- This article never links to Jesus (which is a featured article). I would recommend, in the first sentence, linking "Jesus" to Jesus and linking "was crucified" to Crucifixion of Jesus.
:A good point, I have fixed this, although not sure readers will spot that there are 2 links, not one.
- The lead claims "Although ancient and medieval writers treated this as a miracle, modern writers tend to view it either as a literary invention or a natural phenomenon, such as a solar eclipse." I don't think it's true that modern writers tend to view it as non-miraculous; I think many people who wrote about crucifixion darkness in modern times believe it to have been a miracle. (Googling "crucifixion darkness" seems to confirm this.) I prefer the wording you use in the body: "A common view in modern scholarship..."
- I think the problem here is that it's quite difficult to pin down what people think, outside of the scholarly view. This is what Allison says: "Those defending the historicity of the darkness have become increasingly few, and their positions have often become rationalistic; that is, they have, even when professing a belief in miracles, appealed to clouds or sand storms or volcanic dust. No one any longer wants to urge that maybe the moon reversed its course." So, though you are right to say that not all writers view it as non-miraculous, it's also true that most who don't see it as a purely literary phenomenon do tend to favour a naturalistic explanation - they just see this as the miracle, rather than an extreme astronomical event which would have much wider repercussions. I may try rephrasing this to get this across.--Rbreen (talk) 18:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While I suspect an opinion survey would show substantial support for the view that the phenomenon was purely miraculous, I have no source for that, of course. We can only go with what the reliable sources say. I think the current wording "modern writers tend to view it..." is sufficient. Thanks for the explanation. – Quadell (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In the Luke quote, you add a parenthetical "[or, the sun was eclipsed]", but this is not in the original Greek. It's a surmise by the translators of the NRSV, but it's not correct to attribute that to the author of Luke's gospel. Also, in the preceding sentence, you say "appearing to explain it as an eclipse", citing Loader. That's fine, but only if Loader says that Luke appears to explain the phenomenon as a eclipse. (I don't have access to the Loader source, so you'll have to check.)
:There are two versions of the Greek text. One says the sun was darkened, the other says eclipsed. The scholarly view (and the NRSV seems to be the preferred scholarly translation) is that the 'eclipsed' version is probably correct, with the other text versions having been changed to bring it into conformity with the other synoptics, and because it was known that such a phenomenon was impossible. Yes, Loader does specifically say that Luke explains it as an eclipse.
- There are a lot more than 2 extant Greek variants of Luke, but the best scholarly consensus version is the Nestle-Aland (27th edition), which I have in front of me. The Greek text says that "ESKOTISTHE HO HELIOS", which in Koine Greek means "the sun was darkened". There is a Greek term for eclipse, "EKLEIPSIS" (from which "eclipse" is derived), but this is not used in any ancient manuscript of Luke that I know about. – Quadell (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant that there were two versions of this piece of the text - as this essay by Daniel B. Wallace explains, the earliest text reads 'tou heliou eklipontos' which means "the sun's light failed" and is, I believe, the origin of the word 'eclipse' (I can't find where I read that, though). The majority reading appears to result from later attempts to skirt around the problem of Luke referring to an impossible eclipse. I notice, by the way, that Nestle-Aland 28 has the 'eklipontos' reading - online here. --Rbreen (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! I stand corrected. I guess that's one the changes they made for the latest edition last year. (I've got to update my copy!) That's a tad embarrassing. Anyway, yeah, that uses "eklipontos" (originally meaning "was covered" or "was hidden", but in this context almost certainly referring to an actual eclipse), and if the latest Nestle-Aland prefers that reading, then that's as close to scholarly consensus as it gets. Thanks for looking into that. – Quadell (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think "24 November, 29 CE" is a standard date format.
- fixed that..
- I don't think the "See also" list is useful. Solar eclipse is already linked in the text, and Good Friday could be (in the "Biblical account" section).
:I agree. Removed.
- "Some commentators have commented" is a little clunky.
:Ouch! Yes, didn't see that. Fixed it.
- The citation regarding Matthew's provenance should come after "and using Mark as a source", rather than after "around the year 85 to 90". (Compare where the cite is for Luke's provenance.)
- I went ahead and did this. – Quadell (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You'll need a source for the claim that the pseudo-Dionysian works are not actually by Dionysius the Areopagite.
- It's hardly controversial, but to make it easier I have added a link to the actual writer which explains the confusion.
- The "Apocryphal writers" and "Ancient historians" sections have some very long paragraphs and two single-sentence paragraphs. It isn't clear why the text is broken up the way it is. It would be better to reparagraph.
- I went ahead and did this. If you don't like the way I paragraphed, please feel free to reposition any way you like. – Quadell (talk) 16:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the section about Amos could be more effective if reworded. I have done so here. If you don't like my wording, feel free to alter it.
- There are many ways that the "Notes" and "References" sections could be improved. I can help with fixing these issues if you like.
- Footnote 8 gives the page number at the footnote itself with a colon. All others give the page numbers in the notes section. It would be better to be consistent. Then, in the notes, some refs use "page", some use "p.", some have pages in square brackets, some use "p." and "pp." incorrectly, etc. This should be done consistently.
- References should have ISBNs, and perhaps URLs, to help the reader find the material. On the other hand, URLs should not be provided to a Google Books entry if no preview is available (e.g. Note 17).
- It would be better if all books were in the references, for consistency.
- Many of the references have formatting errors. For instance, ref 16 has an odd "(,)", reference #1 needs spacing before the quote, reference 32 has a URL at the end, instead of at the title, etc.
:Please fix anything you can; I have been working my way through the references but it's not an area I am knowledgeable about.
- Sure thing. I'll fiddle with it over the weekend. – Quadell (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm still working on this. – Quadell (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. – Quadell (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The direct quote "accompanying miracles become more fabulous..." isn't appropriate, because the writer isn't notable enough to be mentioned. Instead, it would be better to rewrite this in your own words.
- The quote works for me - author is from the University of Edinburgh, which is significant enough, I think, and he's not stating anything controversial.--Rbreen (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, okay. Stricken. – Quadell (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it would be better to have the "Naturalistic explanations" section before the "Literary creation" section, since the "Literary creation" section contains refutations of naturalistic explanations.
- Yes, that makes sense, I will do that when I have a moment.--Rbreen (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, I don't think so. A lot of that material was originally in this article, which was very much skewed towards the personal views of one editor. Some of the material has been retained but I have tried to shift the focus to reflect a broader view incorporating more scholarly viewpoints.
- That's fine then. Thanks for checking. – Quadell (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Similarly, the "Miracle" section could be expanded to give notable, recent views that the event was miraculous.
- As above - finding such views is very difficult. There are plenty of writers who refer to it as a historic event - usually when seeking to prove the existence of Jesus - but they rarely explain what they think the phenomenon was. Even where they mention it as a miracle, it's not clear what kind of miracle they mean (eg whether naturalistic or not). Searching with Google Books finds no substantial recent books which support the miraculous view. As Allison says, "some now simply refuse to offer any explanation and simply stick with the text". In scholarly sources, I cannot find any.
- I looked in vain for a statement by the Vatican or the Southern Baptist Convention or some other major group. But I did find that the Reformation Study Bible (1998) in its commentary on Luke 23:44 says "This was a supernatural darkness," and the Dictionary of Bible Themes (2011?) lists Luke 23:44-45 among "Miracles involving natural darkness". Are these notable enough? I just think it does a disservice to have Sacrobosco as the most recent source for the idea that that the phenomenon was miraculous. – Quadell (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I take your point, but I think it reflects a shift in attitudes to miracles. I will have another look at how this can be fairly presented.--Rbreen (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, that it reflects a shift in perspective regarding miracles in general. I may continue to work with you on the contents of this section in the future... but for the purpose of this review, there are no problems that would be impediments to GA status. (All the material is factual and supported by the sources, etc.) – Quadell (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The many block quotes in the "Biblical account" section can be distracting for the reader. Consider using inline quotations, at least for the shorter (1 or 2 verses) quotes. (Note how this is handled at Jesus#Resurrection and ascension, for example.)
- Done now.
- In my opinion, the article looks much better now. Thank you. – Quadell (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The "Naturalistic explanations" section could use an image of a solar eclipse (perhaps File:Solar eclipse 1999 4 NR.jpg?), with an appropriate caption (like "Some ancient writers, including Origen, speculated that a solar eclipse could have caused the reported darkness."
- It seems to me that the {{Gospel Jesus}} template should be moved up to the "Biblical account" section.
- That's been done.
- The first sentence and direct quote in "Literary creation" should be reworded. The Gospel of Mark should not be linked a second time, and I would make the quote inline. Consider this:
- A common view in modern scholarship is that the account in the synoptic gospels is a literary creation of the gospel writers, intended to heighten the importance of what they saw as a theologically significant event. Burton L. Mack, for instance, describes it as a fabrication by the author of the Gospel of Mark, while W. D. Davies and Dale Allison conclude "It is probable that, without any factual basis, darkness was added in order to wrap the cross in a rich symbol and/or assimilate Jesus to other worthies".
- Done this - seems clearly an improvement.
- Similarly, the first sentence and direct quote in the second paragraph of "Interpretations" should be reworded. Consider this:
- Another approach has been to consider the theological meaning of the event. Some authors have interpreted the darkness as a period of mourning by the cosmos itself at the death of Jesus.
- The last sentence of "Ancient historians" should be reworded.
- What was the problem here? Was this because of the problem with the Luke text, discussed elsewhere?--Rbreen (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the content is great. I just mean that in terms of grammar or style, it can be improved. The multiple and unclearly-related comma clauses feel clunky to me. The sentence before it also could use some modification for stylistic purpose. I'll figure out a suggested wording and get back with you. – Quadell (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have attempted a reword with this edit. I hope it works for you. – Quadell (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- At the end of the first paragraph of "Interpretations", the direct quote ("it is clear that...") is not notable, and not by a notable author. Instead, leave the quote out and use the cite after "humiliation of the crucifixion".
- Again, the author is Professor of Biblical Theology at Princeton: [1], so quite notable, I would say. But I'm not comfortable with that opening anyway and will try and rewrite it.
- Fair enough, but the quote seems to come out of nowhere. Does this work for you? – Quadell (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Late addition: I forgot to mention, the lead is too short, per WP:LEAD. Its length will probably need to be doubled in order to adequately summarize all sections of the article.
- Fair enough, but I think I will attend to that when everything else is done. --Rbreen (talk) 19:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead is now adequate. I have made minor improvements. – Quadell (talk) 23:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
