The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Short "disclaimer" to state that I am mostly involved in Buddhism, and got most of my knowledge on Christianity from Wikipedia. I have done a number of reviews on religious articles, most of which were well received.
Cowabonga!! There are no disclaimers necessary. I knew from your user page of your interest in Buddhism, but since I have a deep respect for Buddhism and as an ethics major think Buddhist ethics and Christian ethics are almost interchangeable, I thought we would have a lot in common and work well together. I will begin attempting to fix all of this immediately. As I read through, I realized I don't know how to do some of what you suggest, and as I get to those, I will ask directly for help. I have an over-fondness for quotes, I know! It's my concern for accuracy not laziness I swear! This will take me a little time. I have a medical procedure tomorrow and will be out of commission for the day, but I will start today and be back at it Saturday. Thank you so much for this! This is awesomely amazingly wonderful really! Your comments are clear and to the point and helpful and I can hardly say thank you enough! This is so exciting! Thank you thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article is interesting, but contains some unusual wording in some places, and is unclear sometimes. For details, see below.
At first glance, the header Additional Perspectives seems too vague to me, but I'll review this again after reading through this section.
You often directly quote scholars for general, technical statements that do not contain much creative or unique opinion. Such statements could better be paraphrased to keep an encyclopedic writing style. Some quotes are also much too lengthy. Please read MOS:QUOTE and WP:QUOTEFARM.
Doing...
Done
Many technical terms have not been wikilinked.
Doing...
Done
2. MOS:
The lead should give a brief overview of the article, and should normally not include quotes or examples. Soulen's quote may be allowed to show the significance of the subject matter in the first paragraph, but after that, examples are not required in a lead.
A GA article should not have paragraphs with a single sentence, so better merge and integrate.
'''<ref name="J. W. Rogerson" /> does not refer to any reference.
A number of article citations do not contain any doi or other identification numbers, and a number of book citations do not contain isbns or oclcs. This can make it hard to identify them. For example:
"DONAHUE, JOHN R. "THINGS OLD AND THINGS NEW IN BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION" (contains an url, but does not contain name of journal)
"Historical Study of Jesus of Nazareth: An Introduction]"
Okay then, I guess that means no I can't just dump them... :-) So I fixed this I think--at least they all have accessible isbn's now. Four books were formatted as journals--I don't know why. Anyway, I think that's Done
4. Reliable sources: Two sources are less reliable and should be replaced:
Bible-researcher.com is a blog, and Marlowe does not appear to be a scholar or journalist;
"Catherine M. Murphy, The Historical Jesus For Dummies" is a popular publisher without much editorial oversight.
I don't know what else to call "Additional Perspectives". If you have any ideas that would be great. They are lesser schools, used less, by fewer scholars--non-major schools--approaches that were less popular??? Those wouldn't be good titles! :-) It is vague, you're right, but I am at a loss what would be better.
I changed it--but I don't much like it and I am mildly concerned about its accuracy--by what definition is a whole school of criticism "minor"? I don't know. I don't have another idea for this heading yet. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done
I haven't gone through all my quotes yet--I do like quotes! I will work my way through them--sigh... I promise.
You know, I honestly thought I had done this--then you found two more. I must have a blind spot! I won't say when I think this is done--I apparently can't see... Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done !!!
I am unsure what 'technical terms' you are referring to. This is good--really good--that you are not in the field and catch things that are normal for me that I am not even aware of using. I will look and see if I can figure it out--any additional input would help!
Basically, any word you can't find in a normal dictionary or any word that your browser or word processor doesn't recognize as English, because it is... well, too technical.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)20:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well--I would have to know which words are being referred to in order to check and see if they are in my dictionary, so I wouldn't really need to check the dictionary to see if those are the terms you refer to--if you get my drift. I am going through looking but I am afraid I will miss some since these are words I use regularly. Still, I am Doing...--actually I need another template of my own that says... ((trying while griping...)) :-) I hope you have a sense of humor... Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Quickly fixed. You don't need to have the citations though. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should only surmise what is already in the body of the article. Since you repeat what is already in the body, you just put the citations there and remove them from the lead. Unless there is very controversial content, which is very likely to be challenged.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)20:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understood. They are all in the body--they all were--but two of them had their primary reference in the lead, so that had to be moved, but otherwise it was just a matter of removal--no big deal at all right? Sob! No, no I'm okay... :-) I'm learning a lot from you. Honestly. It's worth it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
every one of those references was a leftover from the original article--except Rogerson whose name I referenced incorrectly twice--writing J.W.Rogerson instead of just Rogerson. I was unsure of those old references and felt bad about removing everything from the original author--this means there are only three references remaining from the original article.
Then move it to the talk page. Then it can later easily be recovered when the mysterious first author comes along.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)
Fortunately, I had already added references for most--having checked the statements in other sources--but I think there are now two or three statements hanging loose without any citation. I will go back through and make sure they all have valid citations. If I can't find them in other sources, I will remove/and/or replace. I promise that too. Working on it! So--quotes, terms and references. On it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
HELP! I don't know how to do what you say needs doing for the pics! I tried to figure it out but apparently I am an idiot... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, only rocket-scientists understand copyright law. It is very complex material, and little time seems to be invested in simplifying it for or conveying it to a broader audience. You might want to start with the very "helpful" Copyright tags page.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)20:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now I am openly weeping... I read all of it and am totally confused. Do I insert those tags within the picture information? All that seems to do is prevent the picture from loading at all. Do I put it at the top of the page? The talk page? These are all public domain from Wikimedia-commons. I've never done this before--usually I just copy the wikilink, insert and go. I had no idea anything else was necessary--thought Wiki took care of that or they wouldn't be available. Whine, whine, whine... sorry. I'm trying to figure it out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Such things have been done. However, the process of correctly uploading such an image has been really pain-in-the-ass to several people. Add to this that even if they like the picture maybe I don't [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly, Jenhawk's preferred way is adding the page-numbers "visibly", like in "...scientific responses.[1]:20". Nothing wrong with that, and probably nice and simple when you use one cite many times. However, this is now in some cases conflated with the other way of noting page-numbers, "inside" the reftags, so to speak. If you check the above cite (in the article, blurb or cite-section), it also says p. 18. Another example is "dominated by white Protestant men,[3] :138" which also says p. 120. This is not ideal. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, one citation style should be used, but this is not strictly part of GA criteria. GA criteria merely demand that references can be identified, which currently is not the case yet. E.g. the books should all have ISBN numbers.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)13:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone back through every reference in the entire article, and anything that is not a pdf or a website has an isbn number now--or I just removed it. The guy before me had a block of references he apparently repeatedly copy-pasted which didn't necessarily apply every time. For example the page 90 in the reference to Bart Ehrman was the discussion of "textual families" but nothing else. So some of those I also just removed. I believe I have every page number formatted the same now as well as every isbn.
Okay, this is information contrary to what I was told from a question I posted at the Teahouse, but I will go back through and try to find all the references that are referenced more than once and move their page numbers. Doing...
Whatever form is fine, but WP likes consistency within an article, like with WP:ENGVAR. WP also likes it if editors don't waste a lot of time on arguing on what form, but editors sometimes really like doing just that.[2]Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough Grabergs and I have never really argued over anything. That could be because he tells me what to do and I whine then do it... :-) I went through the entire article yesterday and tried to find every reference and make sure it had a page number in the form I use--with the number displayed--and removed the others so there was no conflict. I hope I found everything. I think it was a really good suggestion on Graberg's part and has improved the article. It was a real pain. :-) I am doing the isbn search and removing and replacing any I can't find. Should be done with that today or tomorrow. I have company today so may not get much work done today. People expect you to talk to them... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:16, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The use of images is of course very subjective, but. The images should be relevant in the text, which seems to largely mean dead Germans in this article (boring, but still), which is mostly about reflections on biblical text. So IMO, of the current images, the Gutenberg bible is redundant, since there's a Bible at the top, and the Joshua shrine is a painful stretch. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the same thing about the images but wanted a couple anyway so I left them. Do whatever you please with them you have carte blanche!Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like Done, Doing..., Not done, Removed, Added, and Fixed.
... the Jesus tradition ... This is a technical term. Please wikilink with appropriate article.
The term "biblical criticism" was synonymous with "historical criticism" until the mid-twentieth century. After which the two words were used differently? I am uncertain how biblical criticism can be synonymous with historical criticism when the latter is an umbrella term of the former. Is this explained in the body of the article?
That's what my references say--no one I found says anything about umbrella terms--can you direct me to that? Yes, after that the historical part became more questionable and people were doing lots of other things that didn't involve history
If the term biblical criticism is no longer used, then what term is used?
I changed that to say that since it's no longer exclusively historical the terms used are those that reflect whatever field is doing whatever they are doing, for instance, feminine criticism is now called feminine literary criticism instead of just biblical criticism. Should I include that example? I didn't want to go on and on about what seems like a minor point--except usage has in fact changed.
As a sidenote—not part of GA criteria—if the term biblical criticism has become archaic, you might want to rename the article.
Don't want to rename--still has validity as history even if modern use has altered somewhat
... as the first "scientific" responses ... Why do you put this in quotes?
... Form criticism ... Why do you use capital letters here? Fixed
There are a number of other terms which do not need capital letters, such as Redaction criticism and Structuralism
It's because their links are capitolized that way and I neglected to rewrite it without the capitols inside the link--fixed now
Oh, okay. Don't worry, wikilinks without the first letter capitalized still link. :-)
... was shaped by two factors ... Ambiguous. You mean, shaped by two disciplines?
... which emphasized the literary integrity ... Both tradition and redaction criticism did?
Since it's impossible to mention everything, and I have that disclaimer that says so, and tradition criticism is now obsolete, I just decided to remove it entirely as not worth mention Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC) RemovedJenhawk777 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"German pietism was characterized by an indifference to doctrine that also played a role in the rise of biblical criticism." Not sure what this is trying to tell me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Fixed[reply]
He's great and helps me out a lot, always, by reviewing my stuff and making suggestions like this--really really helpful for producing quality work--but we haven't even touched the schools of criticism yet--or the historical Jesus part. I tried to make some of the changes I thought you might want--but that's no guarantee I accomplished it! Please do look over the rest as well. I'm sure it needs your input to be the kind of quality we are both hoping for. Grabergs can show up there too, that's fine--but it needs you.
But the quote Professor James A. Herrick says ... should be paraphrased instead. You should use quotes for unique expressions or personal opinion not widely accepted.
I removed almost all my quotes. This one is now gone too. Sigh... Done
More I'm not quite getting: "argued for an end to all doctrinal presuppositions.", "He also distinguished between 'inward' and 'outward' religion". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Fixed[reply]
gave a longer explanation. I find this remarkable--200 years ago this guy saw what psych has just recently studied and asserted. I think it's worth including on that basis alons so I hope this fixes it
Huh--how about that--I thought it was significant that Reimarus chose not to publish while alive--leaving Lessing to catch all the flack instead--but I removed the phrase as you suggest Fixed
That is the actual title in English translated from the Deutsch--do I need to include it in German? German wikipedia has a link which I tried to include but wiki red lettered it so I removed it. Sources usually refer to it as the Wolfenbüttel Fragments since that's shorter and not quite so weird
Redlinks are allowed. They are not errors, just indications someone should write a certain article. And yes, I recommend leaving the German untranslated.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)14:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
consider it Done then
"Jesus was a political Messiah who failed", failed at what? Fixed
"prompted a response from Semler in 1779 (Beantwortung der Fragmente eines Ungenannten), making it necessary to engage critically" "Making it necessary" according to what/for whom? Fixed
No others at the time that any source mentions--lots of things nowadays, but that's a whole other topic really--responses to mythicism or some such thing
Scholarly consensus agrees with the Soulens saying Karl Barth was ... Too complex. Start with Soulen's quote, then start a new sentence saying that most scholars agree with that.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)22:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Bultmann said faith became possible at a particular point in history: the historical event of Jesus death. However, this history is presented in the mythical terms of the resurrection in the Bible. Therefore the mythology of the New Testament needs to be reinterpreted--demythologized--using historical study and Heidegger's existential philosophy." Is the bolded bit Bultmann's view? If not, "needs to be" according to whom? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC) Fixed[reply]
Dodd also pioneered the biblical theology movement which refers to work that is more descriptive of the text than traditional historical criticism. Which work? Which text?--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)22:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
inserted critical study etc. so hope this is Fixed
"including canonical criticism, narrative interpretation, post-critical interpretation and post-modern criticism." I think this is rather technichal language for many readers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think anything can be done about this one--these are proper titles discussed later--I will link them however--will that help? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I added a sentence at the end that I hope communicates that biblical-historical criticism had an end as well as a beginning--does it work? If not tell me and I will either remove or attempt to rephrase.
Otherwise I hope this section is also Done
After 1970, biblical criticism began to change radically and pervasively enough it was sometimes compared to the extensive change that had happened when biblical criticism first began. Split and simplify please.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)00:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Professor D. A. Carson is representative of the many scholars ... They do not all call him phenomenal. Try to describe the praise in more general terms.
If you check the notes on chapter three on page 260 a says: "EPSanders influence on Pauline studies has been so phenomenal that a separate essay by Dr.P.T.O'Brien is largely devoted to interacting with him." I thought it was okay to use the word. People have disagreed with some things and even some of his methods but no one disputes his impact I don't think. So is there a word you would find preferable? I changed it. I don't know that you will like it any better, but you decide.
Though not required for GA criteria, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia's policy on titles and honorifics sometimes. Words like Professor A and Reverend B are not recommended. If you want to say someone is a scholar, just specify the discipline.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)00:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. I have received conflicting instructions so this policy will help.
I wanted to figure out some way to convey that historical-biblical criticism as it was known from the 1700's for 200 years has come to an end. It has transformed into something else--multiple something elses--that aren't really firmed up and identifiable yet. I don't know a good way to say all of that, but it does seem like acknowledging a kind of end is important. I split the sentences. I tried to clarify it without re-complicating it. I don't know if I accomplished what I was trying to do or not. You tell me what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence is a leftover from the previous writer but I thought it was a valid point--someone could come along and say, wait, where's the such-and-so method my teacher talked about? So I shortened it to this is not comprehensive--is that ok or do you prefer it be removed altogether? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:33, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorting out the wealth of source material is so complex, these textual "families" were eventually tied to geographical areas. Please explain how the second phrase follows from the first.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)23:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... took up the case, and after careful study of multiple papyri, concluded scribes were more likely to omit portions of text than add to it. In other words, he agreed with Clark. Please keep it brief.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)23:10, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
brief or specific--that appears to be the conflict with this--I'm trying not to be cryptic; he found the same things Clark found, but who he agreed with is not really the point. I actually don't agree with you on this one. Can we work out a compromise?
This particular verse is stated right there, so it doesn't really need a link in my mind, and I spent a lot of time removing an excess of "original source" quotes and don't think they are necessary or would add anything to this article, so thank you for thinking of it--but no thank you. It wouldn't make the article any better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to the geographical types mentioned in the two sentences that immediately precede this sentence--does it really need to be restated? Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay--how's this? I added a semicolon between the two sentences so it is clear they are connected instead of a period as though they are two separate thoughts--"textual clusters" is referencing "geographical designations" --will that work okay?
"Nearly one hundred years later, theologian and Priest James Royse took up the case. After careful study of multiple papyri, he concluded scribes were more likely to omit portions of text than add to it." Can we simplify this to something like "theologian and Priest James Royse supported Clarke's position in the 2000:s (?) 1980:s" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Gråbergs Gråa Sång Come on -- just give me this one. That would take all the fun out. The real point there is that the conflict went on for a hundred years! Clark had effectively proven his point when he made it but nobody changed the rule anyway! They just kept arguing! I claimed in the first sentence of this section that this was amongst the most contentious areas of bc--this demonstrates that claim. A hundred years! JEEZ! Think about it! Just so someone could come along later and make the same point over again! Let me have this one... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since Royse wrote his Diss. in 1981 (pagenumbers!), "Nearly one hundred years later" is stretching it a great deal. I now also wonder if the mention of Ehrman should be omitted in this part of the article, what do you guys think? I'm thinking Ehrman is RS on this and Clarke is significant enough in himself. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course it doesn't surprise anyone in the field! And, you're right on two counts--I had the dating wrong--it was a hundred years from now! I don't know what I was thinking. And Ehrman is definitely a great mention here. This is his alley, his primary field of study, his ball of wax, all the euphemisms I can think of--he's a recognized (and mostly respected) authority here. I had no idea before this that Clark was a genuine bonafied theologian--pretty cool I say--so agreed, he stands on his own as well. Wait. That's three things you're right on. I am going to have to attend a remedial math class apparently... :-)
these are the technical terms: a document is the physical vessel that contains the text. In the Bible a document is usually a book in the Bible (as distinguished from the entire Bible or a Testament of the Bible); a manuscript holds the text of the documents as well and some scholars use these terms interchangably. In studying the Bible, manuscript usually refers to the combined books of a Testament--such as Old Testament manuscripts--but it can also refer to a book, since the books are each considered complete in themselves. The text is the term applied to any passage quoted from the text of the Scripture. Critical text is any edited text that results from the application of rationally defensible editorial principles; many--most--of the documents in Scripture are believed to be edited texts--including the gospels. These terms have some fluidity to them as people disagree--imagine that--and use them differently--which can get very confusing!
But in answer to your question, yes, scholars designate each book, like Samuel, as a document. That is the correct term.
I did reference a scholarly lexicon in the textual criticism section--should I re-reference it here do you think? I think most people reading won't question the use of that term. It's a common word, its meaning seems apparent from the context, and getting into explaining will be a sinking bog I'm afraid. But I will do whatever you suggest. I can easily change it to book if you think that's better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah--I really dislike the look of redlinks in a text too. I went and changed it to books, please check if that reads better for you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha! Grabergs--he's starting to talk to me like you do! I totally believe you and it probably is silly--I won't defend it on any academic grounds. It's totally aesthetic for me. I just don't like how it looks. Red jumps off the page and smacks you in the eye.
It's not the redlink, it's redlinking the common word document (that's how it looks). textual scholarship document would be better from this perpective, but it would probably also raise question unless you write it PDQ. Then you can wikilink it the Foreigner-way. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... which have been edited together. Which have been merged?
I can change that if you want me to since we write here for the non-expert, but edited together is the correct scholarly term. It indicates someone came along somewhere in the foggy distant past and gathered up all the material they could find and put it together into the document we have now--usually without any concern for continuity or consistency or anything else, and often without dropping or adding, leaving us with the mish-mash result saying, "what the heck?". They didn't really merge so much--since that would actually smoothe out some of those rough inconsistencies and repetitions and so on. They just copied two things--or four or whatever--into one and let the "chips fall" wherever as the saying goes. It's why the gospel writers are sometimes referred to as editors instead of authors.
I don't think Buddhism has been subjected to the level of historical-criticism that western Christianity has--but whether or not that's true--I am absolutely sure it has impacted Buddhism by now and that they have developed their own peculiar vocabulary for it. It probably has nothing to do with the way those words are used by western scholars either--who let's face it--have tended to be a bit parochial (one might even say insular) at times. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The two-source theory says ... It is not completely clear how this relates to the four-source hypothesis. As it is written now, both theories seem to be congruent.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)18:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's because they are congruent really. two source is about the similarities and four source explains the differences--should that be added? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In a way, yes, and if I get into explaining that, it will be another whole section. What if we put it up as a main source article here? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
After all this work--I have Removed this whole paragraph in an effort to cull out extraneous detail and shorten the damn thing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... important challenges ... use problems or difficulties to avoid euphemisms per WP:WTW. Fixed
Okay--sticky wicket here. I didn't want to get into too much detail because it gets really detailed and complex, so I explained two things more specifically, and left Guthrie's general statement as a kind of summary. I used difficulties as you suggested and removed the as which made it amorphous and rewrote it as you suggested. I don't feel confidant you will like this better but without euphemisms--this is what I came up with. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... the Lachmann fallacy thereby challenging two-source theory ...... found in the two-source theory?
... principles of evidence in historical study can be difficult to follow in the search for documents which no longer exist. Cryptic, please rewrite. Removed
The relation between deduction and induction, between synthesis and analysis, and so on, can and has led critical scholars in opposing directions. Sounds like this applies to all science. What does the source say? Removed
As theologian Donald Guthrie says, there is much still uncertain concerning sources. Construction halfway between quote and paraphrase. If you paraphrase him, write: Theologian Donald Guthrie says that ...--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)14:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No--not necessarily. Scholars use anything they can find for any information they can find. It doesn't have to be a biblical source. I added some qualifiers--see what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You start discussing the supplementary hypothesis, then jump back in time to criticize the documentary hypothesis, all the while without having explained what the documentary hypothesis is about. Please reorganize.
You're right. De Witte was a late add in. I am removing him and the Supplementary hypothesis altogether. It will focus this better and keep it shorter. RemovedJenhawk777 (talk) 02:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Sitz im leben followed (Griesbach's) established earlier critical principles in assuming the shortest pericopes (sections of text, stories) are the oldest with the longest dating later, and that the crudest is oldest and the most polished later."
Up in textual criticism I explained "Griesbach wrote fifteen critical rules for determining which texts are likely the oldest and closest to the original, such as Lectio brevior praeferenda, "the shorter reading is preferred." Removed
Its current difficulties include some of its most foundational assumptions: pure form, Sitz im leben, the role of memory, Second Temple Judaism, and philosophy. Source is Bauckham?
there is at least one separate source for each claim, but since they are each discussed and referenced directly below this statement I thought it was okay not to have a long list here--sort of like the lead--is that okay? I can put them all here in a row if you want though. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that in German, all nouns have capitals.
I DID NOT KNOW THAT!!!! I never did learn to read much German and mostly my spoken German revolved around "Ein bier bitte." Wait--wait--Ein Bier bitte! Beer should always be capitolized. I haven't had much call for that here in my religion writing on Wikipedia though. So far. Of course there's always hope. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Professor of biblical studies Werner H. Kelber says form criticism steered away from studying the role of memory in the development of early church tradition and in the Gospel's composition. When did this happen?
Theologians Vincent Taylor and Martin Dibelius, ... Too long and complex. You really do like long sentences... If you didn't misspell German terms often, I'd think you were German.
Hah! Misspell German? Of course I do! I lived there for three years and never did learn to read more of it than I needed to get around on the bus--but I could speak pretty well. I've forgotten most of it living here though. Sigh...
I do like long sentences! At least I don't cram a whole sentence into one word!! I am of German descent though--it must be genetic--yeah--that's my excuse... Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overlooking something of such large potential ... Simplify. While you are at it, simplify the rest of the article as well.
Okay--that one hurt... I actually am trying. If you have any suggestions for how to go about that, I'm listening. I did cut a bunch from the two sections above--but I couldn't see what to cut out of history or text criticism. It already skims the surface with only a few hits. We could remove the whole background section since we have history--it's a little redundant--what do you think??? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well--I didn't take it personally--but I took it seriously and attempted it. Source criticism, Doc. theory, form criticism, Lit criticism, historical Jesus and development of tradition have all been simplified--I hope--please God...
Dude! The very first section at the top is called "Background"! It doesn't have a ton of information in it, and it gives a broad overview of what is discussed in more detail later--I thought of retitling it overview as a matter of fact--but the point is everything it says is repeated elsewhere, and it would make the article shorter. Is that a good enough reason to remove it entirely? This is awfully long. I won't do anything precipitate. :-) like I did before... Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mm. It does seem a lot of it surmised from the rest of the article. I would say: delete, but integrate the unique content with other sections, including the lead.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)08:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To what extent have Wright's theories been accepted as mainstream?
Oh Man! If there is a pinnacle of scholarship, Wright is on it. [[3]]
Wright is sort of above mainstream. Conservatives and liberals alike claim him. He is the authoritative word on many many things. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
early Christian communities created the sayings and teachings of Jesus You mean that the early Christians wrote all teachings of Jesus, and that they are not his actual words? If that's not what you meant, you might want to rephrase.
No that is exactly what I meant--that's what Bultman and form criticism asserted. That is exactly what Sitz im leben says: The sayings were created by community. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... throughout the mid-twentieth century (~1963~) Unusual indication of a period. Is this in common usage?
No. I just made it up. The source I was using kept giving quoted references to Bultman's sayings and writings dated in 1963, but since I know how you feel about quotes, I didn't want to use any of them--but the source had those dates--is the mid-twentieth good enough?
What Kelber refers to as form criticism's "astounding myopia" has to do with "fundamental conceptual flaws" which have produced enough criticism to revive interest in memory as an analytical category within biblical criticism. You are saying two things at the same time. Better split in two sentences.
Short choppy sentences. Not a style I like. But I will comply oh review master. This is me bowing... /)...humbly...are you impressed? NO? :-)
I just Removed the conceptual flaw phrase--it wasn't really necessary.
And your short choppy sentences read better. :-)
Done
Where text criticism is the most contentious area of criticism, form criticism is the most challenged and criticized. I thought about including that somewhere, but decided it didn't really need stating. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nuances dude! Nuances! Contentious is 'filled with fights', challenged is questioned, criticized is condemned--degrees and very slight but significant differences. Text criticism is filled with disagreements within it--among those who practice it. Form criticism is questioned and condemned from those outside it primarily--who practice other approaches.
Your English is amazing by the way. But I'm sure you've been told that before. :-)
There is a reference syntax error with the Wright source.
I used the template--I don't know why there would be but I think I fixed it. I should have checked it when I inserted it--sorry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind. (I need a template for you that says Kindness!)
Writing an entire chapter title in a {{rp}} citation format looks messy. use page numbers, or if you haven't got access to any, leave the {{rp}} out for now. Page numbers in references are not a requirement for GA, unless you're quoting.
Not insufficient--overly skeptical--he began from the presupposition nothing supernatural is possible--which cannot be proven. The best a genuinely neutral mind can conclude is "Who knows?" but Bultmann was not neutral. Many of his conclusions were based on this assumption. That comes under heavy fire from the conservatives and the fundies and even many liberals who recognize the fallacy of assuming something that can't be proven. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no desire to have a long discussion of it which could be interpreted as non-neutral. I think a mention that the criticism exists is sufficient. I suppose if I could find a source I could add something on concluding what you assume--but no--on second thought, that would be evaluation, and that would not be a neutral presentation of facts.
Looking back over that I think I sounded rather aggressive there--sorry--it's not that I don't want to have a discussion with you, it's that I don't want to have a discussion in the article itself, because the more I say, the more likely someone will come along and argue and fight over whether or not they agree with his position--which isn't the point! Right? I guess I'm ducking a little. It would be fair and accurate to put in skeptical. I have three or more sources that discuss his predispositions. It is stated--without comment--in the twentieth century history section. I'm thinking that and this one sentence is sufficient. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well, Bultmann's many assumptions including his beginning point concerning religious phenomena are areas of criticsm and should be mentioned in this list. So I rewrote the sentence. It now says: "Form critics worked with previously held notions concerning folklore, the distinction between Palestinian and Hellenistic communities, the length of the oral period, and more, that were not derived from study but were instead constructed according to a preconceived pattern." Will this do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... [its] Pauline interpretation is on the defensive ... Expand. The quote is no problem, but you should expand a little on the new information it introduces.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)21:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... accused of methodology that makes claims beyond its ability to support ...... accused of making unsourced claims?, or ... accused of using their methodology to make claims that are beyond its scope?--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)08:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... dates back to at least Saint Augustine. Please specify time period inline.
Done
What Muilenburg called ... No need to quote a tertiary source.
Fixed
Unlike canonical criticism ... Please put this section first, so this reference makes sense.
I think Grabergs must have already done that--or did you mean make it the first sentence for the whole section? I did that--moved it first and think it's a vast improvement.
Fixed
Thank you, but I meant that the subsection Canonical criticism should come first in the section Minor schools, because it is referred to in this subsection, rhetorical criticism.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)08:25, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This was one of the few sections I left virtually untouched from the previous author. It's better now though thanx to you. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Brevard S. Childs ... Where previous types of criticism ... Please specify time period, for example, following the author's name.
Done
... (and communities—subsequent communities are regarded as being as important as the original community for which it was produced) Don't insert long sentences within sentences. Delete or split.
This section has many overly complex and long sentences, with many expressions not in common usage.
I believe I have Fixed that
There is an unsourced sentence in the first paragraph, that could be challenged and therefore needs a citation.
Beginning with New Testament authenticity, I have rewritten it and this section. I decided I had been too casual and not sufficiently neutral. Please look at it and tell me this is a genuine improvement--just say so even if you don't think it. :-) Then you can take it apart if needed...
You don't need to define creed inline, it is quite common English—unless it has a specific technical meaning, in which case wikilink it. But they way you are defining it inline is the standard definition of the English word creed.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)11:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... the early AD 30's ... Is this common in English? Never seen it before.
Fixed
Kittredge says 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 is the "earliest creedal account in the New Testament" and the majority of New Testament scholars agree. Simplify: there's no need to mention Kittredge and no need to quote him. The majority of New Testament scholars agree that ...
Sanders wrote, "some tendencies which have been thought to be generally operative among transmitters of the early Christian tradition have been shown not to have been." Are you sure this quote is correct?
The quote is correct but it was unnecessary since it was the second one in the same paragraph so I removed it.
Fixed
Eddy and Boyd say that, in an "interdisciplinary phenomena" involving a "turn to orality/performance, scholars from a variety of fields have come to realize there are significant differences between spoken and written media." Cryptic, simplify.
Yeah, it was repetitive and obscure--and a quote! It used those technical terms and explaining them would get long and involved so I thought the point was made sufficiently without including it. The point here is just to present the fact that biblical criticism moved on since Bultmann. As I said, I have been trying to shorten everything I can and still be thorough--saying the same thing twice in different ways is a good cut I think. If you disagree, I can redo it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This leaves contemporary scholars without the direction of their predecessors, therefore, contemporary scholars are looking beyond previous boundaries. Weasel phrase: which scholars? How are they looking beyond?
Fixed
Removed
... by advocating the application of orality research to the Jesus tradition and arguing the continued presence and influence of the 'eye-witnesses'. How does this differ from other research? Don't they all investigate the Jesus tradition? And what does it mean to argue the continued presence?
Fixed
I both Removed and replaced some of that, but if I get into explaining Bauckham's argument it will be non-neutral--so I removed it. He's on one side of the argument about what actually transpired and how the sayings and teachings--what is referred to as the 'tradition'--was passed on during that oral period. He has done paradigm altering work and in ten years we'll be able to write about it. But not yet. And no--everyone does not investigate the Jesus tradition. That is a special field within the larger field of broad and varied studies. People study all kinds of things. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The writings of the Church Fathers are also helpful in studying the origins of the Christian church. Weasel sentence.
I have a question. The bottom of this section references scholars who have done work on memory and the oral period--because this is biblical criticism--but these are not the real psychologists who have studied memory--should I include them too? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... proposes the hypothetical text Q, and early Mark, and M and L were the original sources of the three Synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. Didn't you already explain this?
Yes Removed
The Gospels are both products of sources and sources themselves. As sources, they are partially dependent on each other and partially independent of each other. This is the synoptic problem. Introductory and useful: move to section on major criticism sections above.
Second Temple Judaism (circa BCE 500 to CE 70) Useful information, move above to first instance.
Where is that?!!?? I will search and find. Doing...
I can't find it but it should be linked with Sanders in the twentieth century section of history so I am putting it there--is that okay? If so, this is Fixed
Wikilink the Jewish texts referred to.
I don't know how. I will have to look it up. Doing...
Finally got an answer from the help desk, but of course these references aren't in the Protestant or Jewish Bibles--they are in the Ethiopian Bible --and only 1 Enoch would link--no link for Ezra. I redlinked it though--figured you'd like that. :-) Are you feeling any better? Should I worry over you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay--you said texts--to me that meant the individual references not the books. There are no other book names in this section. These two books are not in the western Bibles. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC) Therefore they won't link to anything but the Ethiopian Bible anyway. I linked all the Bible texts in this section though--I thought it was a good idea--and now I know how! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is unclear why it would be historically accurate that Jesus called himself "Son of Man", when the disciples or the early church did not use this expression. The two facts seem to contradict.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)13:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dissimilarity is a kind of contradiction I suppose. The fact it can't be found elsewhere, by process of elimination, leaves it with Jesus. It's kind of working your way into a room backwards. I don't know how else to explain it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Added 'process of elimination'--is that clearer do you think? If so this is Fixed
Unnecessarily messy sentence-- Removed that phrase
The Gospel teaching that Jesus' family had rejected him coheres well with Jesus' teaching that believers will be called to leave their own families for the sake of his kingdom (Mark 10:29-31). How does this cohere well? They are different reasons of leaving you family behind.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)13:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was one of the examples given, but one example is enough, so if you don't like it, it's Removed
I like it, but it doesn't make much sense. Jesus was rejected by his family, and therefore his devotees should renounce their families? That would only make sense if Jesus had also renounced his family, but you wrote he was rejected by his family. That's what confused me.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)12:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that! The point the source was making was the Bible indicates Jesus did choose to leave and do what he did. His family did not support him in his ministry and kept trying to get him to come home. They didn't actually reject him they rejected his ministry. That verse in 1 Cor.15 says Jesus appeared to his brother James after the resurrection and later James became the leader of the church in Jerusalem. So Jesus wasn't so much rejected by his family as he was not supported by them--but he made the choice to put what he was doing first. But this section only needs one example to explain it anyway so this one can be Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, up to you. I don't know the work you are citing, but it seems to me a pretty lousy scholar to equate religious renunciation with mutual rejection.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)22:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
parallelisms: Shouldn't this be parallels? Or is parallelism also used in this context?
... set out to refute them ... To refute what?
... (another term for biblical/historical criticism) ... Already defined above, cut out.
From 1750 on ... Sentence is a little too long, paraphrase or trim quote, split sentences.
... contemporary 'Kantian' philosophy ... If this is in quotes, it probably has a unique meaning in the context of the source cited. So expand on this or if it is not relevant, cut it out.
... as did the History of Religions School (known as the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule in German). Unsourced.
Periods and commas should always be in front of the citations. (I have already fixed this.)
The Fundamentalist movement ... In which country? Done
Quotes are much too long, see comment above. Also, did you replace part of the quote by [Supplementary theory of the Documentary hypothesis]? Or was that already in squares in the original source?
Professor of Bible ...Bible studies? on the blurb about him online it just says Bible, but it's a Jewish seminary, so safe to specify Henbrew Bible I think.
The social atmosphere of the time... Ambiguous. Fixed
... produced the Orthodox response "Higher Criticism – Higher Anti-semitism." Unusual expression. Simplify. it's a quote, I noticed you put it in italics and removed the quotes--is it okay to quote someone without including quotes?
... among the most precise and detailed commentaries on the legal texts ever written. This is the only quote in this section which is justified: it is a unique opinion, that is best quoted directly. Done
... he has not been the last. Please specify. Done
Is there something you still don't like about my fixes to these next ones? Or are they just waiting till we get down to where that section is now--since I moved it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They have now waited long enough. Here goes.
Jewish critical scholars must consider Judaism ... Why must they? Says who?
If a page says This disambiguation page lists ..., it is not an article you are supposed to link to, but a disambiguation page. Choose either one article on that disambiguation page, and wikilink to that.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)22:18, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wellhausen theory (Documentary hypothesis) has its own section below this under source criticism--do I need to define it here too? I have added a wikilink. Done
This tradition is continued by Catholic scholars such as Bernard Orchard, Edmund F. Sutcliffe, and Reginald C. Fuller. Involves legitimacy, might be challenged—better find a source to back this up.
Couldn't find anything--quickly and easily--on Sutcliffe so removed him but found other two with specific references to their critical work.
... commentaries on the legal texts ... But you just wrote it was a response to the Wellhausen theory. So how is this related to legal texts? Which legal texts? Can we wikilink?
The legal texts are in the Pentateuch and the Wellhausen theory is about how the Pentateuch was formed. Leviticus and Deuteronomy are the legal texts-- the Pentateuch is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. I went ahead and added (in the Pentateuch) but it seems to me it's an odd thing for a Jew to say. But if it seems clearer to you, that's cool. There is no wikilink for the book he wrote--it was written in 1905. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Their work has shifted the paradigm by altering the previously established underlying assumptions of biblical criticism. Redundant: paradigm shifts do that per definition. Trim please.
... from other literatures ... From mundane literature?
I changed it to secular literature--is that better? Other literature is just literature that is not the Bible--but that would sound weird in a sentence don't you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the {{rp}} template with the awkward Preface: if you wish to refer to chapters, use the {{sfn}} template instead—for which you would have to change the references of the entire article...
This is all the "History" section now and all have been looked at there-- I think.
Three early scholars of ... Too long, please split off. Done
... Jesus taught 'natural religion'. Which is? --the short explanation is it's not what the church said--if that's sufficient this is Done
These two are now in 'Beginnings' section
... who argued for an end to all presuppositions. Please expand. Done
This is in the rise of rationalism now
G.E.Lessing (1729-1781) was a librarian where there were copies of Reimarus' writings which Lessing subsequently had published. Simplify please. further explained--if you are okay with it then this is Done
This made it clear ... These discussions made it clear? reworded so making it clear is clearer :-) Done
... of individual writings ... Ambiguous, rephrase. Done
These are in the 'Historical Jesus' section
premier theologian: Unusual expression. Quote or rephrase. I can't believe you told me to add a quote! I did! I did! :-) Done
He developed the demythologizing ... He developed the idea of demythologizing? offered more explanation--kept it simple I hope Done
New criticism (literary criticism) developed[23], Remember the order: citations after commas and periods. --I'll remember! Done
Jesus Seminar: Which is? --provided a link, more explanation could get complicated and long so if a link is sufficient-- Done
In the twentieth century section
These new perspectives included ... Split off. Done
This shifted understanding of much previously believed about biblical criticism leading to the development of Postmodernist biblical criticism. Cryptic, please rewrite. --It is a little cryptic! I am trying to avoid too much detail, so I made some changes--if you like them, then this is Done
Okay, I have addressed each of these--whether or not I have done them satisfactorily is up to you. By this point in my composition, I was getting anxious about the length of this article, so I was making everything as short as possible--which made some things more unclear and cryptic. I have really really tried to add clarity without making anything substantively longer. At any rate, I think these things are now a little clearer, meaning hopefully, this is Fixed and Done -- if you agree.
That's lovely to hear. Thank you. Pics fix now done too. Fixed
I believe everything in these sections is now well referenced. Your comment on the questionable quality of those you list solidified my own feelings about them and I just went back and removed them. As we go through the other sections, I will insure they have been properly replaced. This means there are only three references left from the original article: Ehrman, Thiessan, and John Meier. How about that?! I think this guy had a list and simply copied them all without any specificity and applied them equally to each statement--hence the repeated long list of the same authors over and over. I have tried to get rid of that as I have gone through as well. It's sneaky and lazy in my mind. We'll fix that!
I don't think there are any technical words in this part that aren't linked since I fixed the "Jesus tradition" as per request. If I missed any it was unintentional. Point and I will fix!
Thank you as well. And feel free to answer my comments in any way, the templates are just a tool. You are a fast editor, so this review won't take too long. Great work.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)22:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What would you think of removing the division between Old Testament and New Testament in the History section and just letting it all be history? Would that make it too long? Are there some other possible headings that could be used instead that could break it up a little? It just doesn't really seem like Old and New apply perfectly. I moved the contemporary responses to the contemporary developments section where it seemed to fit better--what do you think? I hope I have removed all those pesky quotes now! My poor little quote farm is no more... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did it!! This involved no content change--just the headings change--and I like these better and think they make much more sense than the original headings did. I hope you agree. Everything you asked to be done to "New Testament" has been done. It's just split up differently. I hope that's okay--I've never done this before so I hope I haven't committed some terrible faux pax! Forgive me if I have! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jenhawk, since you obviously don't have enough to deal with, I'll comment here too (temperature in Sweden has dropped 10-15 Celsius, making WP more attractive again). Then again, if I'm supposed to shut up during a GA Review, tell me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Wow! I made more work for you didn't I--by changing the headings? I am so, so sorry. Please chock it up to my inexperience and forgive me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey stranger! I was just wondering last night if you were still enjoying the outdoors. I went and looked and saw you are doing some work on "Women itb" so I am glad of that. I still can't go back though so I am glad you are there. I think the instructions at the top say it's okay for anyone to participate in a review--and your comments are always appreciated.
Historicist mentality is a phrase used in the source. I didn't put in in quotes--I probably should have--but even putting it in quotes doesn't explain it does it? I read it to be the mindset of this era which is referred to in 'background' in the first sentence there. Can you think of a better--short--way to rephrase or explain?
German pietism is one of the things that played a role in the rise of biblical criticism apparently. It's mentioned in all the sources about the history of b-c and this is pretty much all that's said. Pietism accepted b-c? Perhaps I will go read more.
In the lead, the second sentence says b-c is 'non-sectarian' meaning it is not the view of any particular religious group. Semler is where that started and that's why he is called the father of b-c. This is how the source says that happened. It seemed clear to me and I am unsure how to make it clearer but will take any ideas you have.
Jesus failed at revolution I guess--at being a political Messiah--that was Reimarus' theory. Semler thought it was necessary to respond. I list his response there. I can take out the making it necessary part and just say he did it. No other scholars are referred to about that in the sources that I found.
I didn't mean to put that statement in bold--I don't know how it got there--I will look and see if someone else came along and did that! Needs to be according to Bultmann--it is a statement of Bultmann's view, a definition if you will of what demythologizing meant in that context. I used the term and did not explain it before, so this is an explanation of what Bultmann's demythologizing was. It has to be written that way--it's what he thought.
I just saw that! Hah! I added 'he said', so hopefully that clarifies that. I think I fixed the other things. I changed them anyway! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's not exactly simple and easy to sum up an entire school of thought in a few words! But this process helps. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your comments are missing from edit source though available to read--what's up with that? How can that be? I went and read the article on Sweden's greatest poet but did not find a reference to the name you chose there. What is it from? I love poetry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have done some more reviewing. I will keep working in order of the article, but will have to jump back if you re-order sections. That said, the current structure of the article looks much improved. Good day for now!--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)23:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you and again, I am so sorry. I will not do it again. I promise! But it is an improvement isn't it? Each heading accurately describes content and it flows conceptually and chronologically much better I think.
I have responded to all your comments and made all the changes but one I think. Thank you and thank you.
Finished fixing reference's isbns and page numbers, and fixed image issue--Grabergs just changed the image out completely. That worked! I notice the lead has not been lined off--was there something else that needed doing there? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I always do that. I usually make small corrections which I believe are not controversial. You can revert or discuss my corrections at any time, if there is sufficient reason to.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)13:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Okay! SHEW! I'm relieved! I have no disagreements with anything you have done--not anything at all. You've been wonderful and really brilliant. I was afraid maybe you were tired of telling me stuff or something! Maybe there was just so much wrong here you decided to just fix it yourself! I'm glad that's not it because I am genuinely enjoying working with you. I have learned more about what it means to be 'encyclopedic' from this experience than the whole previous year I think. So thank you and don't give up on me--please! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So. You told me to simplify the rest of the article, and I went back and did my best. I attempted to shorten, focus and tighten up--eliminating everything I could think of that wasn't absolutely necessary. I checked a couple things left from the original article for accuracy and ended up removing and replacing Aramaisms with Semitisms. I removed all those sub-headings like you said--man that hurt! :-) But if you think it is better and you're happy then I'm happy too. The one question I have left is about that first section--"Background"--should it be removed--or perhaps re-titled as Overview?
The more I look at it, the more I want to remove it.
I think we are actually getting close to complete. It's been an overwhelming experience for me. I can't believe you do this on a regular basis. You must have nerves of steel. You are going to have to change your name to Superman--or girl as the case may be... Super-person? Oh well, don't mind me--it's late and I am going to bed. Thank you for everything you have done. You are phenomenal. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a sentence at the top of this article that is unlike anything I have ever seen before on Wikipedia--"This article is about the academic treatment of the Bible as a historical document. For criticisms made against the Bible as a source of reliable information or ethical guidance, see Criticism of the Bible."
I agree with that hat template, and I think it would best be left unchanged. But in the long run, the article Criticism of the Bible and this article are too similar in name: one of them needs to be renamed. Fortunately, that's not part of GA, so you people have to fight about this yourselves.
Okay--if you agree then I agree--but what could this article's title possibly be changed to? Maybe Biblical-historical criticism?? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
UGH! There is an article--a short one--on historical criticism. It turns out I was mistaken--biblical criticism is an umbrella term! I thought I knew everything there was to know on this subject! Hah! Just goes to show ya'. I have only ever heard these terms used interchangably in every class I have ever taken--but there you have it. I made the change in the lead but it shouldn't affect the body. Was that right? Or should I not mention it in the lead since it isn't discussed as such in the body? It's clearly a confusing issue! I feel stupid now... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It appears you like commas almost as much as my husband does. However, it is my understanding of current rules that commas should not be used when doing so leaves a dependent clause--one without a subject and verb--called a sentence fragment hanging off the end of a sentence. You put at least three commas in places that created sentence fragments. You also seem to think the word "that" brings clarity which in journalism they told me was a useless filler word that mostly does the opposite. I almost never say that something happened. I just say this happened. That-- :-) --is just a matter of style though. Leave the thats if you think it matters. But those commas are mistakes. Do you want me to find and fix them? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Starting a subsection, as this is getting too long. Yes, you can fix the commas. I was aware of that rule, but absent-minded, I guess. As for the note, do you mean a quote or a note?--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)22:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean a note inside the reference. I've seen others do it but never done it myself. This time it seemed appropriate. It gives additional pertinent information to one the claims made without cluttering up the article itself with repetitions of the same thing.
I'm really crap at leads. I don't think I understand the concept of a wiki-lead yet. It's not an introduction. It's not a journalistic lead. I understand the concept of summary but am apparently too general?? Or what? Should I simply list the headings that are actually discussed in a chatty tone?!? Can you be more specific? Figuring this out would really help me I know. I have no idea why I find it difficult. I will be back tonight and will attempt something. Any advice would be welcome.
Something in the lead needs disambiguation? It must be the historical criticism that I just put in today. I'll fix it. Later my friend. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have clicked on everything in the lead and cannot find what you might be referring to concerning links that need disambiguation. They all look good to me. Can you give me specifics? Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind--redid it.
Okay. I'm a little scared. I went and looked at the examples of featured articles and good articles and read their lead sections. They sort of blew me away--mine was dry and dull by comparison. So I rewrote the entire lead based on the style of Cleopatra and the one on Water fluoridation as best I could follow and figure out what they had done. Theirs were both way longer than mine and almost seemed to make reading the rest of the article a waste of time--there was so much info--but if that's what a good lead is, I now understand better why mine haven't been. If you hate what I did I will change it back--as near as I can--I'll cry a lot :-) --but I'll fix it. So please let me know what you think. (Please don't hate it...) :-) I think it covers everything now. I included the full quote from the Soulens at the bottom too. It fit. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent work. One minor improvement: ... people of color, women, those of Hebrew descent, Catholics, globalization, and Near Eastern studies, had completely altered the foundational understandings ... "globalization and Near Eastern Studies" doesn't quite fit in the list, which is only about people. Perhaps rephrase or split off. Also, People of color isn't an expression used much outside of the US, so perhaps replace with "different ethnicities" or something similar.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)10:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The name of section "The rise of rationalism" doesn't match its contents.
Well--it does except for those last two sentences which are off topic and only there because I thought it was so interesting--so I Removed those two sentences --sob--and now it should be FixedJenhawk777 (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this is not required. Please recover that sentence. The problem is in the headers, not the content. Is it possible to put a time period between brackets in each history header? E.g. "Rise of Nationalism (18th century)". This indicates that the header name is an example of what happened in that period, but that other things happened as well.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)20:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Edited.--21:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my divisions are a little arbitrary --wait, I mean conceptual... :-) -- there is overlap in the times--what if we just moved that paragraph on rationalism to beginnings? It's all by itself anyway. Removed rationalism as a heading altogether?? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a problem if the headings have time periods and those time periods aren't both different and chronological. That would bug me! I made an attempt at fixing this by just moving that one paragraph into chronological order in the first section on beginnings. If you don't like it, it's easy enough to undo, but it actually makes sense there. See what you think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anthony Campbell says, "form ... Is this a quote from the source cited? If it is your own note, you should put it in a separate note. For example, by using the {{refn}} template with parameter "group=note". If it is a quote, however, you should add the note number in the {{rp}} template.
I have never done a note before--but I have read several. The "Anthony Campbell says" are a couple of direct quotes mashed together, there are two more quotes and two paraphrases of what the other guys said. I included this to stem off controversy to some degree. There is a group of people here on Wikipedia who love the form critics and I'm afraid they won't take kindly to having form criticism criticized. It seems to offer pertinent information--but I don't understand what you are telling me to do with this. I don't know the refn template and group note refer to or what the note number is or what the tl|rp refers to either--is that the temp[late I normally use for my page numbers? I did put note in the rp template in the first reference--does it have to be in each one? I only use that reference twice. I don't know what I need to do here. Help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... who is considered an early pioneer of form criticism ... Which one? The first or the second you are mentioning?
I flipped the order so it is clearer it refers only to Dibelius. Fixed
Are rhetorical analysis and rhetorical criticism two different disciplines? If not, you are mentioning this discipline under two different types of criticism.
Yes, they are different. Rhetorical analysis is an aspect of literary criticism. Rhetorical criticism was Muilenburg and Trible. Everyone gets them confused. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You made a change in text criticism: The two chief works of the first century "by" Roman historian--changing "of" to "by" moves the object of the preposition from Tacitus, to the first century, which means this now says Tacitus' works were the chief works of the first century. I don't think anyone claims Tacitus' writings are the chief works of the first century. These two references are the chief works of Tacitus' that happened to be from the first century. I can just drop the first century altogether if it seems confusing--as you wish--or you can just put the 'of' back or tell me what else you might want, but it shouldn't be left this way. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we write "first-century Roman historian" then?
I like that! It doesn't really need either of or by! Good call. Done
In two references, you have notes added in the "quote" parameter: such as "quote=New Historicism". What is your intention with this?
I do? I think that must be a mistake. If I use a template instead of typing it in myself, it sometimes happens that things get stuck in the wrong places. :-) I'll go look. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I found the one on New Historicism and Removed it. It wasn't mine--that's why I didn't know it was there. Can you tell me where the second one is? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... leaving its linguistic traces. ... in the Gospels, you mean? Leaving its traces in the Gospels?
Yes--but that seems apparent to me--where else would they be? How else would you say there are traces of the Septuagint in the language--in the Semitisms--of the New Testament--since that's what this is about? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the section on Contemporary methods, can we merge the paragraphs on feminism (Feminist criticism of the Bible utilize ...) and studies of women histories (Professor Margaret Y. MacDonald developed ...), or at least place them next to each other? Same holds for sections on post-modernism, which are now interceded by paragraphs on feminism.
Merged MacDonald to socio-scientific which she was an example of and post-modern literary with the rest of post-modern
This is very upsetting. The quest for the historical Jesus is a standard phrase--no one puts it in quotes, not a single reference. I will go over these but these are ordinary phrasing, not copying. How else should "In the 18th century" be said? I am really distressed. I had this happen when I put another article up --that was finally accepted--because I used long quotes. I am beginning to think this robot doesn't work very well. I will go through each of these and change wording and put historical Jesus in quotes every time. I'll be the only person in the world who does. This is just wrong. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:33, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind, but take a real look at what it has labeled as copy violations--"the first five books of the" how am I supposed to define the Pentateuch without saying that? "by the end of the twentieth century" I changed to 'by 1990'--which is a repetition now. It says Soulen's phrase--'at the beginning of the'--inside his quote is a copy violation. "is sometimes referred to as the"--these are just common phrasing. It has 'in the first half of the twentieth century' and 'in the Bible'--how the heck am I supposed to say 'myth in the Bible' without using the phrase in the Bible? Farang--it has the title to the section "Textual criticism" as a copyright violation. This is all crap. But I am changing it all, and just removing some because there is just no way to avoid some of these phrases. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
These are not the relevant parts. There are entire sentences and even paragraphs copied almost verbatim. Please scroll down a little. It does not need to be deleted, but just rephrased. I am not saying it was you who did that, as apparently this copied material was already there when we started this GA review. (I am still confused why this didn't show up the first time.)--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)23:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How am I supposed to know there are parts that aren't relevant? Ah--down in the minor criticism--yes, that's from the former author. All right. I will redo that whole section. And contemporary methods--also his work. Well. This is enough to make me take up swearing. I will completely rewrite both those sections from the ground up. I don't plagiarize Farang--but it never occurred to me to check and see if he did. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:58, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand it probably doesn't matter to you but having this here really stings me. I went back through the page's history--500 at a time--and found my first edit on May 31st. If you go look, [6] you will see the offending texts are there before I ever make my first edit. They are pretty much now, exactly as they were then, because they're well enough written to leave alone and not redo. It never crossed my mind that was because they were stolen from real authors! I would never have known if I hadn't decided to go for GA. I feel ashamed by association--as though I have done something wrong--when what I did was trust someone else's work. Well. Live and learn I guess. I have done two of the three in Minor criticisms as well as the rest of the article which is probably a screwed up mess now, and I will never get GA, but I will finish this anyway. We can't allow plagiarized work to go unedited on Wiki. It has to be fixed whether the article gets recognized or not and I guess I'm the one to do it. I can't tell you how upset this all makes me, and I apologize to you as well. I don't know what for exactly except I just feel bad about all the work you've done and then finding this stinking pile of you know what at the end. I will get it done. Not tonight or tomorrow--I have to go to the hospital tomorrow--but I will get it done within that week for sure. I am researching each subject myself and writing it fresh. I am keeping nothing from him. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry too much about it. We have time. When I saw how you responded, I suspected it wasn't your work. Anyway, some people don't know that copying content is a problem on Wikipedia—most of the time it is just ignorance of the rules. Considering you are a fast editor, I don't suspect it will take that long. I will hear from you soon.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)09:54, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, we are free to copy any source that has a compatible copyright license or is in the public domain, as long as we attribute the source. Plagiarism is copying without attribution. It is not illegal, it is relieved by attribution, and it has nothing to do with copyright law. I could not download the PDF, so I do not know if it has a compatible copyright license. If it does not, then we have a very much worse problem, namely a copyright violation, and we must respond vigorously, and attribution does not relieve a copyright violation. All works are covered by copyright, whether or not any copyright notice exists. Copyright eventually expires: for example a work copyrighted in the US before 1923 is in the public domain. Copyright law makes it illegal to copy any creative elements from a work without a license: the underlying facts and ideas are not copyrightable, but the wording and structure are. Our guidance is therefore to restate the ideas and facts "in your own words" and then cite (not attribute) the source. -Arch dude (talk) 20:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
what pdf are talking about not being able to download? I note that in the references he used several. And thank you for the explanation. I understand plagiarism. Please note I did not do this. I started editing an existing article on May 31st--see the dif above--and had no idea the material in it was copied. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This section of this page starts with the following external link: "you have been copying a source from Academia a little too much, apparently." If you follow the link, you see the report from a tool that scans the web for text matches. Within the report, there is a link to a PDF with a very high match: that's the one I did not see. I know that you did not add this material to the article. You are trying (apparently quite successfully: thanks!) to bring this article up to GA, so you are stuck with cleaning up someone else's mess. My lengthy discourse on plagiarism versus copyvio was intended to clarify the situation. Many editors think extensive copying is always wrong and must be fixed by rewriting: this is incorrect, because you can choose to attribute instead. Many editors think copyright violations are exactly like plagiarism: they are not, because we must aggressively correct them to comply with the law. As a separate issue, we also must be able to recognize reverse copying, where the external document is a copy of the Wikipedia text without the required acknowledgement. That's an irritation, but we do not need to do anything except perhaps document it on the talk page. Occasionally, the editor who copies the text (in either direction) is also its original author. In that case there is no copyright violation in either direction, but the editor has left us a mess to clean up anyway because we are forced to assume that it might be a copyright violation,and it's often easier just to rewrite on you own words that it is to asks that editor to rectify the situation. So, please keep up the good work. -Arch dude (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are many double or triple spaces in the article's text. I think I removed most of them, but you might want to check. I use the find and replace function to track them down.
I have never used the find and replace function--it would be great if I knew how, so if you wouldn't mind explaining that, I will be happy to do so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Protestant University students of the German Enlightenment What does this mean?
changed it to: Biblical criticism began in Germany with Protestant University students in the mid-eighteenth century, and continued throughout the German Enlightenment. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The many changes within biblical criticism, and without, began another revolution in thought almost as sweeping as had occurred two centuries earlier. When was this? Also, changes do not begin revolutions, they are part of revolutions.
However, scholars also agree Rudolf Bultmann is the most influential figure of the twentieth century in biblical criticism, specifically in form criticism. Unsourced. Please add the reference back in.
Yikes! I collapsed all my sources when I thought we were done and now I can't find where that was exactly, but since everyone pretty much says it, I just went and found another source for it. If that's okay, then this is FixedJenhawk777 (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Biblical-historical criticism was a distinguishable period ... Weasel phrase.
Well--this had a beginning and an end and is set apart from what came before and what came afterward--it is distinguishable by its differences. I changed it to what's below--how is that do you think?
from the 1700s, early 1900s From the eighteenth century? From the early nineteenth century?
How's this for the last two comments:
"Biblical-historical criticism was a period in biblical interpretation that lasted from the mid 1700s to the late 1900s that is distinguishable from the criticism that was practiced before and after it." Does that fix them both?
being questioned by contemporary critics.contemporary is confusing in this context. Use recent scholarship, or even better, specify the time period.
Well--you put in contemporary and it needed to be an adverb where you had it instead of an adjective so it would have had to be changed to 'contemporarily' which just seemed really awkward to me--though technically correct--this questioning is happening contemporarily, but there needs to be a less garbled way to say it. How's this: 'However, some of form criticism's foundational assumptions are being questioned.'
Professor Paul Eddy and theologian Gregory Boyd ... This is a new point of criticism, different from the previous sentence, right? If so, use Moreover or Furthermore or some other connector that helps explain.
It's not a new point so much as a new person. It's a quote and it's from a different person than previously referenced, so don't they have to have attribution? Or do you mean I should just add furthermore in front of the entire sentence? I'll do that and cut out Eddy and Boyd and see if that's better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The earliest traditions of Jesus reflected ... Whose words are these?
N.T.Wright's. It's in quotes and attributed. Oh wait--I sort of assumed it didn't I? Added Wright says--does that fix it?
Redaction criticism is missing--did I take it out last night and fail to replace it? It's too important to not be here at all. I know I worked on it--it was one of the ones with a bunch of copying in it--but I was so sleepy when I finished up (I was literally falling asleep on my key board dreaming I had typed in a paragraph filled with nothing but zeros...) --I'm afraid I just forgot to submit my work before going to bed. I need to put it back in and will do so immediately. I'm sorry. Something else for you to go over--again...Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:28, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! Hah! I am falling out of my chair laughing! It wasn't a dream! I was so tired I just got up and left it and went to bed! OMG! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To redact is to edit. Is this a definition or a motto of the discipline? If it is definition, it is not required, because this well known. If it is a motto, please expand on what it means.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)09:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is a definition. It's well known among people like you and me, but not necessarily for that high school sophomore. I left it out because it is sort of covered in the remaining paragraph, but I like including simple definitions. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. A composer and an author and a writer all do the work of creating. A collector just assembles someone else's work. Form critics belived the "editors" were mere collectors and that community itself had created the gospels. They credited no single author only an editor. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redaction did see the gospel writers as genuine authors, yes. I took out comprehensively. I was unsure of its application in this sentence. It seemed to reach beyond the source material's claims. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Canonical criticism responded to two things ... fundamentalism. Define fundamentalism in this context.
... is not blind to the development ... Not an encyclopedic tone, please rephrase.
I just took that phrase out Removed it wasn't really necessary
Canonical critics say this illuminates how scripture contains the essential elements of its own understanding, rather than being understandable only as the product of an historically determined process. Cryptic, rewrite.
Man I'm beginning to hate that word... :-) Done
Better, but what do you mean by the essential elements of its own understanding? And is product of a historically determined process the same as "product of history"? If not, what do you mean exactly?
Narrative Criticism and the Gospel of Mark Is this a book, an article or a lecture?
added article to the sentence
David Rhodes Please disambiguate.
Done
negative early pagan responses Is negative used in the source cited? Specify please.
Not specifically but generally. MacDonald reviews Celsus--who hated Christianity and had only bad things to say about it--and said them--negative is a toned down paraphrase of his virulent hatred.
the lives and evangelistic activities of Christian women It isn't clear from the context why she only studies women.
rephrasing--took out the negative added in women in the first sentence--hope both of these are now Fixed
Postmodernism is still very much Please date this per WTW.
I just removed it--it didn't really add much
that are not external to their plot Please explain.
Lexicon of Scholarly Editing Lexicon of Scholarly Editing: please fix.
I removed one--hope it still works! I just copied its citation...
Christina Bucher, "New Directions in Biblical Interpretation Revisited", Brethren Life and thought 60, no 1 (Spring 2015) Do you have a link or a website with information to identify this source?
Aaarrgghh! Do you know where that is in the body? I'll go find another source for that information--whatever it is.
Leftover--I have no idea what it is-- I just Removed it the ref at the end refers to the encyclical so it isn't really necessary--it was just there. I guess the lesson here is to go over every aspect of someone else's work before submitting a GA request. I did not realize that before.
Some sources are cited fully more than once, and you can replace the multiple instances with the <ref name=> template.
I do that and corrected several of his multiple references, so if there are some left, I need to know which ones and where--do you have some tool that I don't?
These sources may not be reliable in a Wikipedia sense of the word:
Source published by Dept. of Education and Culture, World Zionist Organization
Zvi Adar is a globally recognized Israeli Bible scholar, but his work has to be translated and these are the people that did this one. He is a good source--even if they might be seen as questionable. I hate to drop him.
Sources published by Paulist Press-- is specifically Catholic, but has been around 150 years and has a good reputation for scholarship. I will delete it if you want, but I would rather not. I know it has a point of view--but so do OUP and Cambridge and everyone else--including sources from all of them is my postmodern way of insuring all the many diverse views are represented. It would be completely arbitrary for me to pick one and say this is clearly the right point of view so it's the only one I will include. Good scholarship is good scholarship in my view--whatever its conclusions. So I vote to leave it but will do as you recommend.
Source published by Westminster John Knox Press--IS an academic source. See [7]
Liturgy Training Publications--this one is more off the center line, but they do academic publishing too--you decide [8]
Beacon Press--I don't recognize this one. I looked at it and think I will be happy to remove it. :-)
Liturgical Press--this one can also go
Paternoster Press-- this one has a wiki-page Paternoster Press but I don't know anything else about it
Augsburg Fortress -- is the publishing house of the Lutherans similar to Paulist press but they also have a good reputation for publishing good scholarship and not crazy ranting or anything--Lutherans are liberals. :-)
InterVarsity Press -- you're kidding here right? This is because they are evangelical? [9] they publish leading scholars. It's okay to disagree with their conclusions, but it is not okay to censor them a priori just because they have taken a stance. If we start excluding everyone who has done that--in a neutral equitable manner--all the postmodernists and feminists and liberals and so on--there aren't going to be any sources left--in my opinion. I say throw it all out there and let people decide for themselves. Nothing in this article has been given any undue weight.
If you have more reliable sources, such as those from academic publishers, those are preferred. If you don't have any, then you should sources from these publishers only to support basic information that is not controversial. Since you have many references to support the content in the article, I think you can find alternatives easily.
I will go through each of these sources later, as the author and other factors also play a role.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)14:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case, I went back and looked at these--the ones I could find--I removed two and replaced two, I am leaving some of the others and will defend them with my dying breath... :-) They cover non-controversial information--if I found them all. I cannot for the life of me find Beacon Press and I have been over the list three times now. I am not quite falling asleep at the computer--I literally rushed out this morning to see if I really had typed a paragraph of zeros or just dreamed I had--but I am definitely running out of steam. I have truly enjoyed working with you. You are clearly brilliant and patient and kind and highly skilled and I have come to admire and like you as well as respect you as an individual as well as an editor. I thought I'd throw in that nice long compound German sentence for you here at the end. :-) Good luck in all your future endeavors. I hope that you will from henceforth always consider me a Wiki friend--no weaseling at all. Take care. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:45, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like you've responded to my comments very thoroughly. I should have said that most of the references i mentioned, if not all, are sufficiently reliable for the subject matter and for GA level. But i just thought i should bring it up—in case you aim for FA, or in case someone brings up the "independent sources" argument so commonly heard in discussions of wiki articles about religion. I will check your edits by tomorrow morning. We're almost done.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)19:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may have been thoroughly scared off by this experience from ever trying for anything ever again! What else does FA require? Good Lord! It's worse? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I should say I end up having this argument over sources all the time. People only want their sources--no opposing views--that's why I wrote this entire article the way I did--presenting as much of the discourse in its entirety from all sides as much as I could in a limited space. The atheists want to exclude the evangelicals and the evangelicals want to exclude the atheists and the liberals, and the fundies want to exclude everyone but themselves--but I 100% agree with N. T. Wright when he says a person's prejudices don't actually tell us whether the information they are presenting is valid or not. Information has to be evaluated on its own merits--biases just warn us to look carefully. In this postmodern world, we should all be doing that all the time in my view: looking carefully and evaluating information on its own merits. One of the things I have liked most about you is that you came without predisposition--at least as near as I could tell. You have been willing to evaluate this on its own merits. You seem bias-less about to me. I love that. It's been a joy and an honor. I hope to never do it again... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Almost finished. Can you spend a few more minutes on it? See above. i will underline the sentences left. I am sorry it has taken so long (it is my longest review so far), but that's because we had to start over again because of the copyright problem.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)09:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good morning! It's still morning here anyway! How do I say good afternoon in Dutch? You owe me no apologies of any kind for anything. This is a long article, I rearranged it after we had already started, then we had that shock at the end--none of it yours in any way. You have been marvelous. I promise I won't give up if you won't. A friend sent me that copyvio tool so I can use it myself in the future so this doesn't happen to me again.
I followed the link and the first change--1800's to 18th century is a mistake. The 1800's are the 19th century. You probably just forgot. The second one is the same basic error--the seventeenth century would have been the 1600s not the 1700s--but then down in form criticism it's right! Why do you like twentieth century better than 1900s? Numbers themselves are never confusing, but people have to translate in their heads what 'seventeenth' century actually means. It seems retro-progress to me.
In redaction criticism, I think it's going backwards to remove a clear definition. If you don't like the short sentence (I was so sure you would!) I can work it in elsewhere--but simple definitions help people.
It is also a mistake to change collectors to composers. A composer would be synonymous with an author--and that is not what the form critics thought. Adding comprehensive is a claim not in any of the sources as well. I have no idea how comprehensive their approach was. I think it should be taken back out.
Now isn't that funny--one of the previous changes you made was '30s to 1930s, so that's how I wrote it this time--then you change it in the other direction! What's up with that?!?
Feminist criticism has another of the same century errors.
I will attempt to go back and undo those mistakes.
Okay--I looked over what you crossed out above and see that you define 1700's as 1700-1710, but I do not believe that is convention in American English. The 1700's means exactly the same thing as the eighteenth century--they are interchangeable. The 1700s is anything that begins with 17.. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are rules for the writing of numbers. It is generally a rule to use numericals for any number that would require more than two words to spell it out. Writing out 'the seventeen hundreds' is borderline, but because seventeen is a compound word, I prefer the numerical. It is a general rule that a combination of numericals and words should be used for numbers when it clarifies things. Changing all of these to a single format is not good writing in English. Any time a number is at the beginning of a sentence, it's always spelled out of course. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like some of the other changes either! Literary criticism can't have a perspective --it's not a person. If literary criticism changes understanding, people are implied as the recipients of that, but if literary criticism changes its perspective--as the active subject of the sentence--that has it doing something only people can do.
I didn't undo anything so you can see exactly what changes I made by looking at the last diffs. I didn't do anything radical. :-) Changed the mistakes--left a couple of your other changes. Was this a test? To see if I would just do whatever you said without thinking? :-) Did I pass? At any rate, if you agree, I agree--we are Done!!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we end in a very nice way here, but i guess it is understandable considering how long this review has taken. 1700s or any similar expression can mean two things—just click on the disambiguation page link 1700s. Thus, though your reverts have re-introduced a few ambiguous elements in the text, I am still going to pass the article per WP:IGNORE. This review has taken long enough, the article looks interesting and you have obviously deserved it. Please note that reviews like this do not usually take this long, so you should not feel discouraged to nominate any other article in the future, provided you do a thorough copy-edit first.
Farang Rak Tham Please, please forgive me if I have offended. It was not my intent and I would not want to do so knowingly. Thank you for passing the article. We did work hard together--and we worked well, throughout--please don't let this end on a sour note for you. I went to the disambiguation page but my understanding of it is that it says what I said. The 1700s means, and I quote--(because you know how much I like quotes)--
The period from 1700 to 1799, almost synonymous with the 18th century (1701–1800)
The period from 1700 to 1709, known as the 1700s decade
Nowhere did I ever include the term decade after the 1700s. I think that means there is no ambiguity. The 1700s means any year with a 17 in front of it, and is generally interchangeable with the eighteenth century. If I have misunderstood somehow, please take the time to explain to me what I am not seeing, because this is the rule I follow.
I will note reviews don't usually take this long, but if there is fault in that, it is mine not yours.
I would like to nominate it for a DYK? so I will go look at that, but before that, I would also like to lock it for awhile--is that possible? It's not that I think it's perfect, it's that I think it will be liable to be vandalized.
You can only lock an article once intense vandalism on the page becomes common, say every 3 days or so. Freedom of speech is a serious concern on Wikipedia, I suppose.--Farang Rak Tham(Talk)21:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
What does this mean now? It doesn't say passed anywhere, there's nothing on the article itself--that I have found--Is this it? Is it done? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Doing...
Done
Doing...
Done
Fixed them all--every one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Fixed and 
Not done, 
Removed, 
Added, and 
RemovedJenhawk777 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 13:52, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 17:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 21:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 22:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
We have time. When I saw how you responded, I suspected it wasn't your work. Anyway, some people don't know that copying content is a problem on Wikipedia—most of the time it is just ignorance of the rules. Considering you are a fast editor, I don't suspect it will take that long. I will hear from you soon.
I will check your edits by tomorrow morning. We're almost done.
Can you spend a few more minutes on it? See above. i will underline the sentences left. I am sorry it has taken so long (it is my longest review so far), but that's because we had to start over again because of the copyright problem.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 09:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
