Talk:Old Testament/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

On being

The Old Testament is the first part of Christian Bibles, based primarily upon the Hebrew Bible (or Tanakh), a collection of ancient religious writings by the Israelites believed by most Christians and religious Jews to be the sacred Word of God.

I would personally amend that to read: to be or reflect, because there's a wide range of perspectives with the Christian tradition of just how well the historical text has been rendered over the centuries in modern form.

"Be" implicitly privileges biblical literalists.

"Be or reflect" includes the far more intricate reading on the other side of this exceptionally wide aisle. And I do intend "intricate" to read descriptively here: one woman's sublime elaborations are another man's needless epicycle. Opinions differ. That's my point.

There are many in this sphere who believe—and who loudly proclaim—that the road to hell is paved with nuance; this being a message which is explicitly schismatic, and not aimed at anyone already firmly ensconced in the "be" camp, so who is it aimed at, and why is their slant so poorly represented in this lead sentence by this simplistic language?

— MaxEnt 18:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I could also live with a parenthetical: "to be (or substantially reflect)" though I find that wording somewhat clunky in context. — MaxEnt 18:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose the change. There are already restrictive words: "most Christians" not "all Christians" and "religious Jews" not all again. The lede, as MaxEnt alluded to, should be a summary of the article and a quick read. If you want to go into the various views later, that would be acceptable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

When was the term first used?

I just read a related joke by one of the late-night comics but it is a valid question.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Dogmatic stance

AKGwikiAcct took a dogmatic stance that covenant is better than contract and that God cannot bring evil. Bible scholarship is not dogmatic. According to WP:RNPOV, we render the information from academic sources without endorsing any religion and therefore we do not slant our articles according to someone's orthodoxy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The old testament consistently uses the term 'covenant' to describe the agreements God makes with his people. It nowhere uses the term contract in this context. This is not a Dogmatic stance. Similarly, it would be a Dogmatic stance (conclusion) to say that God brought evil, whereas to say that he allows evil does not exclude the possibility that he brought evil.--AKGwikiAcct (talk) 04:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: please provide a diff of what you're referencing.

Based on what I'm reading, "covenant" is the common term used in the Hebrew scriptures. There's no concept of the modern English word "contract".

As for God bringing evil, and "academic sources", no, we don't "render the information from academic sources", we do not provide WP:UNDUE emphasis on one source, we aim to achieve WP:BALANCE of all sources and rely on the WP:BESTSOURCES.

Given that, diffs please. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

See [1] and [2]. About "contract": if the WP:RS say it's a contract, we use the word "contract". Same applies to "brought evil". I did not check, so technically I could be wrong. But my instinct tells me I'm not. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

"Contract" per Ska, Jean Louis (2009). The Exegesis of the Pentateuch: Exegetical Studies and Basic Questions. Mohr Siebeck. p. 213. ISBN 978-3-16-149905-0. and Ferguson, Everett (1996). The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 2. ISBN 978-0-8028-4189-6. and Coogan, Michael David (1 November 2008). A Brief Introduction to the Old Testament: The Hebrew Bible in Its Context. Oxford University Press. p. 106. ISBN 978-0-19-533272-8.. Barton 2001, p. 9 agrees, already WP:CITEd. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Shall I inundate you with sources that make it painfully clear that a covenant is not a contract? They are not contracts even if a few sources state that they are. Without quotes, I'll assume it's dumbing down for modern readers. We need to get rid of this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

https://www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v12n1/12RegentULRev9.pdf for instance. Have not even approached my bookshelf. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Regent is rather fundamentalist or conservative evangelical. Two of the sources I mentioned are from Oxford University Press and the other two are from reputable academical theology publishers. All their writers are full professors, not some PhD candidate who seeks publicity by throwing in a WP:FRINGE claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

So are you stating that only non-fundamentalist, non-conservative are reliable? I think you need to take a long wikibreak. Your claims are FRINGE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Which of my claims are WP:FRINGE? I'd rather consider the paper from Regent as WP:FRINGE since it seeks to apply theocratic concepts to civil law. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I think FRINGE moved. I meant to link to WP:PSCI. The sources are fringe theories. Covenants are not contracts.

Please use a colon to break backlinks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, then this will get decided at WP:FTN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Now there are seven eight sources which say "covenant=contract", all written by people who were or are full professors of Bible scholarship, so it is ludicrous to accuse me of WP:PROFRINGE. If you would have said that this issue is hotly debated among WP:MAINSTREAM scholars, I would have said "WP:CITE your WP:SOURCES." But I have cited one WP:RS for you, according to WP:ENEMY. We just have to agree to disagree, namely than neither the claim nor its counter-claim are WP:FRINGE. Besides, there is (or was) an edx.org course about the Bible from Bar Ilan University, wherein they teach what a covenant means. In doubt you might check that course. Wrong about BIU course. It was Hayes, Christine (2006). "Introduction to the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible): Lecture 6 Transcript". Open Yale Courses. Retrieved 31 October 2019. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The Hebrew word in question (ברית) seems to be most commonly translated into "alliance" or "pact" [3]. What am I missing here? jps (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yup, according to Hayes, "It means vow, promise, perhaps contract, agreement or pact." Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay. The modern Hebrew word for contract is: חוזה but I don't think it's found in the Old Testament. jps (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

So you're claiming eight sources out of possibly thousands is not possibly fringe? OK. I'll wait for people with additional sources to show up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Are you responding to my comment? jps (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

No, but the indent level could have been confusing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

@ජපස: I don't know Hebrew. All I am saying is that at least eight top scholars (among them scholars of very high reputation), including one Israeli professor at BIU, say it means "contract". So, I fail to see why this is fringe. I don't have a WP:RS/AC claim, so I don't know who is in the majority and who is in the minority. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it reasonable to conclude that there is not a lot of evidence that ברית is necessarily distinct from the an English translation of "contract" or "pact" or "alliance" or "agreement". I haven't seen any strong evidence as to why this should be at all controversial. jps (talk) 01:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It's controversial for theological reasons as opposed to historical or linguistical reasons. In matters of theology we have agreed to disagree. And what Hayes's whole lecture makes clear is that a covenant is modeled upon a political treaty (or deal). Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, you were the first one to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Old_Testament&diff=prev&oldid=923853555 throw around] accusations of WP:FRINGE.

You started by claiming that your version was so widely supported that any academic papers that contradicted it were Fringe. Now you will "settle for" an acknowledgement that your own version isn't fringe.

I think it's clear that this is an ordinary content dispute, and FRINGE is just being tossed around as a hyperbole. This doesn't belong here. ApLundell (talk) 15:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

To set the record straight: IMHO, the source from Regent could be fringe, but I never said that the counter-claim is fringe. I have even obliged with a quote from the Jewish Study Bible according to WP:ENEMY, since Berlin, Brettler, Coogan, Hayes, Ska and Levine are in the same league. It's one book published at OUP against two other books published at OUP. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

"Covenant" is a rather archaic word for contract. Personally I'd use "covenant" in the article and then put "contract" in brackets to explain, as it's not widely understood these days. (That pdf from Regent is weird - it seems to be based on the idea that marriage is something from God, and therefore needs a term that isn't secular, hence "marriage covenant" instead of "marriage contract." ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.138.122 (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, two of the three (?) covenats inn the Torah are clearly contractual rather than mere agreements: with Noah, God simply declares that such-and-such shall be the future, but in the case of Abraham the announcement is followed by a very typical Middle Eastern royal covenant ceremony involving the halving of a sacrificial animal, and in Exodus you have Moses and the elders having a covenant feast in Heaven with Yahweh himself, which is also typical ancient Middle Eastern practice. (Have I missed a covenant? Sorry if I have, relying on memory here). Walter, what's your argument again?

Covenant = Contact per WP REALLY_SuperObvious. Even reading how it's used in the OT shows it's a contract (specifically, the covenant between God and Abram in Genesis shows this, Genesis 15:1-5). You can't compare the current Hebrew word with the Old one and hope to get any kind of meaning that way, since it's not the same word, and wouldn't carry the same connotation in today's culture as it did when it was written in the OT. It's a contract. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 14:05, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, if I had to choose (instead of the WP:RS) I would go for pact or treaty (political deal). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A contract does not require animal sacrifice, for the participants to walk between the bisected animals and is not written but is oral, but is other identical to a contract. Sarcasm intended. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, perhaps I don't understand your sarcasm, but what source do you have that indicates contracts in the Bronze Age Levant did not require these things? jps (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The Hebrew term for “covenant,” Berit, may be familiar through such organizations as B’Nai B’rith, literally “children of the covenant.” A covenant is a contract, a legal agreement between parties. The prophet Jeremiah speaks of “the new covenant” written on people’s hearts (Jer. 31:31–34). The Greek expression for this contract, he kaine diatheke, is also the expression “New Testament.” The Hebrew expression for “covenant making” is c’rat berit, literally, “to cut a covenant,” as in the English idiom “to cut a deal.” The “sign of the covenant” is circumcision, a ceremony even today in Judaism known as the Berit (Bris, in Eastern European pronunciation), Milah, “covenant of circumcision,” or simply Berit.

— Levine, op. cit.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Every textbook I've read and sermon I've heard on the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Sermons are certainly not reliable sources. Textbooks, of course, need to be considered carefully. There are some textbooks which are published by less than reliable publishers. jps (talk) 16:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You have not spent much time around WP:RSN. A sermon by a recognized expert in theology is considered reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

It's certainly not reliable for what the life in Bronze Age society was like. Pastors giving sermons do not qualify as a reliable source for history. I challenge you to find reference to any consensus for that sort of anti-intellectual approach at this website. jps (talk) 18:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

You're clearly not reading what I wrote. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

What's up with the colors in the table?

The colors are pretty, but without a legend they don't provide any information. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:24, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Beauty is truth. JoshuaShrode (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Not always. MOS:COLOUR states that colour should not be the only method used to convey important information. For instance, why is Ruth green in the Tanakh but orange in the other three? Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Quote from Will Durant to open Historicity

I love Will Durant. I own the full set of The Story of Civilization which was passed down to me by my father. It's a treasure. It's also woefully out of date and this quote is a prime example of why. Firstly, it's inaccurate. This quote is from the 60's and doesn't take into account any of the shifts in scholarly consensus that have occurred in the past 50 years. For example, it's considered mainstream now that the Exodus, at least as described in the Bible, never happened. Not in anywhere near the numbers described nor duration of wandering while leaving no archaeological evidence. So this is an example of something not supernatural, that is central to the message, and yet is not supported by extrabiblical evidence by a consensus or even a majority of academics in this field of study.

Second, it represents a view of history and historical investigation that goes against the current accepted views on how to assess the historicity of an event. All historical claims are probabilistic with the bill hypothesis being the default. Durant is saying we should accept it until we shouldn't. Which may have been the case in the 60's given the state of scholarship. However, we now understand much more about the context in which the texts were written, compiled and their purpose in forging a unified identity and story of a people. Durant is asking us to disprove it first when we have little good reason to accept much of it based on current scholarship. The historicity of any of the patriarchs is either rejected or at best is framed as impossible to verify (except for David and Solomon though the details of their lives are hotly disputed). These figures are likewise not supernatural but are central and we have copious reasons not to accept their historicity but to view them as archetypes through which the people of Israel learn about and define their values and themselves.

The quote, as it is, is misleading to readers who think it represents a distillation of the entry and accepts everything except the supernatural as uncontroversial history. JoshuaShrode (talk) 18:07, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I also essentially disagree with the quote though I love Durant, but it shows one of the views of the scholars, even if it is dated. It's now at the end of the section, not the beginning, and more clearly dated. I'll try to balance it out with an opposing view. It should be easy to find more viewpoints and add them. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Historicity

I deleted the entire (very brief) Historicity section because it wasn't based on current reliable sources. An up to date treatment would need to mention the following:

• The Torah (Pentateuch) is now considered a work from the Persian period designed to provide an identity to a newly-created temple community founded on the idea of Israel as a holy people - it's entirely fictional, albeit there may be faint and highly distorted memories of something like the Hyksos episode, or more probably the Late Bronze Egyptian occupation of Palestine, behind it;
• Joshua and Judges are also entirely fictional, based on folktales and legends, and dating from the 7th century with further revision in the Exilic/post-exilic periods:
• The Prophets (both the three and the twelve) are each a mixture of original works and later revisions;
• Ruth, Daniel and various other works of the Writings were never intended as history;
• Chronicles is a 5th century or later re-writing of the Deuteronomistic History, with a very different theological message;

I'm not sure if I've missed any - this is off the top of my head. But the esential point is that in writing a brief section on the historicity of the OT we need to use reliable sources (not HG Wells) and they need to be current (not Will Durant.) We shoiuld also point out that only a minority of the OT books even claim to be history. Achar Sva (talk) 20:23, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

What are your sources? UpdateNerd (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I see at least one contradiction here. Are Joshua and Judges "entirely fictional" or are they "based on ... legends"? Not all legends are fictional. Legend usually grows up around a kernel of truth.

Similarly, how can the Torah (Pentateuch) be entirely "entirely fictional" when there are portions that are simply legal code. Do you mean to say that the legal code itself is "entirely fictional"? With some of the archaeological findings that show a migration of a large group through the "wilderness" (not at the scale recounted in the Torah) the presumptions that it never happened are having a more difficult time standing. Yes, the Caananite "conquest" wasn't one, at least not as written, but again, evidence that a group "invaded" is present.

So perhaps fewer absolute statements, or possibly hyperbole, are in order during the discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:15, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Excellent points from both of you. UpdateNerd, my sources only matter if I write on the main page, which I don't intend to do. Walter Görlitz, the essential point is that the OT contains many genres, of which history is only one - better to have a section on genre.Achar Sva (talk) 05:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

OK, as to the points you originally raised: although a first pass at a Historicity section isn't going to get this article to a FA or GA status, I suggest that it would be more productive to work on improving it rather than simply removing content sourced to reliable scholars, even if they are not of this generation (?). An article on a semi-historical sacred text needs to include some scholarship on what is and isn't historical or derived from other sources. I agree that H.G. Wells shouldn't be the main source haha, but since his work on it seems to predate that of comparative mythologists such as Joseph Campbell, I would opine that keeping his points (with attribution) is appropriate until made irrelevant by the inclusion of other sources. On the other hand, Durant is a near-unimpeachable history scholar, except where his work has been refuted by others. Since the topic in question is millennia-old, I don't think a few decades makes someone's work irrelevant. Sure, the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls might have happened after (the first edition of) his book, but I don't see how that changes his point, as their existence doesn't alter the historicity of their contents. To summarize, yes we should include better sources, but I see no reason not to include more general history authors for balance.

I appreciate all the other points you brought up above, but I don't see how I'm supposed to do anything about them since you won't even name your sources and don't want to work on the article. Something to look into another day, I suppose. UpdateNerd (talk) 06:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

My point is that the OT doesn't pretend to be a history book - since when are the Psalms history? The Song of Songs? Ruth? Proverbs? Daniel? Isaiah, Ezekiel and Jeremiah? The Twelve? (Do you even know what that means?) Perhaps you'd like to list here those books of the OT that you think actually are presented as history?Achar Sva (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The Pentateuch does, as clearly stated in the prose I wrote. The other books are commonly cited (but usually not by scholars) as being about historical figures, even if not written in the historical genre. It needs to be clarified in the article. Other points of view should be added there, not here. UpdateNerd (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The Song of Songs is not about a historical figure, nor is the Book of Job (no, it's not about Job), nor is Ecclesiastes, nor is Parables, nor Psalms, nor many, many others - most books of the OT, in fact, are not about people, historical or non-historical. What's needed is a section on genre.

Just to help out, here are the books that are presented as history: the Torah (5 books); the DtrH (4 books); Chronicles (2 books). That's it. Achar Sva (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

UpdateNerd, you asked about my sources, and I didn't realise you were serious. I wrote the original article, which this one is a descendant of - I put a lot of sources at the end in the bibliography, and they're still valid. I don't want to edit the article now because I don't want to be accused of "owning" it. Achar Sva (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying which books are meant to be historical. I think that could be helpful in a note. As to the sources, thanks for explaining. I was being serious. ;) UpdateNerd (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Free will?

Good luck with retrofitting free will into the Hebrew Bible, I don't think that Ancient Jews understood such concept. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Lead lacking clear definition: what IS the OT?

IMHO, the OT is the Christian canonical version of the Hebrew Bible. Full stop. Then qualify: rearranged books, some modifications (translation from HB to LXX to OT did create minor differences, as did the specifics of the 3rd-century BCE collection of books translated into the LXX versus the later Masoretic text now considered as the HB). Unless this comes over clear and loud, the definition is not there yet. How many books, in which order - these are details, significant but secondary. The entire NT theology is based on Jesus, as described by the Gospels, literally fulfilling the promises made by the HB, one by one. His birthplace, the virginity of Mary, the Passion, everything is explained in light of the HB. Any even slight disconnect between the OT being the HB is going against the foundations of Christianity. "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill." Matthew 5:17. Law and Prophets is how Jews call Torah ('Instruction' or 'Law') and Nevi'im ('Prophets'), the Ta and Na from TaNaKh, i.e. the Hebrew Bible, only leaving out Ketuvim ('Writings'), I don't know why, maybe just for brevity's sake. Arminden (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

How would you suggest modifying the lead to address your concerns? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Colors in Table

A question has been raised as to the meaning of the colors in the Table. Does anyone have an explanation of their meaning? Are they related to the divisions of the Hebrew Bible? Editor2020 (talk) 20:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

If anyone would like to remove or update the colors in the Table or rearrange the Table (move the Christian versions to the first columns) please do so. I can try, but my experience with tables is practically nonexistent. Editor2020 (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is a priority. Showing the Hebrew Bible first is a legitimate choice, since it's chronologically the first and the other versions evolved from it. Dan Bloch (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Since I seem to have introduced a table with unexplained colors, I have removed the colors and done some restructuring. Editor2020 (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Dan Bloch (talk) 16:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Shorten

Shorten per WP:SDSHORT. Editor2020 (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Old Bible" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Old Bible has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 8 § Old Bible until a consensus is reached. Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Neutrality

"Neutrality" has a specific meaning, here at Wikipedia. My two cents are that the neutral POV is what they teach at the Ivy League. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Edit war

Wikipedia isn't interested in the POV of the true believer, it is interested in WP:CHOPSY WP:SCHOLARSHIP. So, I find replacing two Bible professors with a link to an online Bible risible.

Besides, this is an article about the Old Testament. Jesus does not appear in the Old Testament. There are many Bible professors, who are Christians, and agree with this.

So, this isn't a match of everybody else against Christians. It is a match of everybody else against fundamentalists and fanatics. At least speaking of scholars, it is so.

Why in a section about Christian theology? It is Christian theology, just not of the gullible or fundamentalist sort. Bible scholars who are Christians are under no obligation to kowtow to traditional dogma, but often call a spade a spade.

Ehrman, Bart (2010). "A Historical Assault on Faith". Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). HarperCollins e-books. pp. 3–4. ISBN 9780061173943. My hunch is that the majority of students coming into their first year of seminary training do not know what to expect from courses on the Bible. ... Most students expect these courses to be taught from a more or less pious perspective, showing them how, as future pastors, to take the Bible and make it applicable to people's lives in their weekly sermons.
Such students are in for a rude awakening. Mainline Protestant seminaries in this country are notorious for challenging students' cherished beliefs about the Bible—even if these cherished beliefs are simply a warm and fuzzy sense that the Bible is a wonderful guide to faith and practice, to be treated with reverence and piety. These seminaries teach serious, hard-core Bible scholarship. They don't pander to piety. They are taught by scholars who are familiar with what German- and English-speaking scholarship has been saying about the Bible over the past three hundred years. ...
The approach taken to the Bible in almost all Protestant (and now Catholic) mainline seminaries is what is called the "historical-critical" method. It is completely different from the "devotional" approach to the Bible one learns in church.

Stop with infantilizing and dumbing down Wikipedia! tgeorgescu (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

"So, I find replacing two Bible professors with a link to an online Bible risible." That is just vandalism. The Bible is not a reliable source. Dimadick (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

"fundamentalists and fanatics" Is there any difference between Tweedledum and Tweedledee? Fundamentalists are fanatics by nature. Dimadick (talk) 23:37, 4 August 2023 (UTC)