'll consider all my concerns satisfied and be able to speak to the reference section complying with all formatting guidelines. And nothing super urgent at the moment, but I appreciate it and am glad to be of help! :) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In an FA review you are not obligated to review the entire article, you can do as much as you want, and be done whenever you decide you're done. Reformatting all those ISBNs is going to take me a little while, and I need some additional info on reference 10 - the para|at thing - but otherwise I think I have addressed everything. Any additional comments are always appreciated of course. Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait! I figured out the "at" thing, so nevermind about that, but will wait on Gog to lower the axe on me on those ISBNs! The rest is done! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently it is a source review, I just didn't know there was more than one kind. Thank you again, for your help and just for showing up. It means a lot, and your input has been valuable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small lingering things

None of these I view as reasons to hold up the nomination (I consider my concerns satisfactorily addressed), but just placing them here given that I've collapsed the above:

Input from other reviewers on these things would be helpful, as Jenhawk and I have already discussed them and gotten as far as we can by ourselves above. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria

[edit]
Resolved comments
  • FN1: this should be cited as a book and include a translator credit
    I'm sorry, I don't understand. Is this referring to note 1? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I am back, being dissatisfied with this answer I went and figured out what you were referring to. It's now reference number 5, and yes the reference I use refers to the book, but contains only parts of it, and as it is what I actually referred to, and not the book, I cited it accordingly. I can change that if you like but there were no page numbers at the book, and on the website there is an actual link that takes a person directly to the discussion instead of page numbers. I thought it was pretty cool. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's absolutely fine to include the link to the website, but citing it as a web source is a bit misleading. If you want, think of it like equivalent to a Google Books link - you can credit the website using |via= if you want, but the citation is really to the translated book you're seeing there, correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I changed it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn5 has incorrect page formatting
    Since I added the definition section the numbering has now changed. I am also unsure what Fn means here. I mean, I assume footnote, but is that the reference number in the ref list? I have never seen them referred to as FN, though technically that is correct of course, they are footnotes, but is that what you mean? This is reference number 5 you are referring to, which would now be reference number 9?? Jeez.
    So, if that's correct, and if you are referring to the comma, pages are liste two different ways for a reason. When it is listed as 20,22 that means the information is found on page 20 and again on page 22 separately. If it is listed as 20 - 22, then the content is spread out on all three pages including page 21. I don't know how else to designate this, but I am open to suggestions. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The comma was fine, it was a page-vs-pages issue which I've fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whew! This is now my third formatting review and people keep finding things. I apparently needed it though, so thank you. I will know about all of this - if I ever am crazy enough to do this again! Thank you! I am hoping we will move on to that source review, yes? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jenhawk777, I think there might be a bit of confusion going on here. Gog had requested two checks on this article: a source review, which assesses source formatting and reliability, and a spotcheck, which assesses verifiability and avoidance of close paraphrasing. What I've posted so far IS a source review; the spotcheck will happen next, but both do need to get sorted before the article can be promoted. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I didn't know the right terms. Clearly this is in need of both kinds of review, and please know that my anxiety does not reflect ingratitude for the time and effort you are putting in here. It's just that no one has done any spotcheck yet and I am getting stressed about it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Nikkimaria I'm sorry. I took some time off, got something to eat, and calmed down a little. I care too much about this I'm afraid. I will take whatever you see fit to do, whenever you do it, and be grateful for it. I will endeavor to be calm. I promise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both those who attack it and those who support it "generally do so by emphasizing its essentially historical character"" - the unquoted portion of this is nearly identical to the source, would suggest expanding the quote. Ditto the bit about "awkward hybrid"
    DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Enlightenment era of the European West, philosophers and theologians such as Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), Benedict Spinoza (1632–1677), and Richard Simon (1638–1712) began to question the long-established Judeo-Christian tradition that Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible known as the Pentateuch. " The citation following this supports Spinoza's thought, but not that of the others mentioned
    DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Old Testament scholar Edward Young (1907–1968), Astruc believed that Moses assembled the book of Genesis (the first book of the Pentateuch) using the hereditary accounts of the Hebrew people" - would suggest expanding the page range citing this to include 119
    DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "60% of the Dead Sea manuscripts are closely related to the Masoretic Text" - don't see this on the page cited
    I added a second ref but they are both charts with slightly different numbers - 57%, 52% - so I removed the numerical claim and just said majority. If that's okay, then this is
    DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ditto "biblical criticism has permanently altered perception of the Bible". (The ISBN provided seems to belong to a 2001 edition, but the citation indicates 2011? This may account for the discrepancy)
    The third edition is from 2001, and the fourth is from 2011, so that was a typo on the third edition date. The quote is on page 22 of the third edition, under "Conclusion", about half way down that first paragraph. It's there. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking at this. The content is there, but it is not identical to what is in the article - the quote there is "biblical criticism has already permanently altered the way people understand the Bible". Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "polemic, and not an objective historical study" - again, not quite the same as the source.
    It is the same as the source. There are no page numbers on the google version, I had to get them from resources, but if you go to amazon, all you can see is the paperback edition which slightly alters the page numbering. On page 15, in the fourth paragraph, it says "it is a polemic not an objective historical study". The masterpiece of world literature quote is on page 22. It is the same as the source. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote you're providing here matches the source, but is slightly different to the one that's in the article. As below, you can change typography, but any change to wording should be indicated. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:QUOTE allows for non-noted typographical changes, but other types of changes should be indicated. Check throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • OkayJenhawk777 (talk) 16:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like there are still issues of this type, some rather significant (eg FN78) - please check. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Those were parts of two sentences. All I did was specify what texts they were referring to when they said 'the texts above'. But I went ahead and removed it as there was no way to make it other than what it was and make any sense. I paraphrased instead and used a different quote. I hope it's good now. As to the claim there are significant issues of this type, I don't agree, but I will go back and check every individual quote to be sure. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nikkimaria I think - I believe, I hope - I have checked every quote in this article. They are all accurate, correct and verifiable. Please God, knock on wood, throwing salt over my shoulder and everything else I can think of.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Text says "on the basis of which they are argued", source says "on the basis of which they were argued".
    I not only missed that the first time, but the second time through the article, and then again here. I had to ask someone else to point out to me the difference. So then I felt stupid. So, this is why so many people don't like using quotes huh? I used to love quotes. Not so much anymore. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text says "leading New Testament scholars", source says "leading NT scholars". (To be clear, this is a positive change, but it should be indicated).
    Okay added NT and bracketed New Testament. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text says "both more or less detailed", source says "both more and less detailed". Additionally this larger quote is presented as continuous in the text, but it is not so in the source, meaning that without reference to the original source we cannot know if the secondary author omitted other content.
    Added ellipses and removed last sentence so the reference only refers to that section with that continuous quote.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, on the bright side these do verify the info is from the source referenced right? I have gone through and removed a bunch of quotes now. I used to love quotes, but now I know why others don't. I understand the rules, and why they are right, so I am not complaining, just a bit embarrassed I guess. I am apparently blind to the "translation" that goes on in my head. I will be more careful - and use fewer quotes - in the future. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Current FN47 is broken
    I've been moving stuff around for other commenters here and I was afraid that might happen so I copied all the references to my sandbox and found it there.
    Fixed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep checking these for me. I have gone through them multiple times and I just don't see what you see. I need your input. I want this to be perfect and can't seem to do that without you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sought to establish the sources of the first five books of the Old Testament collectively known as the Pentateuch" - source specifies the Priestly Code of the Pentateuch
  • "It can be said to have begun in 1957 when literary critic Northrop Frye wrote an analysis of the Bible from the perspective of his literary background by using literary criticism to understand the Bible forms" - the cited source mentions Frye's work, but I think this interpretation goes a bit beyond what's supported there
  • "Frei was one of several external influences that moved biblical criticism from a historical to a literary focus" - don't see this on the cited page
  • The long "is this not because the Bible has lost its ancient authority" quote doesn't match the source, given its length it should be blockquoted, and this piece in particular is referring to the piece that has been omitted rather than what has been included
    • I have added ellipses so that it is an exact match now - I think. The piece omitted? Do you mean can the text as sacred be retrieved? That's paraphrased in the first sentence of the next paragraph. Otherwise, I don't understand.
      • I'd rather not block quote this. It deserves quoting, since this is a summary of the entire dilemma created by biblical criticism, but it won't benefit from being blocked off from the rest, and I think that would give it too much emphasis in this overall discussion of what bc has left in its wake.
        • Is that okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • By "the piece omitted", I mean the piece just before the one I quote above. As amended, the "this" in "is this not because" appears to refer to "The labor of many centuries has expelled us from this edenic womb", but in the source it refers to something else. You could fix this and maintain the meaning simply by omitting "is this not because" and the question mark.
          • The formatting presents an issue with regards to MOS:BQ, given the quote's length. In this particular case you could shorten the quote without losing meaning by my suggestion above plus starting the quote at "No longer are...". Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "self-serving visions for the sake of a more honest crossing from the divine textus to the human one" is not on the page cited
    • Fixed
  • Quote "the sacrality of the Bible" vs source "the traditional sacrality of the Bible"
  • Quote "Thus we may say that the Bible itself may help retrieve the notion of a sacred text" vs source "Thus, in a first move, we may say that the Bible itself may to help retrieve the notion of a sacred text". (From what I can see in GBooks preview the first part of this quote should be checked as well)
  • "proved itself a failure, due principally to its most basic assumption" is close enough to the source that it should be included in the quote following. Also that quote doesn't match the source
  • The "By 1800 historical criticism" quote is long enough to require blockquoting - check for others. Also as with the previous NT -> New Testament quote change, this alteration should be indicated
  • "with the support of Pope Leo XIII " - don't think this reflects what's stated in the source
  • "Kaufmann was the first Jewish scholar to fully exploit higher criticism to counter another hypothesis of higher criticism" - I see the source says Kaufmann was the first to user higher criticism to counter Wellhausen, but this claim is broader
  • "Lois Tyson says this new form of historical criticism developed in the 1970s. It "rejects both traditional historicism's marginalization of literature and New Criticism's enshrinement of the literary text in a timeless dimension beyond history".[191] Literary texts are seen as "cultural artifacts" that reveal context as well as content, and within New Historicism, the "literary text and the historical situation" are equally important"." - in the version of this source available on GBooks, all of these quotes are on a page other than the one cited. Are you citing a different version?
  • Nikkimaria I have been back through these and don't see any left unaddressed, but as we both know, I am prone to miss details! Please let me know if you find these sufficient or if there is more left. Thank you again. I was bragging on you earlier today. All of the FA reviewers here really. You have all been amazing and I am truly grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pass on source review and spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie

[edit]
Resolved issues

Starting a section for my comments. Jen, I will make minor copyedits as I go through the article; if you disagree with any of them, feel free to revert them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've skipped the lead, since I think it's worth reading that last, to judge if it's a good summary of the article, and am starting with the "Definition" section.

  • I'm not sure I fully understand the argument being made in this section. By "historical concerns", I assume what is meant is the attempt to tie events in the Bible to events in history? If so I'd clarify that inline before we get to "those who attack it...". And then are the attackers and supporters attacking and supporting all biblical criticism, or just traditional biblical criticism?
    I apologize for this section not being more polished and focused, it was only added a few days ago. So I have now removed that sentence, defined historical concerns better and shortened it. I hope that's an improvement.
  • I don't know what Barton means by saying that the study of history can be "critical or non-critical" or when he says that a critical study can be "historical or non-historical". I think this is because I don't yet know a simple definition for "biblical criticism" so I can't follow the details of a debate about it. For Barton (or anyone), what is a biblical critic trying to achieve, beyond the question of historical accuracy? I'm deliberately asking these questions without having read the rest of the article, which I suspect would answer some of these questions, because I think we want the article to answer the questions clearly up front.
    That's gone now too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A suggestion: Harrington's definition is, for me, the clearest thing in the paragraph, and might do well as a lead-in. Is this a controversial definition? Do we need to give Harrington's name inline here, or can we just cite him?
    I've been told to attribute every quote, is that not standard? I flipped the order and put Harrington first. There are three main points to this definition I wanted to be sure and communicate: History, reason (scientific) and neutrality. It is the change in these three aspects that indicate this form of traditional BC is now dead but that it has transformed into other forms with other standards. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When we say "accusations" of positivism it's implied that some consider positivism inappropriate for biblical criticism, but we don't say why that is.
    I took out the stuff on positivism. It was a sidetrack and not on point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would borrowing a method from classical philology make it neutral? Neutral with respect to what? Similar I don't understand the last quote from Barton: what does he mean by "value-neutral"? And does "this study" just refer to biblical criticism? It doesn't seem to -- that would mean he's saying "Biblical criticism approaches biblical criticism in a value-neutral manner".
    I have rephrased these but the neutrality is important to keep in the definition. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to stop there for the moment, since I suspect if I understand this paragraph fully I'll have a lot easier time reading the rest of the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you so much for showing up and doing this. I am genuinely deeply grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Those changes are a big improvement. Re attributing quotes: it can be a judgement call, and editors can disagree, but generally quotes that are opinions should usually be attributed inline, and quotes that are not don't have to be (though they do have to be cited immediately after or very close to the end of the quote). It's often a good idea to make it clear to the reader why they care about someone's opinion -- e.g. "John Barton, a biblical scholar, ...".
    Is Harrington's definition something almost all scholars would accept? If so, I think we could paraphrase it to avoid the issue of whether we give Harrington's name as the source -- the converse of attributed controversial opinions is that if you attribute a quote, readers may assume it's not universally accepted. How about: "The goal of biblical criticism is to understand what was intended by the original authors of the bible, using methods from literary analysis and historical studies."? That could be cited to Harrington without having to quote him.
    In any case, I'll go ahead with reviewing the rest of the article; your rewrite has made things much clearer. I still have some questions about this section but I'll come back to it later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In all honesty Mike, everything in BC is an opinion. They are educated opinions, and some have stood the test of time, but in reality, there is very little that has and very little that there has ever been any ongoing agreement about. Scholars argue about what criteria to use to judge these texts, whether the criteria themselves are valid, what methods are valid, if any, and why secular methods don't easily transfer to what Mike Grant calls the "idiosyncratic" gospels. Very few, if any, conclusions in this field can ever be called 'facts'. None of it is set in stone. Today's discovery is tomorrow's object of ridicule. It's frustrating - and fun - in my opinion. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
History
[edit]
Resolved issues
  • Any reason for including the birth & death dates of each person named? I see it does provide a rough chronology for the comments. I wouldn't oppose over this but it's not a style I've seen before.
    You are the second person to ask me about this, so perhaps I should reconsider. I included them because without dates it is simply impossible to keep straight who and what came first. It's easy to get it all muddled up with so much here as it is, but if there's a date you can look at, you can at least have something to check. This isn't the kind of article that attracts casual viewers, but I fully expect it to be used by those actually studying anything from this page. If the number of times it's been backwards copied is any indication, it will be. So for those student's sakes, the dates are there. I'd like to leave them if you aren't hard over but if you feel strongly about it I will remove them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's OK; it's just something I haven't seen before. I agree it helps in keeping things straight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • thus explaining Genesis' problems: I can guess what these problems might be in the eyes of biblical critics from reading Book_of_Genesis#Composition, but I think just a couple more words of explanation here would help a new reader.
    Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turretin (1671–1737) attacked conventional exegesis (interpretation) and argued that revelation was necessary: what does "conventional exegesis" mean? And does "revelation" here refer to personal revelation? If so I think that should be clearer.
    Okay, I went and worked on that paragraph some more. Since it was a discussion of rationalism, I removed exegesis - a whole different subject - and tried to focus it there and used divine revelation to make it clear that was the discussion. What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Much clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has become a common Judeo-Christian view. This seems to imply there are strands of biblical criticism scholarship outside the Judeo-Christian view; is that what's intended here? Or do you just mean that the rational approach, in addition to informing secular commentary on the bible (as one would expect) has also become the default approach for Judeo-Christian scholars?
    There are, to the first question, and yes to the last. Actually, these were almost all Christian scholars from the beginning, still, not all of the results of BC have become commonly accepted throughout Christianity. This one has. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK; striking since you've cut it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rogerson's comment about two views, and the subsequent discussion of Reformation views, is out of chronological order with the discussion of the Enlightenment scholars. Given the comment by Herrick I suspect this is because the idea that biblical criticism can trace its roots to the Reformation is a minority view, so we should deal with after discussing the Enlightenment, not before. If that's so I'd make that clear at the start of the Reformation paragraph -- otherwise it seems we've jumped back in time for no reason.
    You're exactly right, it is a minority view. I have moved it, but I am unsure if I put it where you intended. I think I like it there though. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That works, but could we combine that sentence with the next like so: "John W. Rogerson reflects a twenty–first century view of biblical criticism's origins that traces it to the Reformation; this is a minority position but the Reformation is the source of Biblical criticism's freedom from external authority imposing its views on biblical interpretation." The two thoughts are somewhat related and connecting them would help the flow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I right in thinking that the deist rejection of revelation, and the associated humanist preference for a reasoned approach instead, are what connects the British deists to the early stages of biblical criticism? Some introductory statement in that paragraph to that effect might be a good signpost to a reader, who otherwise might not see why Camerarius's and Grotius's methodological approaches are listed under the same heading as Tindal's more theoretical commentary.
    See if moving stuff around clears that up any. If not we can do more. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That clears it up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the importance of an eschatological and historical approach to understanding Jesus: I don't understand this use of "eschatological". I think of it as related to millennialism, or else as a theological concern. I don't see how it could be used as an approach by biblical critics.
    Ooooh! That was Schweitzer's whole basis! Eschatology is about the end of things. Schweitzer said Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher who was motivated by his repeated warnings about the ends that were coming: the end of Jerusalem and the sacrificial system and the Temple and second Temple Judaism, and the end of time itself, and millennialism, yes. Schweitzer thought these ends were one and the same to Jesus and the early church, though there is rabid argument against that view today. Still, the point is that everyone now thinks the only way to properly understand Jesus is through his eschatology. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's clearer than what's in the article now! And your comment that everyone now thinks that way doesn't come through at all in the article's phrasing. How about changing that sentence to "According to Schweitzer, Reimarus' was wrong in his assumption that Jesus' end-of-world eschatology was "earthly and political in character" but was right in viewing Jesus as an apocalyptic preacher, motivated by his repeated warnings about approaching ends -- both earthly and spiritual ends. This eschatological approach has since become universal in modern biblical criticism. Schweitzer also comments that Reimarus was a historian..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library)
    Done. I only have one question: does your brilliance blind you when you look in the mirror? Because these are brilliant, absolutely brilliant suggestions. I love them. See now, didn't I tell you this would be fun? You are really good at this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll read through the changes this evening, but this made me laugh! Any tendencies I may have to consider myself brilliant are very effectively kept in check by my family. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • source criticism would, according to Schweitzer, provide the solution to the problems Reimarus raised: I don't know what this refers to.
    Okay, I added literary consistency. How is that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That does it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph about "continuing the aims of the Protestant Reformation" is contorted by the complicated attributions. I don't think it matters that Prior is where you got the Grant/Tracy quote, or that Brown is the one who asserts the importance of Troeltsch. Suggest changing "Joseph G. Prior quotes Robert M. Grant and David Tracy as saying" to "According to Robert M. Grant and David Tracy", and changing "Brown also writes that, by the end" to "By the end".
    Done.Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Strauss (1808–1874), whose cultural significance was weakening the established authorities I don't know what this means.
    As you have asked a couple of times, why are we mentioning these people? What is their significance? That is seen as Strauss's most lasting cultural significance. Is there a better way to say that - without making it longer? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I really meant I just didn't understand what it says! Does "cultural significance" mean significance outside the scholarly community? Or was it an impact on the culture of that community itself? And what does "established authorities" mean -- is this an echo of the Reformation's weakening of the obligation to accede to ecclesiastical hierarchy? By the late 1800s, in Protestant Germany, it doesn't seem that that would count as a strong cultural influence. Though I recall reading in biographical snippets about J. S. Bach that his employers, the burghers of the towns he worked in, were extremely strict in religious matters, so perhaps this is a reference to conservative cultural expecations among the laity? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded, is it better? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's clearer. I linked christology, but shouldn't that be capitalized? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • proving to most of that scholarly world that Jesus' teachings and actions were determined by his eschatological outlook; he thereby finished the quest's pursuit of the apocalyptic Jesus. A couple of things I don't understand here. To say that Jesus's teaching and actions were determined by his eschatological outlook sounds to me like a theological statement about the nature of Jesus' time on Earth and the reason for his behaviour, but I don't see why it would have any impact on scholarly research or historical criticism, particularly by secular scholars. And I also don't know what is meant by "the quest's pursuit of the apocalyptic Jesus".
    Hopefully the discussion above about Schweitzer addressed this. The vast majority of scholarly biblical criticism was done by Protestants. Today the field is still filled more with religious scholars than secular ones. Theology is wound through it. BC tries not to begin from a theological vantage point - but it often ends there. The goal is to discern meaning, and that is theology. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it does; this is not an issue any more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for tonight; I'll pick this up in the morning if I have time, otherwise it'll probably be tomorrow night. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I am grateful for this. Your comments have been substantive and produced real change to the article. Take your time. Whenever you can come back, I will be glad to see you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I'm enjoying the read; it's always a pleasure to learn from an expert, which you clearly very much are. Whether or not this article passes FAC this time I'd be glad to keep helping with it. I'm mostly out of time for tonight but will look in again in the morning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anytime you look in you will be welcomed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps move Holtzmann's sentence up to the end of the introductory paragraph of the "Nineteenth century" section? I assume Holtzmann's importance is that he was the first to seriously attempt this (and I assume here we're talking about identifying Mark as an early gospel and John as late?)? The bald statement as it stands doesn't integrate well with the flow; wherever it goes we should make it clear why he's worth mentioning.
    I know! I have moved him around more than pieces on a chess board. I think I like your choice though. See if you agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:46, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That feels like the right place, but perhaps if we can connect that sentence to the rest of the paragraph it will flow better. How about starting the sentence like so: "It was a member of this school, H. J. Holtzmann (1832-1910), who was the first scholar to develop a chronological ordering of the New Testament texts..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Except he wasn't one. He doesn't integrate well anywhere. I suppose I could remove him altogether. It isn't a major landmark. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How about making the connective tissue the fact that he was not part of these other schools? Something like "At the same time, H. J. Holtzmann (1832-1910), who was not associated with the Göttingen school, ..."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Major methods
[edit]
Resolved issues

Starting a new section for this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Theologian David R. Law writes that textual, source, form, and redaction criticism are employed together by biblical scholars, while the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament are distinct bodies of literature that raise their own problems of interpretation and are therefore addressed separately. Separating these methods, while addressing the Bible as a whole, is an artificial approach that is used only for the purpose of description. I don't follow this. He starts by listing four methods, and then he notes that the OT and NT are distinct entities and should be approached independently. What does "separating these methods" mean? Is he criticizing those who, e.g., do form criticism on both the OT and NT while ignoring other methods? What does he mean by "artificial approach" and "for the purpose of description"?
    I suppose this is me being persnickety. I wanted to be sure that I made it clear that the way this is discussed in this article is not the way biblical criticism is actually practiced. This article discusses BC as if it studied the whole Bible together and the methods as if people only do one of them at a time. That's artificial - this discussion here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your rewrite makes this much clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:07, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Numbers and dates... As it happens textual criticism is one of the few topics you cover that I've read about more than casually; I spent some time reading about the families of manuscripts of Bede's Historia Ecclesiastica and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, so I found this section straightforward and interesting. However, it's a long article, and if you're looking for something to cut I think this paragraph could go. It will be covered in textual criticism of the New Testament, and might be a bit too much detail for this article.
  • Brilliance is making you radical! :-)
  • Generally I think some compression might be achieved by dropping the in-text attributions and doing some more rephrasing. I know you said above that everything in biblical criticism is opinion, but definitions of terms and methods are pretty straightforward, and I don't think the reader needs to know that Ehrman or Aland or Andrews is the one who provides the definition, or to see their exact wording. Similarly, the example of Amos 6.12 is very helpful, but does the reader care that McGann and Cooper are the sources for this discussion? Their names are in the citation if the reader is curious. By contrast, when you say scholars such as Arthur Verrall referring to it as the "fine and contentious art", that's an opinion (and a good illustrative quote) and I think attributing it to Verrall inline is the right approach.
  • Latin scholar Albert C. Clark: suggest combining this with the previous paragraph as a continuation of the argument; the break from statement to response isn't strong enough for a paragraph break, in my opinion. Samuel Delany says somewhere that the "emotional unit of prose is the paragraph", and I find that a helpful way to think about whether to join or split paragraphs.
  • Perhaps too specific for this article, but I was interested in the mention of computer-assisted methods for textual criticism. Have there been any significant discoveries made by this approach?
  • Reading about Astruc's work sent me back to the history section to see what you said about Astruc there. It's going to be difficult to avoid some repetition, because clearly the history section has to give some idea of what Astruc did, but he also has to be mentioned in the section on source criticism. To be honest I'm not sure what can be done about this but I'll keep thinking about it because it's a little jarring to have Astruc re-introduced as if he hadn't been mentioned before. I think the answer is to tweak the prose in the later section to make it evident to the reader that we know this name has come up before but they're not expected to remember all the details. I'll think about this some more and will copyedit if I think I have a way to improve it.
  • That assumes someone is reading their way through and not just jumping to the section they need. Gerda Arendt told me every section should read as if they were meant to be read alone because that is how a lot of readers do read WP. I know there is repetition. Perhaps some of your brilliant rewording would work. I actually did try to make it slightly different but perhaps you can do more. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck; I might come back to this later but I take your point. Gerda's right, of course, but we have to accommodate both kinds of reader -- the ones who read the whole article as well as the ones who jump to specific sections. It's a balancing act and I think readers understand they may have to look back up the article for context if they jump to the middle. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The French physician Jean Astruc presumed in 1753 that Moses had written the book of Genesis, which is the first book of the Pentateuch, but had done so using ancient documents. Astruc's goal became one of identifying and reconstructing those documents by separating the book of Genesis back into those original sources. Suggest "The French physician Jean Astruc presumed in 1753 that Moses had written the book of Genesis (the first book of the Pentateuch) using ancient documents; he attempted to identify these original sources and separate them again."
  • I think it would be good to tie the material about his findings together by tying them more directly to his conclusions. You do this with the sentence about the flood narrative, which points out that the repetition indicates there might be three sources. What if we move that up and add the other two examples as backup to that, so the reader is clear these are all examples, like so: "For example, he found repetitions of certain events, such as parts of the flood story that are repeated three times indicating the possibility of three sources. He discovered that the alternation of two different names for God occurs in Genesis and up to Exodus 3 but not in the rest of the Pentateuch, and he also found apparent anachronisms: statements seemingly from a later time than Genesis was set. This and similar evidence led Astruc to hypothesize that this separate material was fused into a single unit that became the book of Genesis thereby creating its duplications and parallelisms." And I think you could cut "thereby creating its duplications and parallelisms"; the reader should understand that by now.
  • Suggest a paragraph break before "Examples of source criticism include..." since this introduces the following sections.

More later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Old Testament scholar Karl Graf (1815–1869) had suggested P for the Priestly source in 1866 as the last stratum of the Wellhausen theory. (This is why Wellhausen's theory is sometimes also referred to as the Graf–Wellhausen hypothesis.) By 1878, Wellhausen had included P in his theory and written that it was composed during the exile under the influence of Ezechiel. Suggest "Old Testament scholar Karl Graf (1815–1869) suggested an additional priestly source in 1866; by 1878, Wellhausen had incorporated this source, P, into his theory, which is hence also referred to as the Graf–Wellhausen hypothesis. Wellhausen argued that P had been composed during the exile, under the influence of Ezechiel". And I see you use "Ezechiel", the German spelling; shouldn't this be Ezekiel since this is not in a quote?
  • D (for Deuteronomist) was said to be written shortly before it was found in BCE 621: I don't know what "found" means; surely we're not saying there is an actual D ms. and it was found in BCE 621?
  • You capitalize "Supplementary hypothesis", "Documentary hypothesis", and "Newer Documentary Thesis", but I see for example that our article on the supplementary hypothesis does not capitalize it in running text, so I wanted to check if this is deliberate.
  • Supplementary hypothesis can be seen as yet another evolution of the Documentary hypothesis that solidified in the 1970s: we don't have a clear referent for "Documentary hypothesis" -- do you mean the Newer Documentary Thesis?
  • The supplementary model is the literary model most widely agreed upon for Deuteronomy itself which has a uniformity of style and language in spite of also having different literary strata. I think what's intended here is that the Deuteronomist has been agreed to be a separate source, but that D itself is considered to be formed from an older base source supplied by other sources now difficult to separate, but detectable since the "different literary strata" provide stylistic clues. If that's what is meant, I'd change the start of the sentence, because as I read I thought "supplementary model" specifically meant the Deuteronomist as the oldest source, the Elohist as the central core document, with the Torah later assembled by adding a number of fragments or independent sources, so this made no sense. Perhaps "A primary underlying source, with additional supplementary sources, is the most widely agreed-upon model for Deuteronmy itself..."
  • Redaction criticism assumes an extreme skepticism toward the historicity of Jesus and the gospels just as form criticism does. As far as I can see the article hasn't characterized form criticism in this way. Should it? Otherwise this seems to point to a discussion in the article that the reader won't find.
    • Oooh, one of those problems that results from writing about stuff you know about. Yes it does assume an extreme skepticism, and now I have to go find a source that says that. Okay I went back to critique of form criticism and added that.

That's it for the methods section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:57, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy
[edit]
Resolved issues
  • The Bible's cultural impact is studied in multiple academic fields. This process was attached to the universities, leading Michael C. Legaspi to say... You have a paragraph break here, but if I follow your intent the second part of this doesn't add much. How about "Studies of the Bible's cultural impact have long been part of multiple academic fields, leading Michael C. Legaspi to say..."?
  • Only one of the four sections under "Changes in methods" has a link to an article of its own. Are the others worth red links?

That's all I can spot in this section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am rewriting things in order to eliminate some of the attributions and quotes and to include links where I can. There aren't any links for some of these, and I wouldn't know how to title them to make a red link - which I was told FA didn't allow. See if you like the changes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Struck, since it's not an issue for FAC, but redlinks are absolutely not a reason to oppose a FAC, and a coordinator would not treat that as a valid oppose. WP:REDYES is the relevant guideline: there's no obligation to include redlinks but they're a real benefit to the encyclopedia because they encourage the creation of the missing content. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
[edit]

I waited to read the lead until I'd read the whole article. Some comments:

  • Biblical criticism was the practice of critical analysis of the Bible that began in the eighteenth century and ended in the twentieth. This surprised me. I don't see anything in the body of the article about biblical criticism having ended, and in fact in the last paragraph of the lead you discuss biblical criticism as a continuing enterprise, albeit in new sub-disciplines.
    • Yes, new forms, and those new forms mean its original form is dead. It says "the Enlightenment form of biblical criticism has ended... " What they did and what is done now are not the same. What else can be said? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, so the original form is dead, but the article talks about the new forms too, so whatever is the topic of this article includes the new forms. If we can't refer to those new forms by the name "biblical criticism" then doesn't that mean the article is misnamed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Dearest Mike Christie, No, this article is not misnamed because the article is primarily about the original form, its types, its history, its legacy, and its progeny - which must be mentioned after all - though they get short shrift only as an aspect of BC's legacy - in one measly paragraph apiece - and that isn't even all of them! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, I guess that sounded like a negative comment, but I didn't mean it that way. What I meant to say was that if the progeny are now thought of as successors to biblical criticism, rather than part of biblical criticism, the body of the article should say that, and I don't think it does. For example, down near the end, the article says "Social-scientific criticism is part of the wider trend in biblical criticism" -- shouldn't these sections not call themselves part of biblical criticism? I'm really just saying that the lead and the body of the article need to agree on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It's okay, you're allowed to be negative if that's how you feel, and I understand the confusion about this. You are not alone. But I think we are arguing tomayto tomahto, potayto potahto. The "wider trend in biblical criticism" involves all the progeny. They all share that same surname - so to speak. They are all family, but that wider trend does not include the original enlightenment version, because, its distinguishing characteristics of neutrality and historicity are not the distinguishing characteristics of the progeny. The parent was about how the texts were formed - what was the original text, where did it come from and how- the progeny don't care. They care about the texts as they are in their final form - what we have now - about why they were written, what they produced, the effect they have - that kind of thing. The parent was historical, the progeny are almost all literary. They are different generations of the same family, but the generation this article is about has now passed on. The kids have taken over. Even the modern form of historical criticism gives equal weight to literary aspects. I think that is all implicit in the discussion of the new methods as part of BC's legacy. Does it really need to be hammered into the reader too? Perhaps you could have one of your brilliant ideas and come up with a sentence or two - and tell me where to put that sentence - that would sufficiently tie this together for you, and that would probably then solve any problems others might have as well. I have nothing right now. My brain is oatmeal. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point you're making -- the current generation of critics do not use the techniques that are discussed throughout most this article. I think there are a couple of ways to deal with this. Here are the options that occur to me.
  • If modern critics do use the term "biblical criticism" to describe their discipline, then we need a term that lets us distinguish the old from the new --- "Traditional biblical criticism" vs. "modern biblical criticism", or "old" vs. "new" -- preferably terms that would be recognized by practitioners. The article does cover the newer discipline, right at the end of the article; I assumed there's not much about it because there's not yet much to say. So I would have thought even in this case it's not quite right to say, as the lead does, that "Biblical criticism was the practice...", because biblical criticism is still going on, albeit transformed. The first sentence could say: "Biblical criticism is the discipline of attempting to understand and explain biblical texts and the meaning intended by the biblical writers". I hope that's broad enough to include the old and the new. Then we could say "Traditional biblical criticism began in the eighteenth century and ended in the twentieth..." and later say "Modern biblical criticism began in the late twentieth century..." I think this would be enough, and it's the solution I think would work best, and it wouldn't require changing more than a few words.
  • If the modern critics don't use the term "biblical criticism" to describe what they're doing, then we need to use whatever term is used instead when we talk about them. That would mean changing the last two sentences of the lead and the "Changes in methods" section to use that term instead. If they do use that term, but you feel this argument doesn't really cover their discipline, and only really talks about traditional biblical criticism, then we need to figure out what their article would be called and make sure we distinguish the two in this article -- e.g. with a link at the end of the lead to that article saying it's the successor to biblical. That's why I was wondering if we needed to rename the article -- I was thinking it would have to be "Traditional biblical criticism" or something like that. But as I said, I don't think that's the right answer -- unless I'm mistaken, you do cover the modern discipline, though not in as much detail because there's less to say about it so far. So the first option above seems right to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, dazzled by brilliance yet again!! I am not joking either, I mean it. I like this. Traditional biblical criticism is often referred to as historical biblical criticism, but all the children are also referred to as bc as well, so I will go do as you suggest and we will see how it works. I will have to work that through the rest of the article as well, so check me on that as well please! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm a fan of this method, and I think it would also service us well to explain this distinction in the Definition section too. My remaining quibble is whether we can truly say "traditional forms of biblical criticism ended in the twentieth century." Do you have a source which says that, or—as I said below—has it just left the mainstream? In other words, I would probably just omit the "ended" part, just saying they transformed into new forms. Also, Googling "historical-biblical criticism" doesn't seem to bring anything up; do any scholars use that term?Ovinus (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ovinus and Mike Christie Used Mike's approach, and took out ended, did have to add something to definition, but I think that might be it. Try Googling historical criticism or higher criticism, but yes, there is already a source referenced that calls it historical-biblical criticism, and it's easy enough to find another if needed. These terms are flexible in their use and in the understanding of what they mean. Different people have used them differently. I'm guessing that is because they are so old. Anyway, if you guys like the changes then we are good here right? Let me know if not. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's better, but I don't know if it's clear yet. I'll keep it on the backburner for a bit. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved issues
  • Literary criticism of the twentieth century differed in its approach by focusing on the literary structure, authorial purpose, and reader's response to the text through methods such as rhetorical criticism, canonical criticism, and narrative criticism. These original methods of biblical criticism permanently changed perception of the Bible, and in the process, also changed itself. What did "literary criticism of the twentieth century" differ from? Earlier literary criticism? Or do you mean that literary criticism introduced techniques to biblical criticism that differed from the ones described earlier in the paragraph? I think it's the latter.
  • And what does "in the process, also changed itself" mean? Do you mean biblical criticism changed itself? Why is this important to say? We just said new techniques were introduced, so this must mean more than that, but I don't know what is intended here.

That's it for the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall
[edit]

I'm leaning towards a weak support here. Support, because the material is all here, and I think the structure is right, and the prose is professional. Weak, because I think the article could be made to flow better. There's a lot of reliance on quotes, and on naming individual scholars. In places this is fine -- in the historical section, for example, one expects the story to be dominated by the names of the important scholars. Even there, though, I think the reader would benefit from hearing a single voice narrating the story, with the quotes used to illuminate the tale, rather than to construct it. This is not a fatal flaw, which is why I expect to support once the points above are addressed, but it's an area where I think real improvement is possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I can see the justice of the complaint that attribution interrupts the flow. Now that I have spent all the time on verifying every quote for Nikimaria, let me go back and see if I can remove some of them and make it flow a bit better. I already did some of that as you and I went through Mike, but I will go back and 'smooth' it a bit more, where I can, without removing too much of its authority. See what you think.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just one point left above, in the section about the lead. I'll switch to at least weak support once that's fixed. I'll read through again to see if I can remove the "weak"; I've already noticed the removal of some of the attribution and what I've seen so far is definitely an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Jen, I've read through again, and the flow is definitely better. Just the one point left about the lead, above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did change it yesterday but have done so more today. See what you think of the last paragraph in the lead. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The last issue I had was addressed. This is a fine article. One minor point which doesn't affect my support: "criteria" is used in a couple of places where I think "criterion" might be better, but I didn't want to fiddle with it myself since I'm not familiar with the material. The only really jarring use is criteria of neutral judgment has been changed which has a single verb with the plural form, but there are a couple of other places I thought a change might be worth looking at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

[edit]

A contravorsal topic if I'd say so. I'm more a MOS type guy thus my comments wouldn't involve that much of grammer. Since it's big and I don't really have that much time to review it in one straight row, I will review it in a couple of parts. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • of critical analysis of the Bible that began in the eighteenth century and ended in the twentieth In the "History" section some philosophers and theologians are from the 17th century while only one Richard Simon just made it into the 18th century shouldn't this be changed into the 17th?
    Spinoza and Hobbs wrote books but they were isolated events that preceded the actual beginning of biblical criticism. BC starts with Simon. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • historical basis for the man Jesus separately I don't think "Jesus" should be linked since he is MOS:OVERLINK.
    Okay, I have no problem doing that, but I might need consensus as I was told to put in that link, and if I take it out it seems likely someone else will put it back.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is so then I don't mind to.

Definition

  • As far as I can see there's only one link which is still MOS:OVERLINK.

Can you tell me where it is? How do I go about finding overlinks for myself? It's such an easy mistake to make. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "generally do so by emphasizing its essentially historical character".[1]:32,33 Per this two diffrent pages should have an en dash.
    That line is gone. I put commas and not dashes between page numbers when I want to communicate that the information is on each page separately, and when I want to say it's contained on all the pages in between a well, then I put a dash. I hope you're okay with that. Some discussions in the sources are lengthy. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm okay with that; didn't know it was meant to be two pages even though it's weird 'cause if I'm not wrong in this situation an en dash was required. Since the other pages should have separate citations but I could be wrong here.
  • Nah you're not incorrect if other reviewers say so then I might be incorrect. BTW I see some citations like "to biblical criticism.[55]:9,149" I think comma should be added in every citation who uses commas to separate other pages. On first view, I thought it was meant page nine thousand one hundred fourth-nine. I think a space would help here to separate these small issues.

That's it for now; will come back soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eighteenth century

  • In the Enlightenment era of the European West I've never heard of the term European West?
    I could reverse it and say western European but I believe that is the term used in the source. The West is more than just Europe. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm there are two sources here and if both use the term then I'm fine with it? Though it's odd to me and I'm probably not the only one but whatever if it's part of modern English.
  • since he never crossed the Jordan into the Promised Land This is MOS:EGG; maybe add "River" after Jordan?

That seems redundant to me and perhaps irrelevant to the context. It seems to me that if someone doesn't know what the Jordan is, they won't care either, and it doesn't matter to the sentence or the concept. But if you feel strongly about it I will do it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I disagree, if the river indeed were introduced before this sentence then yeah it's irrelevant but in general, the river should be added since there is are also Jordan Rift Valley and the Jordan Valley. Like MOS:EGG says "Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link." since there are more Jordan-related articles than one; "river" should be added here.
  • John W. Rogerson reflects a twenty–first century A hyphen is okay instead of an en dash. Plus a hyphen between first and century is needed since it's a compound adjective.
    Is it? That is good to hear! More than one person has gone through here putting en dashes everywhere! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • independently of theology and faith.[12]:46.[27]:25,26,23 Same as above with "23".
    These are multiple ideas each taken from one of those pages in the order listed, but since they are not quotes I think it would be okay to put them together.
    DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nineteenth century

  • "nineteenth century" vs "19th" maybe standerdise them?
    I think they are written out throughout the whole article. I was told to pick one and stay with it. Let me check. Ooops! found some!
    DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • theme in Herder (1744–1803), Schleiermacher (1768–1834), de Wette (1780–1849), Baur (1792–1860), Strauss (1808–1874), Ritschl (1822–1889) Maybe add their full names here?
    DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will continue later on. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twentieth century

  • He also needs a life span.
  • E. P. Sanders explains that, because --> "Sanders explains that, because"
    Okay now, didn't you just have me adding full names above? Sanders is not referred to in this section before this sentence, and I was told each section had to stand on its own, so to speak, in case a reader only read the one section. You and I know who Sanders is but a reader might not. I vote for leaving it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask you have you read this sentence In the 1970s, the New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders (b. 1937) advanced the New Perspective on Paul which is a couple of sentences above?
  • It's still there are you sure you've removed the right "E. P. Sanders"?

The rest will follow soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Textual criticism

  • New Testament is overlinked.
  • are generally accepted to range from c.110–125 A circa template is needed here.
  • the next best-sourced ancient text is Homer What/who is Homer and link it?
  • Charting the variants in the New Testament shows it is 62.9% variant-free Per MOS:PERCENT we shouldn't use the symbol per cent with exceptions of "In the body of scientific/​technical articles, and in tables and infoboxes of any article, the symbol % (unspaced) is more common".
  • Link Greek New Testament.
  • Western (Latin translations), and Eastern (used by Antioch and Constantinople).[note 2][84]:213 Per this first citation and then note.

That's anything from my Sunday. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Jenhawk777, I have some problems with my monitor and my eyes hurt because of it so I prefer not to be online that much or even not at all. Since Black Friday has passed and Cyber Monday is coming I'm not sure when I will get a new one. This year is gonna be a busy sales. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All right I'm back but I'll be doing this much slower than expected. I hope I finish the sections' part (before I can move to the next phases like sources, images, infobox, grammar and issues in general) in the coming week. But I won't promise anything!

Problems of textual criticism

Source criticism

  • written the book of Genesis (the first book of the Pentateuch) --> "written the book of Genesis" Genesis was already mentioned a couple of sections before.
    • Yes it's a slightly reworded restatement of what was already mentioned in the history section as the beginning of biblical criticism, but because it's the beginning, that's unavoidable. It has to be mentioned in both places. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source criticism of the Old Testament: Wellhausen's hypothesis

  • establish the sources of the first five books of the Old Testament collectively known as the Pentateuch --> " establish the sources of the Pentateuch" The five books were already mentioned a couple of sections before. Also re-order the refs here.
    • Gerda Arendt told me that each section has to stand on its own as if the reader jumped there and didn't read the other sections - that I can't assume they know something just because I've said it before. Are you advising otherwise? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Wellhausen hypothesis, also known as the JEDP theory, or the Documentary hypothesis, or the Graf–Wellhausen hypothesis proposes that the Pentateuch was combined out of four separate and coherent (unified single) sources (not fragments). I have some questions here: first where is the citation here? Second, why are some places in bold written?
    • The citations are listed separately where each of these is discussed. Another reviewer wanted them all listed together, he said it confused him when he got to the other paragraphs where it was called something else, even though I said 'was also called'. Bold's been removed. The only thing in bold is the Wellhausen theory as it's the title of the section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Critique of Wellhausen

  • than Wellhausen thought.[109][99]:64[110]:11[note 5] Same as above.
    • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I reordered the refs as you asked putting them in numerical order, but this practice bothers me. When I have a compound sentence with multiple claims, I put the references in the same order as the claims to make it easier for anyone who wants to check and see the full context of what was said. My other alternative is to break up the sentence with a reference after each individual claim - or use simpler sentences - and neither of those seem like good ideas either. But piling them all at the end in numerical order makes me unhappy too. I don't know how to solve this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • has rejected the main claims of the Documentary theory Why has Documentary an upper case?
    • It's a title, a proper name. That's the only way I've seen it used. although I cant say how it's written everywhere. I can check if you like. I think the other titled theories are all capitalized as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything for now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source criticism of the New Testament: the synoptic problem

  • As sources, Matthew, Mark and Luke are partially dependent on each other and partially independent of each other. I think you better can change "sources" to "books" since this makes more sense.
    • It references the previous sentence: "This has revealed that the Gospels are both products of sources and sources themselves. As sources..." If I change it to books, it introduces a new concept that is not previously mentioned. I can't say I agree that's a good idea. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • but six hundred of those verses are in Matthew and 350 of them are in Luke --> "but 600 of those verses are in Matthew and 350 of them are in Luke"

That's anything for now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am archiving this nomination. It has been open for nine weeks and there is little sign of a consensus to promote. The discussion above suggests that its nomination may have been premature. It also suggests that there is a promotable FAC there, with some further, off-FAC, work, and I look forward to seeing it back here in the future; subject to the usual two week wait. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Clements RE. Book Review: The Pentateuch: A Social Science Commentary. Theology. 2001;104(820):277-277. doi:10.1177/0040571X0110400407
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Biblical_criticism/archive2&oldid=994074679"