Talk:Bible/Archive 18

Start a development process of the page
This page about the bible:
 * Requires you to read the whole article (which is quite long) to get the basic facts about the book a reader is looking for.
 * In short, it is quite messy, difficult to read and inaccessible.
 * An article about the bible is too important to be messy


 * I'm not interested in having to read a lot of religious aspects/opinions (that should be communicated outside Wikipedia) to get formalities about the book out of the article.
 * If you are interested in knowing about the content of the Bible and its parts, the article is not very good either.
 * The article need in general editing, it need a plan over what the article should communicate and how.

I understand that the page is sensitive to edit in and I have tried to start a process to divide the page's themes into different sections that work communicatively well. I have started from my stable editing of the introduction of the Swedish page about the Bible (the same topic, previously that article was hard to get).
 * I saw editing (it's a lot of work) as the best way to initiate a process (but the article and topic is importanat).
 * I have written it as "dry" as possible (focus on basic formalities) as the page (initially) stated should not communicate religious messages but later in the article addresses its debate.
 * I have carefully not erased any previous texts only moved parts of one sentence.


 * The edit has been reverted and I continue under this title on the talk page
 * I hope the whole article can be redesigned to be accessible and communicative


 * I want to start a process to improve the article editorially and my editing of the intro is a good start for that.
 * I ask you Hazhk to undo your reverts 08:42 and 08:52, 24 January 2022
 * And we continue the debate on this topic from there

A well working page layout of the bible
A Wikipedia page should communicate its content to a reader of different interests in an effective way.
 * It needs a layout that gives you a good orientation and it becomes easily accessible
 * I'm not talking about its religious impact that other articles should stand for, this article should be about the book, the bible
 * I think the starting point for the article should be about the well-distributed book.

You do not have to be religious to be interested in a Wikipedia article on the Bible, and as such not to be interested in reading unnecessary religious commentary, as there should be room for in a separate sections of the article below.

The first thing to read should be: // I have edited to this point, by adding the intro
 * Very briefly what type of book it is, how widespread it is
 * Who are the author and the circumstances surrounding its creation (which here is a little longer than usual)
 * Which versions of the book are displayed
 * What the books it contains, an introduction followed by an in-depth study (I think the text today in the article is weak even on this point)
 * I think the books of the bible should be listed in two sections (old/new) of each book in the Bible
 * With a short tweet about its contents
 * A link to a separate article about the book.
 * The Bible is so large that it qualifies for a single article on each of its chapters (books)
 * We can't have for ever continues articles and have to split them into sub-articles.


 * An in-depth study of the book's history (this book is old and little has happened over the years and there is room for in-depth study)
 * What are the opinions about the book

--Zzalpha (talk) 04:52, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

There is little point in me undoing my revert as the article seems to have undergone significant changes over the past few days. My only concern is that the lead is now very sparse. As outlined on MOS:LEAD, the introduction is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. The lead as it now stands falls short of that. --Hazhk (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have made some adjustments to the text. I feel that the lead does a better job now at reflecting the main body of the article, but I realise that article is undergoing further changes and this will include the lead section. --Hazhk (talk) 01:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * In fact a lot of editing of the article is what I tried to initiate, but you must have a plan, of what you are telling.
 * To start with it is about a book, you must define what book you are talking about
 * It is not about its users (other articles are about them)


 * If you make a new lead you need to define what the article is all about, the book /that sells 100 million copies/year, what that is, else the article can be of anything.


 * And that is what is defined in the:

The list of books included in the Christian Bible was established as the Bible canon by the Councils of Hippo in 393 and in Carthage in 397 AD. It appears for the first time in Athanasius Easter letter from 367 AD[3]. Catechesis are published by different churches in different contexts as a form of biblical interpretation.

The list of books included in Judaism was established by the Masorites, during the early Middle Ages (between the 7th and 10th centuries CE).


 * In fact in 397 all present forms of Christianity (yes it is a Christian book (and another Jewish with partly the same content)), Everything that sells is defined in Carthage in 397 AD. Everything else is not the bible this article talks about? Yes there are variants but not of a global major significance or practical difference, could be mentioned lower in the article.
 * All Christians agree with the list of Carthage in 397 AD, those who differs add books, so it is the clear definition of the bible, the Bible canon by the Councils of Hippo in 393 and in Carthage in 397 AD
 * The only different list is the Jewish and they are defining themselves as non-Christians, because the origins are these Jewish books but the Jewish wrapping is later than the Christian, you must mention the Masoretic text as a different and later because it has significance. The Greek OT is 200 years older than Christ and that is also remarkable! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zzalpha (talk • contribs) 03:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Then you you need to specify who the author is and how it was made, and there you come to Babylon and the Jewish seminars,

These are available in three main compiled and translated versions (which differ slightly in content, see Anno mundi): * Septuagint (Ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν Ἑβδομήκοντα (Jewish scholars), at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE), from c. 200 BC, in Alexandria in the Hellenistic Ptolemaic Egypt), a  Greek (koine) translation and compilation, used by the Eastern Orthodox Church * Vulgate (Latin: Versio Vulgata, ”The common translation" commissioned 382 AD by Pope Damasus I) to Latin by Jerome of Stridon in Rome 405 AD and replaced the Septuagint in the west and is used by Western Christianity, in the Roman Catholic Church and later in Protestantism. * Masoretic text (Jewish compilation between the 600s and 900s CE), used in Synagogues since


 * Then the NT:

The New Testament is considered to be written in classical Greek (koine) between about the year 50 and some time into the 100s AD, used by the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Vulgate is a Latin from classical Greek (koine) translation of Jerome of Stridon 390 AD (commissioned 382 AD by Pope Damasus I) and is used by Western Christianity, in the Roman Catholic Church and later in Protestantism.
 * Then you have a definition of what the article is all about.


 * After that you can talk about the content (what the books are telling) and after that what people think about it.


 * Else every reader reads the article with its definitions and in fact most cases they are not correct and makes the reading of the entire article confusing.


 * --Zzalpha (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

62.9 perent variant-free
I tagged the sentence as dubious because I don't think it's correct. It's cited to a book from 35 years ago,. The book is only about the New Testament, and it's appears to be the conclusions essentially of one author. It's published by a Christian publishing company, not a university press. I don't think this accurate reflects current mainstream scholarship, and I don't think it's a claim we should be making in wikivoice. Levivich 17:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It's also far from transparent without consulting the original reference what the statistic actually means. Does it meean that 37.1% of words in a reference variant or preferred eclectic text are not present (whether not present at all, or substituted, or not present in the same context, or not similarly spelt) in one or more known variants?


 * If the calculation has been done at a word level, a rather different number might be obtained by calculating at a sentence or verse level. (Which might be more meaningful?)


 * But we should identify, at the very least, what unit of item the statistic has been calculated for. Jheald (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, if a text A contained the words "ham, bread, and cheese" and a text B contained the words "a large variety of things of this kind and that", would one consider the word "and" conserved? Jheald (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * LevivichFirst, I reject your issue with a "Christian publisher" as bias on your part. There are several "Christian" publishers who long ago established their credentials and reputations as publishing high quality academic works. There are also some I avoid, just as there are lesser quality secular publishers. For all of us, judging a good source has to based on more than whether or not it agrees with our pov. That said, I think your concern about the age of this data, and that it is a single view, are both valid.


 * Jheald Of course you are right in that any statistic is only valuable when you know the who, what and how of it. The reference for this claim is a book written by Kurt and Barbara Aland explaining how they produced their Greek New Testament which has been the standard GNT for nearly fifty years. It remains one of the most popular critical editions. The Alands spend the first 25 or so pages discussing the seven versions of the Greek New Testament that they compare to get their statistics. On page 29 there is a chart that compares NT books, the total number of verses in each book, and the number of verses with variants, which is not the same as the total number of variants. Multiple variants in a single 'verse' would only be counted once. Please note that their claim is about how much agreement there is between the number of verses, not the number of words, or manuscripts or pages or even what the total number of variants in the NT might be. It is also worth noting that Aland says "Verses in which any one of the seven editions differs by a single word are not counted". Nobody else currently counts verses in such a manner.


 * Everyone else counts numbers of variants. The best latest data on this is based on a new method by Peter Gurry which relates the texts through their variants. Peter Gurry explains the "what" on page 104 of this article: He compares three GNT collations and also uses volumes from Kurt Aland's Text und Textwert series.


 * Gurry does not compare the number of variants with the number of manuscripts, pages, or words in the New Testament. The popular claim of "more variants than words" is only useful for its shock value. It makes a false comparison because "no one knows the number of words in our extant manuscripts and probably no one will for some time still". Page size varies and manuscripts are regularly of different lengths, therefore, Gurry's comparison is made with "the number of words in the manuscripts from which the variants derive".  This gives a ratio that can be universally applied. Also note that when two texts don't agree, Gurry and Wasserman count two variants even if one is considered original. Read through the explanation and the math–it's too long to put here–to their conclusion. They reach a high number of variants, which compared according to their method tells us that: "scribes contributed, on average, roughly one new variant for every 430 words they copied". What this means is that the large number of variants is a reflection of the frequency with which the NT was copied.  Which is no surprise.


 * The problem with applying this latest best data to the Aland's claim is that there is not a direct "see-saw" kind of relationship between the number of variants and the amount of agreement as the Alands present it. Gurry's method does not count where all manuscripts agree. Gurry and Wasserman say quite plainly that they don't care about agreement. There is no direct correlation between claims concerning the total number of variants as measured by one researcher and the percentage of agreement between verses as measured by another, at least not that I can find anywhere, and I have spent the last two days looking. Many references use this percentage, but they all seem to be quoting the Alands. That means that it currently looks like it is a fair criticism that this is the view of one author. I will modify the statement to reflect that and probably add some of this detail to boot.


 * Thank you both. I am grateful for your input. It has made this article better, and that is always my goal. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

In the lead appears this
"It appears for the first time in Athanasius' Easter letter from 367 CE."       What appears? Do the canon lists of the councils appear in the Athanasius letter? I think that text should be moved to another part.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Update: I have fixed the problem.--Rafaelosornio (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Archaeological and historical research
Needs to include some on NT as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Textual history section
As currently written, it seems very Christian Bible focused. Should it be a subsection of Christian Bible? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Christian Bible is a redirect here. Editor2020 (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you meant by that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey Gråbergs Gråa Sånghow r ya? What she means is, there is no separate article for Christian Bible as there is for Hebrew Bible, which is one of the reasons why I advocated for making this one into 'Christian Bible'. There was strong feeling against that, so I conceded. If you type in Christian Bible you get redirected to that section in this article.
 * And yes, textual history is under Christian Bible in the outline, so that's how it's focused. The Hebrew Bible has its own section, since its history is so different. No, wait, I skim past the Hebrew Bible section every time I come here because I am hoping someone else is going to take it on, so I don't end up feeling like I have to. So now I see this a big OOps on my part! It is 'under' Christian Bible in the list but not in section indentation. I will fix that. Damnit Graebergs! That means that now someone has to go write something on the textual history of the Hebrew Bible! You should, since you brought it up, don't you think?! Actually, a lot of it is already there but not titled accordingly. Jeez.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Jenhawk, I'm well enough. I can see the logic in that I should. Don't bet on it actually happening, though. But I'll keep watching. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång I feel the Hulk beginning to emerge... Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Copied from Jenhawk777's talk page
I asked User:Jenhawk777 to look at this page. Here is her reply:
 * This article has a focus problem. It's trying to be two separate things at once.
 * First off: Imho this article would benefit from some section retitling. I do understand that the current headings represent an effort to treat Judaism with respect, but the result is the opposite. It fails to recognize that Judaism does not call its scripture by the term "Bible" and hasn't for centuries now. Bible is an ancient term that was used by the Jews before Christianity, but when Christians started adding their scriptures, the Jews differentiated theirs with a new term that they have used for almost two millennia now. The term "Bible" has evolved into a Christian term - and that discussion is omitted from this article entirely. Currently, people who use the term "Hebrew Bible" are generally non-Jews. It's not really respectful to them since it reflects us rather than their own tradition, and that completely overlooks Judaism's own separate path, and I find that insulting to Jews.
 * The "Bible" is a phrase that refers to the Christian Bible for both Jews and Christians in our current day. Therefore an article titled simply "Bible" should reflect that current usage and focus on one and not the other and quit trying to be two things at once. There is already an article titled Hebrew Bible that should be summarized as simply as possible in this one.
 * That would also mean the main divisions of this article are not titled appropriately according to those who do use it - which would be Old Testament and New Testament. That's insulting to them and their traditions as well.
 * This problem is reflected in content. In etymology it equates 'holy scripture' and Bible, and for current Jews, that's a big mistake. There should be a discussion of the above. What's there now overlooks 2000 years of development of the term. There should be something about the middle ages and current usage.
 * Removing redundancies would be good. There's too much in this article on the Hebrew Bible which has its own page. This section should be a summary of that article not a duplication of it. There is also a good bit of duplication between background and several of the other sections. Move that and consolidate it into background imho.
 * Higher criticism should be titled Biblical criticism with the link, and it needs rewriting badly. Someone with an agenda wrote that section. It can't even see neutrality from its position and is completely non-encyclopedic.
 * I would like to see the lead expanded. It should mention something about when it began, which books are thought to be the oldest, what books were considered controversial, and then have the part about the current versions being approved as official. That can be done in one or two sentences.
 * I know there is much more to be said about bringing this article up to the encyclopedia's standards, but I have a doctor's appointment and can't do more right now. I will come back later. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm very appreciative of the editors who have been working to improve this article lately. I haven't had a chance to look at all the changes closely yet, but I have read the lead, and I agree with Jenhawk that lead should be expanded. I hate to say this, but I honestly feel that the lead from a couple of days ago (Special:Permalink/1067607383) was better than the lead that's there now (Special:Permalink/1068145717). Levivich 21:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich Thank you for responding. If you don't disagree with the rest of my comments, I am thinking Editor2020 and I should be Bold and get started. My GA reviewer's computer is down and I am not currently doing anything else, so the timing is good. I will work on the lead last however. I think I will start with etymology. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Jenhawk777 I don't think I agree that the scope of the article Bible should be the Christian Bible.
 * It's true there is a separate article about Hebrew Bible, but there are also separate articles about Catholic Bible, Protestant Bible, Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible, Septuagint, and all the rest. This article, Bible, is the parent article of all those articles, and this article should have sections about each one of those Bibles.
 * More importantly, the sources do not treat the word "Bible" as a reference to only Christian bibles. For example, Yale's Anchor Bible Series includes works about the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and similarly Yale's Introduction to the Bible covers "all Jewish and Christian Bibles".
 * Oxford's The Bible: A Very Short Introduction explicitly disagrees with the idea that "Bible" refers only to Christian bibles. From Chapter 3, a section called "The Many Names of the Bible":
 * Cambridge's New Cambridge History of the Bible similarly covers the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, as well as OT/NT. An inscription at the beginning of volume 1 says, and another inscription reads
 * Oxford's The Bible: A Very Short Introduction also disagrees about Jewish "scripture" (same section of the book):
 * I don't think the "Etymology" section should be the first section or even early in the article; it should be at the end. I don't think the etymology of the word is very important, and it's treated relatively briefly by the sources. For example, etymology is a small part of each of the sources I quoted above. But that of course is no reason you shouldn't start with that section if that's what you want to do! It should be covered in this Wikipedia article, and that section could certainly use improvement (as could the rest of the article).
 * Aside for those disagreements, I agree with the rest. The article needs focus. It should summarize its sub-articles and not repeat them. (One question I have is whether this article should even list the individual books of the various Bibles, or leave that to the sub-articles.) The Biblical criticism section (I agree that's the right title) does need an overhaul. And, it makes sense to leave the lead for last. (Though, still, I think the previous lead is a better starting point for improvements than the current lead.) Levivich 04:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich Those are two decent arguments, so I will acquiesce. Following through on this concept will require adding in the Mishna, the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon, and it will still require cutting down the Hebrew Bible section. Etymology is placed appropriately, it just leaves out important concepts. The use of language is important. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think I've seen sources about The Bible that consider those three works to be part of it. Levivich 15:14, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich It's a term used for those scriptures by those within those groups. Not recognizing that, again, seems a little "Western" to me. But say I let that go. Say I let etymology go, let focusing on one kind of Bible go, sigh, just let it all go. I have added to the new Textual history section so brilliantly added by Editor2020 and put biblical criticism back in as notable since it altered how the Bible is seen and used, and what I really want to know is, will you agree to editing down the other sections some to accommodate these additions? This article is awfully long. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, note also the title of the Jewish Study Bible (2004, 2015), a book edited mostly by Jews mostly for Jews. Jheald (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree it's too long. Levivich 05:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes the WP:LEAD is too short and doesn't summarize the article. I think we should continue editing until we get the article in decent shape, then write a new Lead. Editor2020 (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we could/should change the scope of the article, but should leave it as about the Jewish and Christian collections of religious texts called a Bible. Editor2020 (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Editor2020 That seems to be the consensus so I'm good with it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Arrangement
To me it seems a mistake to move the Hebrew Bible material out of the Textual criticism and Biblical criticism sections. I feel these sections worked better when they surveyed and treated the Bible as a whole -- including attitudes towards textual criticism and biblical criticism in one place. This is an article on the Bible as a whole -- we have separate articles for distinct components. So IMO the cross-cutting presentation across the whole of the topic was useful. Jheald (talk) 12:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Jheald Okay. Put it back, but if you do, beef up the discussion on the Hebrew Bible in textual criticism will you? So it isn't so heavily focused on the Christian Bible. I'll go see if I can cut some of the discussion of variants in the Christian Bible too, so there's room for you to add some. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Jheald I went looking for the paragraph on textual development of the HB in order to put it back as you requested, and I can't find it. It seems to be gone. I don't know exactly what happened, but if you will work on adding some, I will do the same, as well as edit down some of the CB content, so this section isn't so one sided. Thank you!! This is important! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Textual history. Biblical criticism is already well mixed. It actually has more on the HB than on the CB. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Jheald Wow, you have been happily reverting all over the place! But I agree with your choices. If this becomes a problem, we have consensus. I have some excellent info to add to HB textual history. Will be back in a few hours. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Major overhaul of the article
Ok, have we revised the basic structure of the article? Have we removed the redundant sections or parts? Have we rearranged the sections as needed? We need to do that first and once we're done we should work our way through the article, section by section, starting at the top (skipping the Lead until we get done with the article) and working our way down. Piecemeal random edits is what got the article into the shape it was in and is hot going to get us to a good article. Editor2020 (talk) 00:23, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I've done the Etymology section. Editor2020 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've done the Background section. Editor2020 (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Editor2020 You totally rock! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You and I together have also pretty much finished sections 6 and 7. Sections 8, 9 and 10 need work next I think. I am waiting on Levivich to step up to the plate and take a swing at consolidating the Hebrew Bible section.Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * When you asked "will you agree", I thought you were asking me if I had any objection to it, not whether I would do it. Look, I don't mean to WP:OWN an article, but I have concerns about the recent changes. These aren't just reorganizations; the content of the article has materially changed. It's very hard to track these changes because (1) there have been over 100 edits made in the last three days, and (2) the edit summary descriptions are variable, with many of them saying things like "cleanup", but they're not cleanup, they're adding or removing content and sources.
 * One example: the article used to say, in the textual history section, that "copies contained both errors and intentional changes", but now it says something quite different, with a few paragraphs arguing that the variations aren't really that varied, and no indication (that I can see, maybe I missed it) about the texts being intentionally varied. Levivich 00:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich I know those aren't my edit summaries you are referring to. I am sorry you are distressed about the changes. We have been quite BOLD and made both organizational and content changes, but I have spent a good bit of time writing paragraphs in the edit summaries explaining mine - or at least I have tried to. If I forgot at any time, I genuinely apologize.
 * We have made extensive changes, but I don't agree that they have radically altered content or focus, they have simply made it more accessible. We have made the POV more neutral in several places and have included mentions of disagreement among scholars and added more varied pov, but that's SOP. We have combined sections and in doing so have eliminated a lot of repetition - though there's still a lot left. How many times is the Septuagint discussed in this article? I think I lost count. I do appreciate you bringing your issues here, but it is also fair to say that I have pretty much conceded on every problem you have raised, don't you think? I am trying to make bring this page closer to WP standards and be sensitive to you as well. If I'm doing a crap job, I apologize, and will try to do better. But this article was a bit of a mess, I thought you agreed with that.
 * As to the latter complaint, the last sentence in the second paragraph in textual history says That seems like a more detailed statement of what "intentional changes" were, but if you don't like the wording, I have no problems with yours. Be bold and change it to whatever suits you. Perhaps you would be happy with adding the word 'intentional' before changing? In my view, this is six of one, half a dozen of the other. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Distressed" isn't the right word. The changes have absolutely radically altered the content and focus. The lead is completely different. The textual history section is gone, now there is only textual history under the NT section, and it's not, in my view, an NPOV write-up of textual history. The old development section, now "background," is no longer in chronological order, and includes things that aren't part of "background". For both these sections (development and textual history), the citations are not ideal... I noticed some statements are cited directly to the Quran, for example. As for the variants part, saying variants were "intentionally" added to "simplify or harmonize" is flat untrue, and not what the sources attest to. The variants were, in some cases, intentionally varied for political or dogmatic reasons, for example. The reader needs to be told this. More to the point, a close analysis of NT textual variation is not something this article should cover at all, that should be in sub-articles like New Testament. These are bold changes and bold changes are welcome, but there have been very many of them, and they have in fact altered the content in significant ways. When the editing slows down, I will review everything that's changed, and while I'm sure some of it, probably most of it, is an improvement, I'm also sure some of it isn't, and I'll be reverting it so we can discuss it here. Right now, the portions that I think were not improved, are the lead, development, and textual history sections. I haven't really looked at the rest, but I will once the pace of editing has slowed and the article stabilizes (so I only have to look at it once). My guess is others are planning to do the same. Levivich 16:41, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich I am only responsible for changes I have made, and mostly, I have moved stuff around without changing it. Check my edits. You need to be specific.
 * *I have done nothing to the lead.
 * *I did not change anything called development because there was no such section heading when I got here. I added Textual development in the HB section, (instead of textual history since you can't use the same titles), but all I did was move the HB content, without changing it. Jheald has now expressed a preference for the HB and the CB textual history remaining together, so they are going to put it back and hopefully add some to the HB part. I will go and condense some of the CB stuff on variants so the section is not so focused on the CB.
 * *As to background, since it is a general overview, background or overview does seem to be a better title. That initial section should be a general overview, but if you want a section on the chronology of development, put it in. I recommend a concise and easy to read list, otherwise it will just be another duplication of what's already there.
 * *I have cited nothing to the Qu'ran - or the Bible itself, any version - or any other primary source.
 * * You are mistaken. I have now added some page numbers from the reference already cited where you will find the terms simplify and harmonize both used.
 * * I would need to see good sources claiming politics, since judging motives is a very tricky thing even when the person is standing right next to you. Wegner, who relies on Metzger (who is sort of the established 'king' of textual criticism), and is himself a good source, says on page 224 that scribes made intentional changes when they were aware of errors, thought something didn't harmonize with another passage, or disagreed with the theology - dogmatics in your terms. In my experience, there is no one anywhere who claims scribes intentionally changed manuscripts when copying them for political reasons. In the translation and version section, that might be legitimate. But not when discussing variants in the manuscripts. But please, an unbiased quality source making such a claim should be included even if it's a minority view.
 * Changes Please be more specific. Give examples. So far, the examples you have given have not evidenced this. You claim three things:  But I have done nothing to the lead. I changed nothing in the content of development other than to add it as a section heading because this article had too many little sections that clutter and distract the reader and led to too much duplication of information. As to textual history, it will have to be edited down some now, but your primary issue seems to be that well–sourced neutral information has reduced some of the non-npov.
 * The remainder of your comment does not express good faith in my view. It sounds almost like a threat. Any reversion must be made for just cause and not simply because you don't like it. Any reversion must demonstrate npov and good sources. A reversion should be able to show that what is removed, doesn't have those. Even if you have a source with a different view from what is now in this article, that should just be added; it doesn't automatically justify removing anything, since scholars have different opinions. I believe all my work is well sourced and defensible as such. And it isn't as if I am going to just go away and leave you at some point to revert at will. Please demonstrate good faith and respond now, with good sources, neutral pov and specifics. Let's work together toward consensus.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why you're taking this personally, I'm not accusing you, specifically, (or anyone, generally) of anything. I'm talking about changes to this article I've seen over the past two weeks -- over 250 edits now -- and I have no idea who changed what (nor do I care).
 * If you're not familiar with what this article looked like two weeks ago, here it is: Special:Permalink/1065614835. You can see the "Development" and "Textual history" sections therein. I rewrote those two sections last year. They're not perfect, they certainly could be improved, but you'll notice each paragraph is sourced to half a dozen sources, all top-quality, recent scholarship. The Development section gives an overview of the development of the Bible, from oral songs to present day. The Textual history section provides a summary of the evidence for that development, e.g. the various scrolls, codexes, etc.
 * I think it's great that people are boldly editing this article. I see an under construction template was added sometime in the last two weeks (I don't know, or care, by whom). I respect that template; I'm not going to mess with someone's ongoing work while it's ongoing. I realize it may take days, maybe even a week or two, for someone to accomplish a rewrite. When it's done, I will read it, and compare it to what was there before. Following WP:BRD, I may revert some of it, or I may further edit some of it. If we need to discuss anything, we can do that here. I don't think discussion is fruitful while this under-construction template is there and editing is actively happening.
 * I have given several examples of specific problems on this page. I don't want to "surprise" anyone by, say, reverting something after two weeks of work without at least saying something in the meantime. So I've said something.
 * Here's another example, I just saw on my watchlist: Special:Diff/1068935089. You removed "from a variety of disparate cultures, most of whom are unknown" from what is now called "General overview" (used to be "Development"), with the edit summary "removed "most are unknown" claim that is not discussed, would be disputed, and is not sourced. If you want to replace it, please find a source that says 'some' or 'many' as that is what is factual". But the sources that support that are literally right after the part you removed and there are eight sources cited. Further, one of the sources, Riches 2000, is literally quoted in the Wikipedia article in the next paragraph, explaining the "disparate cultures" part. I can't believe that anyone would doubt that the Bible was written by people from a variety of disparate cultures, most of whom is unknown--that seems like "sky-is-blue" obvious, to me, and it's extremely well-attested by the sources. So that's an example of an edit I would revert. But I'm not going to do that, I'm going to look at it all at one time, after the "under construction" tag is lifted by whomever is using it.
 * The two things that most concern me are: changes to text without changes to sources, such as the example just above; and, replacing text sourced to multiple sources with contradicting text sourced to one source (such as the "intentional variation" edits discussed earlier). Whenever there is an entire paragraph with a citation to half a dozen or so sources, and that paragraph gets broken up, I get nervous about whether the editor breaking it up is paying attention to text-source integrity. I don't get the feeling that is being done here.
 * But, again, I will look at everything at one time, when the under construction tag is lifted and the current rewrite is done (or at least slows down). Levivich 22:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich This is a good specific example. I meant to only modify the claim of "most", a single word, not that entire phrase, so I have reverted this change. I believe 'some' or 'many' is representative of the majority of views, but I don't mind leaving it as it is, since the overall jist of the sentence is sourced and accurate. I'm sorry, this is very frustrating for me as well. Sometimes my computer will highlight things next to my cursor, when I don't want it to. I didn't see that it had done that. It often gives me a drop-down menu of options when it highlights something, and then I notice what it's done. I have to fight with it when copy-editing! I know it's weird that my computer seems to think and act on its own, but I have been having multiple problems with it. It often goes belly-up completely. It needs taking to the shop, but there is no local Apple store, so I am kind of screwed and periodically have these problems. I did not intentionally remove accurate sourced material. I am glad you caught that. It's back now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Jheald Yikes! I did revert you because I thought I was reverting me! The statement is mostly correct, the only problem I had with it was the term "most" about authors being unknown, and that's what I removed. I thought my computer had highlighted more than I meant to so I put it back! (Unknown authorship is actually a relatively small group, and even then there are still attributions such as the Deuteronomists.) Sorry for the mix up! Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a completely valid concern. I support you in this. But multiple sources are not necessarily beneficial - at least that's what my GA and FA reviewers have repeatedly told me. Pick the best source and go with it. That's why there is only one for most of my edits - not because I couldn't find more. There is no increased validity based on numbers of sources. It's best source that matters and majority views. And please, as I said twice already, feel free to put the term 'intentionally' back. It is not inaccurate and I never said it was. I don't see that there is any real difference between it and what is now said, but if you do, add what you see as necessary to convey what the sources say. I do say the claim of politics is either a minority view or not supported at all, but if you have a source, by all means insert it. I don't understand why you don't just fix it. Of course, now, the whole thing needs to be made more concise in order to accommodate HB history as well, so some of it should be removed. Perhaps your single sentence w/o elaboration would be better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich It isn't that I am taking these things personally, it is that I am taking responsibility for myself and my actions. But I am only responsible for myself – and my crazy wants to rule the world computer. I appreciate you coming here with this. Please do continue. I have read the entire article multiple times now. It seems vastly improved to me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Editor2020, Levivich and Jheald. It's looking pretty good to me. I believe we have made every change anyone has requested and responded to every objection, and that the organization is good, the material clear and accessible, and that it is overall a pretty good article. Now, what do you all want to do with the lead? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Um, like I said yesterday, I'm still going to wait to review the changes until the changes are done being made (meaning, when the under construction tag is lifted or if it isn't, when editing otherwise stops or slows down, at which point I'll lift it if no one else does). As for what do I want to do with the lead? I'm not sure what you mean. The lead has already been changed, and as I mentioned before, I don't think this change is an improvement over the prior lead. That's one of the changes, along with all the others, that I plan to review more closely after the changes are done being made. Levivich 16:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich I had to shorten variants in textual history, so I went ahead and made the change you had complained about. I hope you find it satisfactory. I am disappointed in your response. Consensus is what works best on Wikipedia, not seeing if you can out-wait people so you can act alone. Editing will slow down, but we are committed to this article now and will never just go away. I suspect there will be many unnecessary RFC's and RTO's in our future because of an unwillingness to work with others. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:35, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Following WP:BRD is not "seeing if you can out-wait people so you can act alone". Levivich 00:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just like Levivich, I'm also waiting for the overhaul to finish to review it. I say this with an open mind, and certainly not saying anything is wrong. Any time a high profile gets a major overhaul, it's natural it's being reviewed. I appreciate the time and effort several editors put into the effort. The only opinion I would voice now concerns the discussion above, to encourage Jenhawk777 to rememberWP:AGF. Jeppiz (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich Following WP:BRD is assumed in real time though isn't it? Reverts occur in conjunction with edits. That requires everyone to establish consensus. In what way does waiting till after an editor has finished and moved on, and then reverting, promote consensus?
 * Jeppiz I don't think anyone can legitimately suggest that I have not acted in good faith, repeatedly, or assumed good faith in others as well, but when someone regularly shows up to criticize and complain while also refusing to work with others toward consensus, that is not good faith. Consensus is what's necessary on wikipedia, you must know that's true. I have bent over backwards to accommodate and respond while they have done nothing but promise to revert when I'm gone. But I do believe in consensus, and I will stick around and make sure any reverts have it. I do assume that all reverts will be made in good faith for good reasons. And I will keep watch. That is an act of good faith on my part. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, BRD isn't assumed in real time. When editors drop a UC tag and then make ~300 edits over a couple of weeks, what's assumed is that everyone will look at it after they're done. Levivich 14:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Levivich Please note that, in spite of claims to the contrary, you have accused me specifically: and that my response was to apologize, and revert it immediately. I thought my computer must have malfunctioned! As it turns out, it wasn't my edit. If you had responded to that edit in real time, I would have supported you in establishing a consensus view, and you would never have shown up here making false accusations. I fail to see how putting things off has improved anything for anyone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "As it turns out, it wasn't my edit"? What? That Special:Diff/1068935089 is your edit. It's not a false accusation, you made that edit. Levivich 14:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich No Jheald says he made that change. I only changed the word 'most' to 'some'. But whatever. It's a minor point, and I only addressed it because you said I was taking this personally. I don't think I am the one doing that. I want you to participate, have been asking you to do so, have responded to every complaint you have made with cooperation. I admire and appreciate that you acknowledge some 'ownership' of this article – it's impossible to avoid – but other editors really do generally improve a page when consensus is reached. That's why I don't want you just to sit back and wait.
 * Personally, I have already checked all of our recent edits, as they were happening. (I think. I hope. I tried.) It's easy to do in 'view history'. I changed some of them immediately – by adding something back with citations - which is basically a revert from a less aggressive approach – or by just reverting with an explanation. All of those edits did not stand. The two you mention as needing reversion have both been changed already, accordingly. I do not think I removed any of your original text. I did move it around. Oh! I did remove one phrase today that was tagged as needing clarification, so I clarified, but it stills says what you said just with more specific detail. Your article is still there. It is expanded, re-ordered some, and even clarified a bit, but I promise you, it's still there.
 * So we have two different understandings of BRD. You must of course act according to what you believe is correct. If you take your reverts here, then I suppose that will produce consensus just the same, and whatever the result, I will be satisfied. Don't be intimidated by the number of edits. Just go ahead and do what you said, read, and see what you find that you disagree with. Check the sources. Bring it here. If you find a problem that way, you are probably in the right. It's not a bad method, it just seems like it will create much more work for you than following along in real time would have, but to each his own. I support you in your desire to make sure this article is the best it can be - whatever method you use.
 * The current version of this article is really very good. It needs some work on the refs, which I hope you will help with. There are 4 I can't find to fix, and I have used wikiblame to try and find their original insertion and haven't come up with anything yet. Help would be appreciated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you denying that you made the edit Special:Diff/1068935089, with the edit summary, on Jan 30 at 21:32?
 * I said: You removed "from a variety of disparate cultures, most of whom are unknown" at 22:02, a half hour later.
 * Now you say: As it turns out, it wasn't my edit. If you had responded to that edit in real time, I would have supported you in establishing a consensus view, and you would never have shown up here making false accusations.
 * "If you had responded to that edit in real time"? Is 30 minutes not fast enough?
 * "Shown up here making false accusations"? First of all, "shown up"? What? I've been here. Secondly, "false accusations"? What?
 * You're gaslighting. Levivich 21:29, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No I don't deny the edit at 22:19. I have never denied that I removed the 'most' claim; that's in the edit summary. There is no edit at 22:02. I am going by this for the 'variety of disparate cultures' which I had no intention of removing, and if I did, it was an accident. However it happened, do you deny that I immediately put it back once you pointed out the mistake? Now here you are making personal accusations that are uncalled for and unfounded. Just stop. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Lists of books
Our article, Bible, is about the whole (as opposed to focusing on any particular canon), what the major canons are, how they developed, and how they relate to each other. Currently, our article lists books under each canon section, but I've noticed that sources that discuss the Bible (or, specifically, the Old Testament) tend to have tables that show the books of various canons side-by-side, allowing the reader to see how they relate to each other (which books are the same, which are different, which are reorganized, etc.)

For example:
 * page 4 of Carr's book, where there's a table comparing the books of the Hebrew Bible (Tanak), Protestant OT, Roman Catholic OT, and Eastern Orthodox OT.
 * Page 41 of Lim's book compares Hebrew Bible, Protestant OT, and Roman Catholic OT.
 * Figure 2.1 of Barton's 2019 book compares Hebrew Bible and Septuagint

I suggest, instead of listing the books of each canon in each subsection, those individual lists should be moved to the articles about those canons (so Hebrew Bible, of course, would have a list of books of the HB, and Catholic Bible would have those books listed, etc.), but this article should have one table the lists the books of all the major canons side-by-side, similar to Carr's book. I think, for this article, a side-by-side table comparing multiple canons is more useful than listing the books under each canon. As an added bonus, it will reduce the length of the article.

Thoughts? Levivich 17:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich I love this idea. It's completely brilliant. I support.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sound good. Editor2020 (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Does that begin to duplicate too much Biblical canon? If a table is added here, it should at least agree across both articles. --FyzixFighter (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was thinking a simplified "high level" version of those tables. Levivich 01:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That should also solve this: Cite error: A list-defined reference with group name "" is not used in the content (see the help page).

Cite error: A list-defined reference with group name "" is not used in the content (see the help page).Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:32, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Recent editors: References sections
As you have apparently performed significant recent revision to this article, I'd like to get your consensus on some changes to it. I believe that the purposes of appendices should be obvious to non-Wikipedians, i.e. casual users, and so their titles should be clear. (This is admittedly a pet peeve of mine.) I realize that MOS:REFERENCES (specifically "Heading names") applies, but I find "references", "sources", and the like (such as "notes", which is used for both explanatory notes and citations) as well as "bibliography" and (especially) "literature" confusing as to what the editor(s) who added them intended their purposes to be. In the interest of clarity, I also prefer that everything have its own (sub)section. In the case of this article, I'd like to change the "Notes" section to "Explanatory notes", and add a "Citations" subsection to "References".

Also, there are currently two identical error messages at the bottom of the citations and above the "Works cited" subsection stating

"Cite error: A list-defined reference with group name '' is not used in the content (see the help page)."


 * —DocWatson42 (talk) 04:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi DocWatson42, it's nice to meet you. As far as I am concerned, I support you doing whatever you think will improve this article. These are the kind of details that make my eyes cross, so I not only support you in doing them, I thank you for it. It means I don't have to. Yes, I also mentioned the empty list error above. I am hoping that if Levivitch implements her single revised list idea, that will remove whatever other lists are causing the problem. However, if you know how to identify the little buggers and are willing to take the time to hunt them down and squash their shiny red quotation marks, then I will be both thankful and glad and will probably do a little jig in your honor. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed that you mentioned the error, but only I after I posted the first time. -_-; As for hunting down the errors, I, too, am hoping someone else does the work. ^_^;  BTW, I support the consolidated list idea. —DocWatson42 (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hah! Both of us want someone else to mess with it! If no one here volunteers, I know at least two people who actually like doing stuff like this!! I know! To each his own, right? Thank goodness they are out there though! So go up to "List of books" and post your support there as they might not see it here. It sounds like a major task to me - but a great idea!Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I have not performed significant recent revision to this article. I see the errors you're pointing out and agree they're a problem but unfortunately they're just a part of the problems recently introduced into the article. I'd support restoring the last good version (Jan 14) and I don't plan to make any edits to this article (including fixing these errors). Levivich 04:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich Please present your arguments for why the Jan.14 version is best and what all the many errors might be. Let's see if we can establish consensus. It's a shame you don't plan to edit. You got nothing but support for your list idea. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a number of problems, and overall problem is that because there are so many, it's difficult to find and list them all. These are just some.
 * The biggest problem is that because there have been 350+ edits since Jan 14, with less than ideal edit summaries, and things have been changed multiple times, it's more or less impossible to find any specific revision to undo it
 * The second-biggest problem is that we've lost WP:V, because prose has been changed without changing the sources
 * For example, in the Textual history section, paragraphs have been rewritten without changing the citations at the end of the paragraphs! If you look at the Jan 14 version, the paragraph beginning with "The books of the Bible were written and copied by hand..." is sourced to what is there Reference #25: Lim, Ulrich, VanderKam, Brown, and Harris. Look at today's version and you'll see that citation is now Ref #127--the citation hasn't changed at all--but it's referencing a completely different paragraph! And, I know because I read those sources, that what it's referencing now is not supported by the sources cited.
 * For example, sticking with that same paragraph, it says the three major text types are Alexandrian, Byzantine, and Western; that's not what those sources say.
 * For example, the Caesarean text type is no longer mentioned in the article at all
 * Some sources have been removed, such as Parker 2013, which is Volume 1 of the New Cambridge History of the Bible by Cambridge University Press. It's no longer citing anything. Why in the world would we not include this obviously top-quality source?
 * The third-biggest problem is failure to adhere to NPOV
 * For example, this Jan 28 edit removed "...the apostles did not leave a defined set of new scriptures; instead the canon of the New Testament developed over time. Groups within Christianity include differing books as part of their sacred writings, most prominent among which are the biblical apocrypha or deuterocanonical" and added "The Pauline epistles and the gospels were soon added as the early church continued the Jewish tradition of writing and incorporating what it saw as authoritative religious books." This is terrible, it suggests that (1) there was something called "the early church" (as in one church, rather than many), and that (2) this "early church" wrote and incorporated books into the canon. That's not true: there were multiple early churches, the canonization process took centuries, and the books of the New Testament began as oral traditions, written by various people.
 * There is way too much attributed opinions and quotes of single scholars where no such attribution is needed. For example, multiple paragraphs attributed to Levinson saying what we can say, and what the article used to say, in wikivoice (e.g., that the bible began from oral traditions).
 * There is way too much defense of variations, and the article now says things like "Intentional changes were made to improve grammar, to eliminate discrepancies, to make Liturgical changes such as the doxology of the Lord's prayer, to harmonize parallel passages or to combine and simplify multiple variant readings into one", which is not what the sources report.
 * Overall, I see the POV of this article has shifted heavily towards a biblical inerrancy POV, particularly for the New Testament.
 * The lead is worse than it was on Jan 14:
 * The old 2nd paragraph summarizing the various canons is gone
 * The old 3rd paragraph about attitudes is gone
 * The old 4th paragraph about impact is gone
 * The new 2nd paragraph gives undue focus to the Hebrew Bible, and worse, doesn't summarize what the article, or the sources, say on he subject of canonization of the Hebrew Bible. For example, the sentence "The Masoretic Text, in Hebrew and Aramaic, is considered the authoritative text by Rabbinic Judaism, but there is also the Septuagint, a Koine Greek translation from the third and second centuries BCE, which largely overlaps with the Hebrew Bible" doesn't put any of that into context, the way the article used to
 * The new 3rd paragraph gives undue focus on Christian bibles. Combined with the new 2nd paragraph, the lead now has one paragraph about the Hebrew Bible and one paragraph about Christianity, and that doesn't comply with NPOV
 * The new 4th paragraph focuses too much on book sales and doesn't include other information about impact that was in the old 4th paragraph
 * The organization is worse than it was:
 * There are now two sections about pseudopigrapha
 * One of the Pseudepigrapha sections is a lvl-2, between Septuagint and Christian Bible, which it shouldn't be, because Pseudepigrapha isn't a canon
 * Biblical criticism is a section of textual history, which it shouldn't be
 * Textual history moved from beginning of the article to the end
 * Development is now called "General overview", which is what the lead is, and shouldn't be the name of a section
 * The size has increased by almost 15%, from from 138kb on Jan 14 to 157kb today. The article was already too long, and it has moved in the wrong direction.
 * After spotting these problems, I have no interest in trying to improve this article from its current point, particularly because it would require, for example, checking every single reference because I can't trust the text-source integrity of any of it (including the stuff I wrote myself!). Levivich 16:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the "Revision as of 06:13, 1 February 2022" done by the user Jenhawk777 that caused the following problem "Cite error: A list-defined reference with group name "" is not used in the content (see the help page)." Rafaelosornio (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Rafaelosornio and recreated the original problem. Can you fix that one without causing the alternative problem that I apparently did? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich The vast majority of these problems seem to me to be substantive and justified. Unless everyone can demonstrate, here, that they are fixing these problems, I will support you in that revert. Let's give everyone a day or two, then if they are not addressed - particularly the point of view issue - then we can agree there is consensus to restore the earlier version.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich I have now created a problem here. I used the title "verifiability" for a new section and it pulled all of this out of the archive. Do you know how to go about putting it back? I tried just deleting my post but that didn't work. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Manual delete did. I tried putting it back under a different title, and the same thing happened again. What is going on? Can you tell? Did someone change the archive instructions? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Levivich I have now addressed my part of #3 which is in the content of "New Testament". I checked the references for that section. You say the sentence that was removed was correct, but it creates all kinds of misunderstandings the way it is stated. Did the Apostles leave behind writings? That is one of the most disputed questions in this entire field of study - and that sentence seems to imply they did not. That would be entirely POV if that is what is intended. The sentence uses unexplained jargon. It was not a good sentence.

The idea that the NT developed over time remains.

The claim, here, about there being no such thing as an early church is mistaken. The Pauline epistles contain evidence that a church system developed almost immediately. But I changed it anyway in hopes it will satisfy your concerns. I will continue to look over all my edits. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The rest of Levivich's #3:
 * First, why would there need to be a defense? I don't think you understand what a variant actually is. The designation of "variant" is not evaluative. It merely follows the separation between what is seen as the central text and other readings. This is on page 18 of Emanuel Tov's Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible discussing the many variants in the Hebrew texts.
 * Second, that's a paraphrase of exactly what the source says. Appendix one of the book cited, New Testament Textual Criticism: A Concise Guide by David Allen Black, has an "Appendix One" that begins on page 59 and goes to page 61. The book is available from the Open Library here: Read it for yourself. The Appendix is a list of types of variants. Content in the article reflects this list, accurately summarized, without jargon.
 * I can find no source, not Ehrman or Kannaday or anyone else who works or writes on textual criticism, who claims Bible texts were changed for political reasons.
 * There is never too much attribution in a controversial area.
 * I do not personally believe in biblical inerrancy, so whatever has led you to the conclusion, it is inapplicable to me. I say what the sources say.


 * I added "variants" where it looked like existing POV under Masoretic text, . There was no discussion of variants at all - as if this "preciseness" suggests there aren't any. That's incorrect of course. I did add a tiny amount on variants in that section and this will need to be put back to prevent POV if we restore the Jan 14th version.


 * 4* I have no objection to you restoring the version of the lead that you liked, but imho, it wasn't a real summary. This version has a sentence from every section basically.


 * 5* Well, I don't agree, but I will change them anyway in an effort to accommodate your concerns. ✅ The lead section is not a general overview, that's a mistake. The lead is a summary of the content in the body. Those are two very different things. A general overview is often included in complex articles and what was in "Development" covers very little actual development. The section heading does not now reflect actual content. But hey, if you're happy, I'm happy.


 * Finally, #2; I saved the most serious of all these concerns for last. If there really are problems with verifiability, they must be addressed, but it's going to take some time and effort, and right now for me, RL is interfering. I will be back tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to address one thing:
 * This Jan 28 edit by Jenhawk777, which I mentioned before, added "The Pauline epistles and the gospels were soon added as the early church continued the Jewish tradition of writing and incorporating what it saw as authoritative religious books." cited to "Barton 1998 page 2". Here is Barton 1998 page 2. He doesn't say that the Pauline epistles and the gospels were soon added as the early church continued the Jewish tradition of writing and incorporating what it saw as authoritative religious books. Here's what he actually says: What we're saying in Wikivoice isn't even something Barton is saying in his own voice. He's just presenting one of three theories, and then he goes on for pages discussing problems with that first theory and analyzing the others. This is a total failure of WP:V.
 * This is just one problem. I am not going to go through hundreds of edits to check every single edit like this and make sure it matches the reference. This is why it should go back to lgv. Levivich 16:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich You are incorrect. You are correct that page 2 begins a summation of past theories, but you have to read on. By page 11 he has combined them into "stages" of one theory, and that statement is stage one. That is what he asserts. It's in the last two paragraphs at the bottom of page 11, and the top paragraph on page 18, (and it goes on through page 25.) It is absolutely verifiable.
 * When checking references, I decided my original paraphrasing didn't explain enough or include enough page numbers - that it wasn't well written. I redid it yesterday. You can find that here: It's in the article now with a concluding statement:
 * I understand if you aren't willing to go through checking things. I am. Verifiability issues are important to address. The original sentence was not well written, you're right about that, but it's problem was never one of verifiability. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for references
Editor2020 Can you add the sources of your work in "Deuterocanon and apocrypha"? There are some citation needed tags. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I may have been the one who tagged the material for references, but I'll look. As far as the rest of all this mishigas I think we need to focus on one thing at a time. Editor2020 (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Redundancy
I am currently trying to reorder this article and remove the redundant text. Editor2020 (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:GA? may have some helpful guidance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks!! Editor2020 (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there are better uses for your time. A spot of gardening perhaps, or translating dirty limericks into Chinese ideograms. Anything rather than getting involved in this. Achar Sva (talk) 13:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Now now, anything Wikipedians make, they can unmake. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Levivich's complaints
Editor2020 and Gabby Merger Levivich is correct that there are two sections on pseudepigrapha – neither of which have an explanation of what it is – that need to be combined. Would one or both of you do that? I would be grateful.

1. I have been going over all of Levivich's concerns. They say the article is such a mess that they want to restore the Jan.14th version. My immediate response was "holy crap !! If it's this bad, we should just restore, as they say". But as I have gone over them in detail, one by one, I have found most of them to be minor issues - or not issues at all. I am reviewing my own edits and have found some flaws that had to be fixed with better prose and more page numbers, so that is a good thing. But so far, I am not finding the serious extensive problems they describe. Could you look at your own edits and tell me what you think about this?

2. There are about a half dozen people who have been editing like mad this last couple of weeks, and I would really appreciate everyone's input. (I won't ping everyone because last time I did, it pulled a bunch out of Archive and posted it here! I had to just delete it manually. Weird. My computer is haunted.)

3. Can anyone else see the cite error notice in the references? Is it just me?

4. What do you think about re-titling the second section "Development" instead of "General overview"? Levivich says the lead is a general overview, but that's wrong. The lead is a summary of the article itself, while a General overview section is an overview of the topic. The section doesn't seem to actually discuss development either.

5. Her claim that text was changed without changing the source, and that the citation no longer supports what is said, needs addressing. Do either of you have any such issue with any of your own edits? Could you check? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Are any of these issues still outstanding? Editor2020 (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Pseudepigrapha has been fixed. Thank you for combining those. I have now added a paragraph on what it is and isn't, referencing the best: Metzger.
 * So far the claims of verifiability issues have been unfounded - as near as I can tell – but I am still working my way through my own edits. No one else has come back here to say they are sure of their own. I tend to recheck mine anyway, though it's terrifically tedious, because it is so easy to cite the wrong page number, or the right author and page number, but the wrong book, and so on. It doesn't happen often, thank goodness, but it happens to everyone on occasion.
 * I have now addressed Levivich's concern #5 (her #2) about the "written by hand" text in textual history. I did not find the reference they said had been incorrectly reused. In fact, all the "Lim et al" references appear correct. I replaced the reference that was there anyway. I live in hope of satisfying her concerns.
 * I would especially like to know if anyone, including you and Gabby Merger, Levivich, Rafaelosornio, DocWatson42, FyzixFighter, Jeppiz, Jheald, Carlosguitar, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Zzalpha, and Hazhk, sees a POV issue, of any kind, in this article. If yes, where do you see it? Levivich's example is based on a misunderstanding of what variants actually are. I intend to clarify that in the text using a Jewish scholar so there is no basis for assuming POV. As to the rest, please, all of you, tell me. In the end, we need consensus. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The article currently reads, cited to Barton 1998 p. 2: I don't see that quote on that page. Here is the quote I see:  I pointed this out in the subsection just above. That's just one thing. Here's another that I mentioned in the subsection just above, which has also not been addressed:
 * The Jan 14 version of this article read: That was cited to what was then Ref #25:
 * The article currently reads:
 * That is still cited to the same citation, now #50: I pointed this out in the previous subsection just a few days ago.
 * The article used to say there were four text types, cited to Brown and another source, Parker, but that was removed by Jenhawk777 on Jan 30 in this edit: Special:Diff/1068828674. About a half hour before that, Jenhawk moved an unsourced paragraph stating there were three text types from one section to another: Special:Diff/1068822223, Special:Diff/1068823119. The next day, Jenhawk combined that unsourced paragraph with the next paragraph (Special:Diff/1069015198), which resulted in the mis-sourced paragraph that's in the article today, quoted above, referenced to Ref #50. The only source in Ref #50 that addresses text types is Brown, and he's the one who says there are four, not three.
 * My concerns about verifiability are not unfounded. We cannot write an article by re-arranging through copying and pasting. It needs to be written in WP:SUMMARY style, not a string of attributions. It needs to cite the best WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:AGEMATTERS: not stuff from 20 years ago. It needs to maintain WP:INTEGRITY. We can't be changing prose without changing sources. Levivich 05:34, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This has in fact been addressed. You not only didn't read the whole discussion, it was already addressed in the body of the article before you brought it up here. Please check before posting this again.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * First, this is a false statement. The oldest extant fragment is the Rylands fragment 52 that is dated around the year 100. It's from the book of John which was probably written about 20 years earlier. I don't know if you misunderstood, misrepresented, misquoted or what, but the rest of that sentence contains multiple inaccuracies and was pretty heavy with POV. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did in fact move existing text already in this article up to this location. Then earlier today I came back to it and checked its content and sources and reworked it. You should get in the habit of checking before posting here. This has also already been fixed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do agree with the last statement - unless the changed prose makes the same claim - then it's legitimate to keep it. I have been attempting to find and rectify problems without simply throwing away everyone's work from the last two weeks. That would be an unnecessary and drastic response to minor problems that are easily remedied. All of these "issues" mentioned here have been addressed. Everyone should check for themselves. None of these are currently present. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I responded to each of these and Levivich reverted my comments. I won't edit war.
 * The bottom line is, all of these have in fact been addressed. None are currently in the article. Please check before posting any of this again.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your response broke up my comment and responded to each paragraph, in the style of a peer or GA or FA review. But this is not a review. You previously did this on Jan 31 (Special:Diff/1068956091), which I fixed (Special:Diff/1069088865), and again on Feb 1 (Special:Diff/1069212737), which again I fixed, with a request that you stop doing this (Special:Diff/1069284633), so when you did this today for a third time (Special:Diff/1070579076), I just removed it (Special:Diff/1070580162) because I was tired of restoring it. Anyway, I've now fixed it for the third time, but as you can see, your response doesn't make sense anymore, which is why it would have been better for you to re-write it, as a comment, and not interleave it in the middle of my comment. When you respond to me in the future, please do not break up my comment. I am tired of fixing this mistake. Levivich 19:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Editor2020 Can you add the sources of your work in "Deuterocanon and apocrypha"? There are some citation needed tags. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The article still says: cited to page 2 of Barton's book, and that quote is not on page 2. You can say "this has been addressed" all you want, but it is a flat out false quote. If it's not, please quote the portion of page 2, or any of Barton 1998, that contains the quotation "continued the Jewish tradition of writing and incorporating what [they] saw as inspired, authoritative religious books".
 * Similarly, the other issues have not been addressed. You have now removed what was Reference 50 altogether, along with the text. In sum, you've replaced well-sourced text, sourced to multiple modern scholarly sources, such as Special:Diff/1070572889, and replaced it with sources that are 20+ years old, and sources that aren't even scholarship, and that directly contradict the scholarship, such as Special:Diff/1070572889. Citing to SBL Press? Seriously?
 * Now that you've got me to start posting examples here, I cannot stand to find problems and then just leave them unfixed. I'm reverting the bold edits to the lead, development, and textual criticism sections. At least those sections I know I can directly vouch for the WP:INTEGRITY of the text. If you want to reinstate any of the bold edits, please bring them here first and explain why your edits are an improvement. Levivich 19:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've reverted the bold changes to the lead, Development, and Textual history sections. I reinstated some interim edits to the lead that I think were improvements. The three paragraphs in Textual history attributed to Levinson have been moved to Levinson's article, where they more properly belong; it's WP:UNDUE to give textual history via attribution to one writer when we can say it in wikivoice by summarizing mainstream scholarship. The variant stuff I just removed: it was not well-sourced, relying heavily on religious publishers and again over-attributing to too few authors when what we should be doing is summarizing the mainstream scholarship in WP:SUMMARY style.
 * The lead, development and textual history sections are certainly not perfect; as I've said all along, they can, have been, and should continue to be, improved. However, having rewritten the latter two last year, I can at least vouch for its WP:INTEGRITY: every paragraph is a summary of between two and eight sources that are modern (not 1990s, see WP:RSAGE) scholarship (academic press, not religious press, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP), and that summarizes the mainstream view of multiple sources rather than relying on attribution and quotations (WP:SUMMARY). Certainly I may not have summarized them well, my source selection may not have been the best, it's all subject to editing and improvement, but not by simply cutting and pasting sentences around, or by removing stuff sourced to multiple modern scholars and replacing it with something contrary from 20+ years ago attributed to one source.
 * In looking at the other sections, I see they have the same problems with over-attribution, use of ok-but-not-the-best sources, and thus general NPOV problems. As time allows I may go through them in more detail, but I'm not as familiar with the rest of the article as I am with the two specific sections I rewrote last year. Levivich 20:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ...and Jenhawk has now reinstated all the bold edits. Not surprising. Levivich 20:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Levivich There is no hard and fast rule about posting comments as you have demanded, it's simply an accepted courtesy, but my responses needed to be next to your accusations for context and reference. That was a courtesy you might have granted me. I don't know why I thought I might get some.


 * One at a time:
 * It isn't an exact quote; it shouldn't have quotation marks around it. It's an accurate paraphrase however:  page 2
 * page 11
 * bottom of page 17
 * page 18


 * Yes, because I wrote the majority view. That is what the source says. Get over your biases.
 * You are certainly an advocate for your own opinions. This is ridiculous. It doesn't meet your POV.
 * You are certainly an advocate for your own opinions. This is ridiculous. It doesn't meet your POV.


 * Without waiting for a response here or even attempting to gain consensus, you have now reverted everyone's work! This cannot be simply swallowed I'm afraid. I have restored the earlier version as being POV, restoring multiple factual errors, and lacking consensus. Your POV is apparent in all these changes, but especially your removal of Emmanuel Tov, the Jewish textual critic, and all mentions of variants in all the Hebrew texts, and your replacement of the very biased discussion of variants in the NT. So, I am calling for an RFC. Please don't do anything else this radical until we actually have some consensus. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I posted a request for a third opinion. Anyone can do so.
 * I also see that I have not answered everything listed here; the wiki standards are unarguable, but it is arguable that they were all met in the previous version. Other comments are just confusing:, but if what you wrote was good and well sourced, as you claim, then cutting and pasting is the right thing to do with it if improving organization is the goal. Everything did not need reverting. Some attempt at improving what you objected to should have been made first. I did ask you repeatedly. I will leave all of this for now and see what happens. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just noting that we do have a "rule" on inserting comment into other's comments: WP:INTERPOLATE (you know, like in John 8:3–11). It's one of those things many old Wikipedians doesn't like when it happens to their comments. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. Levivich 01:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you insist to thank Gabby Merger. They have quit editing about two years before your first edit. See and. Not saying that you are the same person: Gabby Merger is a petty and obtuse fundamentalist, while you have mainstream education. But the punch cards look remarkably similar (maybe there is a two hours difference, if any: Merger was offline 9-17 UTC, you're offline 7-15 UTC, you being more consistent/rigorous than Merger). "Although Rylands 𝔓$52$ is generally accepted as the earliest extant record of a canonical New Testament text, the dating of the papyrus is by no means the subject of consensus among scholars. The original editor proposed a date range of 100–150 CE, while a recent exercise by Pasquale Orsini and Willy Clarysse, aiming to generate consistent revised date estimates for all New Testament papyri written before the mid-4th century, has proposed a date for 𝔓$52$ of 125–175 CE. A few scholars say that considering the difficulty of fixing the date of a fragment based solely on paleographic evidence allows the possibility of dates outside these range estimates, such that 'any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries.'" According to Bart Ehrman, this fragment has the size of a credit card, so there is not much text of the NT upon it.

I agree with that you have an evangelical POV. We don't automatically dismiss evangelical editors, but Wikipedia has to kowtow to mainstream Bible scholarship, of the Ivy League sort. If you're asking why should it, you're in the wrong place. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * tgeorgescu I use mainstream scholarship. I do not use specifically evangelical publications of any kind and studiously avoid anything fundamentalist based. The majority of my references are from Cambridge and Oxford and other University presses, just like yours, but I also recognize mainstream Christian publishers, such as Zondervan, with established academic reputations, and peer reviewed journals. Attempting to exclude all "Christian" (or Jewish) publishers will also exclude any possibility of representing a majority view as the vast majority of the work in religious areas is being done by religious people - about 80% was the last stat I saw. That does not preclude their ability to be objective and assuming it does is a bias of its own.
 * I am not an evangelical editor. If I have written something that is POV, please point that out, and I will definitely remove or fix it. I ask the same of you. Factual errors in content have been used to convey a particular POV in this article already. It is not evangelical to want to fix that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for Third Opinion
A major restructuring of this article has involved multiple editors over the last few weeks. They saw and attempted to fix multiple problems such as POV, factual error, and the frequent repetition of content that often results from too many little categories. Levivich acknowledged some ownership of the article, got distressed at these changes, refused to participate in an effort to gain consensus, then took it upon themselves to revert everyone's work back to the version they preferred - the one with the original problems. Repeated efforts to address issues and work out disagreements on this Talkpage have failed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:17, 8 February 2022 (UTC)


 * None of that description is accurate but let's talk less about me and more about the content of the page.
 * In the edit Special:Diff/1070701524, you reinstated bold edits that I had reverted, with the edit summary . Please give examples of these factual errors.
 * I have given examples above of the errors that the bold edits have introduced. Let's talk about two of them:
 * Example 1:
 * The article used to say, at the beginning of the "Textual history" section: That paragraph was cited to Lim, Hayes, Brown, Carr, Bandstra, Gravett, Harris & Platzner, and Riches.  Lim 2017, p. 47; Ulrich 2013, pp. 103–104; VanderKam & Flint 2013, ch. 5; Brown 2010, ch. 3(A); and Harris & Platzner 2008, p. 22
 * In the edit Special:Diff/1070701524, you removed that and replaced with this, now at the beginning of the "Textual history" section: All of that is just cited to Levinson.
 * Please explain why this is an improvement, particularly changing it from a summary of 8 sources to a summary of one source with attribution, in light of WP:SUMMARY.
 * Example 2:
 * The article used to say Cited to Parker 2013 (published by Cambridge) and Brown 2010 (published by Yale).
 * In the edit Special:Diff/1070701524, you removed that and replaced with this: Cited only to Wegner 1999, published by Baker Publishing Group
 * Please explain why this is an improvement, particularly changing it from a summary of two university-press sources from 2010 and 2013 to a summary of one religious press source from 1999, in light of WP:RSAGE, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:RS/AC.
 * Thanks. Levivich 02:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not believe this can possibly be well sourced: No quality contemporary source would make such a claim. The Rylands 52 fragment is dated to C. 100-125. It's a fragment of the book of John which is thought to have been originally written between 80 and 100.
 * This cannot be a good paraphrase either: There were no books in circulation in the early centuries, there were only scrolls of individual gospels or collections of Paul's letters. The formation of the core of Christian scripture was early, and it was regarded as fixed and unalterable (Barton, p.41) by the fourth century. But this is actually an unsupported claim about the impact of variants. You say these  made the NT into "different books", which is at best an overstatement that would not be supported by the majority of textual critics, and at worst represents intentional POV, since the Masoretic Text is repeatedly described as "authoritative", yet both texts have variants. Failure to discuss the variants in the Hebrew Bible is error.
 * misuses the term "version." This is one of two misuses of the term, which can only confuse a modern reader used to different "versions" of the Bible such as the King James or the NASB.
 * This is simply outdated. My version is an improvement because I wrote that 21st century textual critics were moving away from the old view of text types. On page 5 of the intro to the fifth edition of their Greek New Testament, the Alands write that they are now using the Coherence-based Geneological method to identify relationships between texts.
 * and This misuses the term version again, but also, it's factually wrong. I quote Bruce Metzger whose standing as a textual scholar lives on:
 * It's unclear exactly what "no standard organization" refers to; current evidence indicates scribes had a standard organizational method of textual division that is present in early manuscripts, and that it was not a later augmentation. But perhaps this is talking about the order of the books themselves which is part of the para-text of the Bible - something outside the actual text.  There are 6 other traditions that ordered the books slightly differently, but only one other was widely distributed. (same page) Even if all 6 were equally popular, it contradicts "no standard organization".
 * This is an improvement because it is an identifiable source that the reader can find, and Levinson is one of the most respected Hebrew scholars alive. He gives a summary of the majority view, which is not disputed, (and is unnecessary to have multiple references for), and which you don't include. It's an improvement because it doesn't have one error after another. The misuse of terms. POV. I can only guess that the references you use must be misrepresented, as they would not make such obvious mistakes. That makes just about anything an improvement. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Rylands 52 fragment is dated to C. 100-125 Wrong once: its dating is very much disputed. Wrong twice: it is not a scroll, it is just a scrap of paper, having the size of a credit card. Hint: P52 never belonged to a scroll. 100-125 is an extremely early dating for a codex, first of that kind was introduced about 90 CE. That means that in about 10 years, the codex got imitated by someone at the other end of the Empire, knowing full well that most ancient people hated novelties (ancient people were misoneist). tgeorgescu (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * tgeorgescu So are you telling me or Livivich that we are wrong? Please note I did not call it a scroll. I called it a fragment, but of course it is a fragment of something, and that is generally considered to be a codex, indicating codexes were in use very early. But it doesn't really matter, since this is about the claim of "centuries" as legitimate for dating all copies not about the reference to scrolls - which as you say is also wrong, but not my error.
 * Dates for P 52 have been disputed, yes, but even those who give it a later date begin the possible time span at 100 with an end date to the latter half of the second century rather than the first half. Since the book of John was probably written between 80 and 110, that does not support the claim of "centuries after" as some kind of general rule. This reference is an old one that says at the top of the second column on page 324: Newer references from the 21st century include which dates it to the first half of the second century, just like Metzger, and this one gives the latest end date in the latter half of the second century Copies were made subsequent to the originals, absolutely true, but the oldest evidence indicates they were made relatively quickly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * tgeorgescu This is a fascinating monograph that dates another Rylands fragment - P 46 - to the latter half of the first century: Kim, Young Kyu. “Palaeographical Dating of P46 to the Later First Century.” Biblica, vol. 69, no. 2, GBPress, 1988, pp. 248–57, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42707403. This is all still ongoing debate as you say - scholars can't even agree on the best method for determining this - but the existence of such debate is sufficient to put the kibosh on the claim of "centuries" as if it were established and agreed upon. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Following your numbering:
 * in that phrase, refers to the previous sentence,, not the books of the New Testament.  500 BCE or earlier.  are from ~100 CE, so that's centuries after . This is about the Bible as a whole, not just the New Testament. Let's remember that the Old Testament is about 75% of any Christian Bible by length (600k words in the OT v. 150k words in the NT, roughly). Whenever this article discusses "the Bible" it's talking about the whole thing, not just the NT.  are not the books of the NT.
 * It's cited to Lim 2017, p. 47; Ulrich 2013, pp. 103–104; VanderKam & Flint 2013, ch. 5; Brown 2010, ch. 3(A); and Harris & Platzner 2008, p. 22. Are these not contemporary sources?
 * - You write We're not talking about just the NT. The scriptures of the Old Testament (aka the Hebrew Bible) were collected into books between 5th c. BCE and 2nd c. CE. The HT and the Septuagint are just two examples of different versions of the books in circulation. This was also true of NT books, of course. You're not seriously suggesting that every copy of an NT book is the same as every other copy? No source says this. Again, this is cited, and I don't see the basis for your disputing what these sources say.
 * The sources cited use the word "version", e.g. the Septuagint is a version of the Hebrew Bible, or talking about various versions of Isaiah. Which source's use of the word "version" are you disputing and on what basis?
 * - you write Outdated? It's sourced to sources from the past ten years. Are you saying those sources are wrong, or they don't use the term, or what? You replaced full-length books by the likes of Cambridge and Oxford and Yale with a single 2012 paper by Levinson that doesn't even talk about text types.
 * and This is cited to Lim 2017, p. 47; Ulrich 2013, pp. 103–104; VanderKam & Flint 2013, ch. 5; Brown 2010, ch. 3(A); and Harris & Platzner 2008, p. 22. They're factually wrong? Seriously? They're not scholars? You write  ... you quote him from 1999, and it's a Christian publisher, and he's talking about the NT, not the Bible as a whole (!). Why should we present Metzger's view and not these other scholars, who are greater in number, wrote more recently, and published by academic presses?
 * "No standard organization" means there is no standard Bible, there are multiple canons, versions, translations, etc. The books of the HB are in a different order than the books in the OT of a Roman Catholic Bible, which will be in a different order from the OT in a Lutheran Bible, etc. I know, you're only thinking about the New Testament. That's why all this is shocking to you: you're thinking "the Bible" refers to "the New Testament".
 * Are not Lim 2017, p. 47; Ulrich 2013, pp. 103–104; VanderKam & Flint 2013, ch. 5; Brown 2010, ch. 3(A); and Harris & Platzner 2008, p. 22 also identifiable sources that the reader can find? Are they not also some of the most respected biblical scholars alive? You seem to be completely ignoring the citations, like they're not there.
 * Plus what tgeorgscu said. Levivich 00:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't find Levinson's rant about the Bible's so-called "cultural authority" particularly relevant to "Textual history". It says nothing about how the books were compiled or transmitted, and does not at all mention surviving manuscripts. It seems uninformative and irrelevant to me. Dimadick (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Dimadick Okay. I thought it was fascinating, but then I'm kind of a geek about this stuff. Please feel free to go ahead and remove what you don't like. I'd really like to keep at least some of the first and third paragraphs, but if you don't, and instead you want to remove all three paragraphs, just provide something accurate and pertinent in its place. I will support you and that will be consensus for that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * is not how WP:CONSENSUS works: there are more than two people participating here. Levivich 23:51, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yup, "For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." I would prefer that we stick to full professors published by mainstream outlets in the past 20 years or so.
 * And you need to fulfill WP:RS/AC in order to WP:ASSERT that that's the majority view.
 * I was not arguing against "the Gospels got copied early" or something like that. I don't know what that objection has to do with what I said. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:24, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * tgeorgescu Full professors published by quality academic mainstream publishers, absolutely, I completely agree. I have referenced no one else. That mainstream must include some of the so called "Christian publishers" that have established academic reputations: Zondervan, Baker Academic, InterVarsityPress, Westminster John Knox, and a few more. They have been around long enough to be known for their high standards. I recently referenced a classics professor from Stanford who published a long article in Currents in Biblical Research a peer-reviewed academic journal. Would you object to that because it's "Christian"?
 * If that's what I communicated then I failed to communicate. That was not my objection.
 * WP:RS/AC was my point. I didn't assert a majority view without support, Livivich did in the claim that . Come on now, you yourself have asserted good arguments for identifying the multiple errors in that sentence. Scrolls? Centuries? P52 is thought to be the oldest textual fragment; it's from a codex; its estimated date begins within decades, not centuries, while its end date continues to be disputed, and that, all by itself, is sufficient to nullify Livivich's statement – made in wikivoice – as if it were the settled accepted majority view. If there is a current academic publisher that says the majority view amongst scholars is what Livivich's sentence says it is, I would love to see that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Levivich Well look at you up there interjecting out of order. Let's see if I can figure out how to follow this.
 * WP:Consensus says it makes no difference how many people are participating. But if we agree what the best argument is, then we have consensus and we can close this out ourselves. You don't want Levinson, okay, but don't create a false dichotomy out of our choices here. Our only option isn't yours or mine. There's always a third choice, a fourth choice, or any of a multiple of other choices of how to say what the majority view says. If Dimadick can come up with a middle way, why should I not encourage that?
 * Please don't tell me what I am thinking. My degrees are in world religion and philosophy, and my graduate study is in the field of ethics. I've been writing on these topics for years now, and none of this is new to me.
 * Again, don't tell me what I am doing. I am not ignoring the references, which are indeed among the best. I am not challenging them. I am familiar with them all. Familiar enough that what I am doing is challenging your interpretation of them.
 * That I provided other references is just an indication that I didn't want take the time needed to check yours in order to reuse them. That's because they are listed together in a string, so that it is impossible to tell which reference applies to which statement. You don't give any attribution; how is anyone supposed to know who said what? All of this is spoken in wiki-voice, as if it's the unarguable majority view, but which source says it is the current majority view that ?
 * I never said we should. I quoted Metzger here on the talk page for discussion purposes. I don't believe I referenced him in the article.
 * This is all stirring up a lot of dust with no real substance. I ask that you quit making comments about me. I highlight the bias present in, and . I ask that you focus solely on content from now on. I answered your question about content with content and references. I dispute your interpretation of your very good sources. I don't think they say what you say - or that you say what they say. We need consensus on what the best arguments are. Anyone? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't deny what Levinson wrote; the problem is that citing him instead of the existing content seems too much like a red herring in order to dodge hard facts about the Bible. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Jenhawk777, how old is the oldest book of the Bible, and how old is the oldest existing scroll, according to any RS? I don't understand how you can dispute that the gap in between is "centuries" but I'm curious what dates you're thinking of. Levivich 05:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * BTW I believe mainstream academic consensus is that Genesis was written no later than 5th c. BCE, while the oldest existing scroll is no older than 2nd c. BCE (Dead Sea Scrolls). Do you disagree? Levivich 05:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Also re: who says the oldest scrolls are copies made centuries after the books were first written: Ulrich p. 84: Harris & Platzner p. 21:  and p. 22:  Levivich 06:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Levivich I'm tired of this. How about this for a suggestion? I don't think the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament share enough textual history to warrant speaking about them as if they followed a common path. I think they should be dealt with separately. But, how about if, instead, we take your original paragraph from Textual history, and its good sources, and just add some specifics into it for greater clarity?
 * Thus: "The books of the Bible were written and copied by hand, initially on papyrus scrolls. No originals survive, and the oldest existing scrolls of the Hebrew Bible are copies that were made centuries after the books were first written. (I don't think this should be stated as a universal claim, however. Deuteronomy was an ongoing work, and there's just no way to know this about a lot of them.) Copies of the gospels and Paul's letters were probably made relatively quickly after the originals were written, as copies were in circulation before the end of the First century. The oldest currently existing manuscript fragment is from a codex written some time between 100 and 300. It is from the book of John which was probably written between 80 and 100. All ancient textual copies contained both errors and intentional changes, resulting in very slightly different versions of the books in circulation. These ultimately diverged into distinct lineages called "text families" or "text types." Over time, the individual scrolls of the Hebrew Bible were gathered into collections, but these collections had different scrolls, and different versions of the same scrolls, with no standard organization. (I am unsure that this is correct.) There are no extant letters of Paul that exist separately; they only exist as a collection, whereas the gospels circulated separately into the second century. Christians invented the codex, the forerunner of modern books with pages, possibly as early as the first century, to replace scrolls which were bulkier and harder to reference. These placed the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John in their current order in nearly all Greek manuscripts. Five alternative orders were followed in different geographic areas, but this order was followed by Eusebius in his Canon Tables, and was adopted by Jerome for his Latin Bible. According to Metzger, "By the middle of the fourth century huge parchment codices, called pandects, containing both the Old and New Testaments, were written, two of which have survived today, as the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus". This leaves off the last sentence which contains an error.


 * Or some version of that, that you can live with, that respects the different textual histories of the separate texts. Keep all your references, but if you won't give attributions, at least distribute them to the sentence they source. Can you compromise? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * No, we cannot come to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that overrides the global consensus such as WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, etc. The text you're suggesting above would fail WP:V. Levivich 06:36, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This article is going to provide a neutral summary of the latest mainstream scholarship about the Bible, and that much is not negotiable. So no, we're not going to replace what multiple scholars say in the 21st century with what one scholar said in the 20th century. So forget that Metzger 1987 paper, ok? It doesn't matter what Metzger said in 1987; it matters what scholars are saying today. Levivich 06:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And the codex was apparently invented by Martial in 90 CE. See the P52 article for source.
 * The scholarly consensus is that very early attestation of the New Testament is extremely scarce and fragmentary; the vast majority of NT manuscripts are from the Middle Ages. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Levivich Good night nurse, no one has suggested overriding scholarly consensus! First, you have no source that says, "this is the majority view". What you have done is assemble several sources and concluded that they create a majority view. That is WP:NOR considered original research on Wikipedia. What you have are various sources that discuss "centuries later" about the Hebrew Bible. This cannot simply be transferred to the Bible as a whole subsuming the development of the NT as if they were exactly the same. That creates an error in fact.
 * No one is attempting to present anything but but that would include Metzger. Newer is generally better, agreed; newer is especially necessary if earlier concepts are contradicted by later developments. But if earlier scholarship still stands, is still being referenced by scholars, and continues to be discussed, there is no valid reason for excluding it - while also using newer sources that support it. I don't care if Metzger gets included or not. Leave him out, that's fine, but that doesn't justify excluding the entirely separate development of the NT. Come on Levivich. Offer something. Recognize the validity of this. One path cannot be accurately claimed for both parts of the Bible. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * tgeorgescu Yes. Absolutely true. But don't you see that the fact that very early attestation of the New Testament exists at all precludes making claims about "centuries later" for the whole thing? Sure, add in that the majority of the NT manuscripts we have now are from the middle ages. Use some numbers, that would be great. Add in that  That would also be a good thing to include so the reader understands the actual facts. But surely you can see that all of this actually proves my point: the sweeping claim of 'centuries later' made for the entire Bible is not just misleading. It's wrong. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You actually did override scholarly consensus, in this edit: Special:Diff/1070701524, and I give two examples of it above as "Example 1" (replacing text cited to Lim 2017, p. 47; Ulrich 2013, pp. 103–104; VanderKam & Flint 2013, ch. 5; Brown 2010, ch. 3(A); and Harris & Platzner 2008, p. 22 with text cited to Levinson 2012) and "Example 2" (replacing text cited to Parker 2013, pp. 412–420, 430–432 and Brown 2010, ch. 3(A) with text cited to Wegner 1999). This is (partly) why I reverted your bold edits, because they overrode scholarly consensus with statements attributed to single authors, and in the latter case, from the 20th century.
 * The text you removed did not exclude the entirely separate development of the NT. First, the development of the NT is part of the Development section, not the Textual history section. Second, both sections talk directly about the NT, and are sourced to pretty much the same sources. That's sort of the point of those two sections: they, in total, summarize the latest, best, scholarship on the subject of "the Bible". The first section summarizes scholarship about how the Bible developed from its origins to present day (including the NT), and the second section summarizes scholarship about the manuscript evidence for the Bible (including the NT).
 * The text you removed did not say that there was "one path" -- I don't even really know what you mean by that. It explicitly talks about the diverging and varied paths of development of the various scriptures and canons.
 * The text you're challenging is . According to any source you choose, what is the date that "the books were first written". and what is the date of "the oldest existing scrolls"? The sources cited all provide dates that are centuries apart (minimum 5th c. BCE to 2nd c. BCE but some as much as 13th c. BCE to 2nd c. BCE), and I've given you two quotes that directly state that the distance is "centuries". What source do you have that says anything different from this? Because so far, you're challenging the truth of a statement sourced to multiple source, and you haven't provided any sources that contradict that statement. I don't understand this.
 * You ask me to offer something, but you reinstated your bold edits, entirely reverting my revert. You break WP:ONUS and WP:BRD and then ask me to offer something? What I'm offering is the sources cited, and quoted, above, that verifies the text you removed. I literally don't understand the basis of your challenge. I don't understand why you think the edits you made that I point to in Example 1 and Example 2 above are improvements, and by extension, why your reinstatement of your bold changes are improvements, in light of our discussion of these examples. Levivich 19:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich I reinstated those edits quite awhile back now. I also note that you have restored Development and I have done nothing, so stop accusing me. I have reverted nothing lately.
 * I get it, you really hate what I wrote, so let's just let my version go and come up with a compromise. Objecting to everything I do and then refusing to do anything yourself is not good faith. You are welcome to remove all of Levinson, but if you simply restore the previous version without adding in more specificity, you are restoring OR and factual error and POV.
 * Of course the statement of 'centuries later' is true concerning much of the Hebrew Bible. In my revision of your paragraph I left that, didn't I? (Though I think you should include more detail because dating is so mixed.) But you have made this a statement about the whole Bible. You made that a major point in your responses above. That paragraph is about the whole Bible. But the two texts - the Hebrew Bible and the NT - do not share the same textual history. That is fact, the majority view, the global view, the only view - and not what is in your first paragraph. If you want to dump mine and keep yours, fine, just make yours accurate. That is a must. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This edit of yours, Special:Diff/1070701524, is from Feb 8, about 48hrs ago. "Quite awhile back now"? And "you have restored Development and I have done nothing", also not accurate, you reinstated your bold edits to Development in that edit. How can I engage with you in good faith when you're not accurate about such things? Levivich 19:45, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And why do you not answer this: The text you're challenging is "the oldest existing scrolls are copies that were made centuries after the books were first written". According to any source you choose, what is the date that "the books were first written". and what is the date of "the oldest existing scrolls"? Levivich 19:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This Special:Diff/1070701524 is my last and I think only major revert. It was absolutely necessary to an action that undid the work of so many other editors and restored the problems they were seeking to address. Yes, in all the backing and forthing here, it is many edits back. It seems like this has gone on for a year now. You can engage with me in good faith because there is no other real option. You can do so for the sake of the article. You can do so because it's the right thing to do. is about the Hebrew texts and not the NT. Just say so. That's all. Give an inch. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This Special:Diff/1070701524 is three edits back (Special:Diff/1070708031, Special:Diff/1070734016, and Special:Diff/1070737767, which is the current version). Absolutely bizarre. Levivich 20:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "the oldest existing scrolls are copies that were made centuries after the books were first written" is about the Bible. It's not about the Hebrew Bible, it's about all the Bible. The Roman Catholic Bible. The Protestant Bibles. The Septuagint. The Samaritan Pentateuch. All of them. The New Testament is not a bible. It's a part of many bibles. It's not a canon unto itself; it's a part of many canons. The Hebrew Bible is a canon unto itself, but the books contained therein are parts of many other canons (Christian, Jewish, and others). This article isn't about "The Hebrew Bible and the New Testament"; it's not about "The Old Testament and the New Testament", it's about the Bible. That's a thing, as in one thing. Levivich 20:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

For heaven's sakes! It is many edits back counting all that has gone on here on the Talk page! This argument has gone on way too long and has included more text than is in this entire article! Look at it all! And most of it has been pointless. Those Diffs you list are not reverts. My one edit corrects an error in my own sentence, and the other two edits aren't even mine! What is bizarre is your continued accusations aimed at me instead of focusing on content. Address the issues, and stop taking stabs at me personally. I am trying to avoid going to Admin over all of this. Prove it. Prove that my claim of differing textual histories is wrong. Quit just restating it as if you are the authority - oh wait - you were. It's OR. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC)


 * It's cited to Lim 2017, p. 47; Ulrich 2013, pp. 103–104; VanderKam & Flint 2013, ch. 5; Brown 2010, ch. 3(A); and Harris & Platzner 2008, p. 22, which all say that the books of the Bible were first written 5th c. BCE or earlier, and the oldest scrolls of the Bible are 2nd c. BCE or later. Ulrich writes at page 84: "... the path that stretches from the original ‘authors’ to our earliest preserved manuscript evidence spans several centuries. ", and Harris & Platzner write at p. 21, "With no original texts by the Tanakh’s authors or editors surviving, scholars must rely on copies of the Hebrew Bible made many centuries after the works were first composed." and on p. 22, "Many centuries separate the time in which the older parts of the Hebrew Bible were written from that in which the earliest extant copies were made." That is the proof that the oldest existing scrolls of the Bible are copies that were made centuries after the books of the Bible were first written. Levivich 20:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed request for Third Opinion
There are too many people already involved for a TO to resolve this. If we can't find a solution ourselves, we will have to resort to Dispute Resolution. Please don't make me do that. Please offer an alternate version of Textual History that recognizes the NT and the Hebrew Bible developed in different ways. Jenhawk777 (talk)
 * Why don't we try following WP:BRD? Self-revert this edit: Special:Diff/1070701524, and then propose a change to the text here on the talk page, and see if there is consensus for the proposed change. We haven't tried this yet, and I think it would be the traditional and most efficient way forward. Levivich 19:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich I have already made a proposal. I always prefer to come to an agreement on the Talk page before making major edits if possible. If I had thought any of this was going to be controversial, I would have come here before doing any edits at all. That's my normal approach, but I was asked to come here, so I had no idea there would be objections. Let's see if we can't come to an agreement here, before taking the radical action of undoing everything all 6 editors did over a period of weeks.
 * I like your Development section; it is balanced and fair and accurate and well sourced. Surely you can do the same to Textual history once you get over being upset with me. Take my proposed revision of your initial paragraph and rework it - or just begin from your original - but please don't simply restore. Modify instead. That's the wiki way. Modify your own version and not what's there now if you like, that's fine. But a revision must include a recognition of different textual histories for the different texts. Somehow you need to find a way, because you are the one who objects to what has been added and wants to dump it all and just restore. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not my Development section; I rewrote it last year, but it's been improved by a number of others since then. What I reverted was the bold changes to it (and two other sections) since Jan 14; so it's the Jan 14 version that I reinstated; the "longstanding version" as it were (about 9 months more or less I think). Anyway, you say you like it, but you reinstated your bold changes to it in this edit: Special:Diff/1070701524. The underlying problem is that you don't have, and have never sought, consensus for these changes; after the bold edits were reverted, you simply reinstated them, in that edit. Levivich 20:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is just more discussion of what you think I've done that pissed you off. This is a waste of time and space. Discuss content. I won't respond to any more of these. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm discussing the content that you changed (in this edit: Special:Diff/1070701524) but you claim not to have changed the development section, which makes it hard to discuss. If you didn't intend to make changes to the Development section in that edit, then please partially self-revert and restore that section. Levivich 21:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Textual History
Levinson is gone, due to popular nose-thumbing. I have now restored Levivich's previous text - mostly - minus only the problems and errors, and with some additions that hopefully add clarity. I mostly used Livivich's sources, although a set of five sources, cited together in a lump, 8 times, even when they did not all say what was paraphrased and credited to them, struck me as not the best approach, so - except for once - I broke them up individually and cited them only for what they actually said. At least I hope that's what I did.

Livivich's sources - that I also used - are: Timothy H. Lim, a Professor of Hebrew Bible & Second Temple Judaism at the School of Divinity in Edinburgh; Eugene Charles Ulrich, a Dead Sea scrolls scholar and Professor of Hebrew Scripture and Theology at Notre Dame; James VanderKam, a Professor of Hebrew Scriptures at Notre Dame; Raymond Edward Brown, an American Catholic priest, a member of the Sulpician Fathers, and a prominent biblical scholar; Stephen L. Harris, Professor of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State; and Robert Leonard Platzner, a humanities and religious studies professor also at California State. I also added: Paul D. Wegner, professor of Old Testament at Phoenix Seminary in California, and David M. Carr, Professor of Old Testament at Union Theological Seminary in NYC. If I missed any others, I apologize.

I hope this puts conflict over this section to rest, and that everyone is okay with this effort. It's a good faith effort. Thank you Levivich for all your passion and concern for making a quality encyclopedia. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Let me explain what I mean that you have an evangelical POV: I'm not against Christian professors, I am against hiding under the carpet the fact that the Bible has problems/difficulties. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * tgeorgescu In what way, and where, do you think that has been done? Do you want more discussion of variants? It already has a whole paragraph and a part of another. Please, if you would, specifics would be helpful. What exactly would you like to see that you think isn't there?
 * If you don't accept my claims about myself and my NPOV, then at least acknowledge that I used no evangelical sources. Please note the sources that you previously supported using, described above, are at religious schools - and one priest. I didn't pick them. I just reused them. The two I added are also professors of the same type and category – it should probably be noted that none of the sources were experts on the New Testament. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I spoke of the diffs presented by Levivich, therein it does seem you try to pamper the fact that the Bible has difficulties. If that's still apparent after your edits I didn't check.
 * So, yeah, I would include the traditional (conservative) response rather than gloss over the fact that the Bible has difficulties, contradictions, errors, and so on.
 * If you did not want to gloss over, then why replace Cambridge University Press and Yale University Press with Baker Books?
 * Why state in the voice of Wikipedia something published by the Evangelical Theological Society, but use WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for something published at a mainstream academic publisher?
 * Scholars who profess biblical inerrancy cannot be trusted to apply the historical method to the Bible. Why? Because the historical method is based upon assumptions which inevitably give the lie to inerrancy. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * tgeorgescu Why start this all over again? No more WP:PA, please. I will only discuss current article Content, and unless you are saying that one of the sources Livivich used is an inerrantist, I have no idea who you are referring to. Refer to content and sources in the article only, and use good sources to do so. Otherwise our only recourse will be Dispute Resolution. They will insist on no PA, specific content based discussion, and sources to support your position. They will want to see if you made that good faith effort here. They will see that I have. You will need to show something other than a rehash of Livivich's false attacks on me personally to make your case. That's what I was hoping for when I asked what you meant, in hopes of compromise and resolution here. I am quite willing to add more discussion of anything you think is overlooked. Instead I get more of the same accusations about my motives. I suggest it might be reasonable to do so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * tgeorgescu In an effort to demonstrate good faith, I have removed the reference you found objectionable. Neither of the Baker Books references currently in the article are my citations, though there is nothing wrong with them. I didn't remove Cambridge University Press or Yale University Press - at least not that I am aware of. See, this is only one aspect of the problems created when focusing on the editor instead of the content.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * There are so many versions that I no longer know of which version do you speak. So, yes, I checked Levivich's diffs, I did not check the whole article (which version?). tgeorgescu (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * tgeorgescu The current version of the article. What diff did you check and what did you go looking for? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Search this talk page for words starting with Special: and you will see what I have checked. I don't think that at that time Levivich was mistaken, just that you were amenable for criticism and you complied. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * tgeorgescu Don't expect me to go back over everything Livivich would and wouldn't address. Do you see the amount of text up there? I feel bad for you if you attempted to review all the times they mention the same revert! Some diffs they mention weren't even mine. Some were fair criticisms. I cooperated where I could, of course, and will continue to do so wherever I can. In my view, disagreements don't have to be over your way, or my way, as there is always a third way. For example, the summary of intentional variants was objected to on the grounds it was POV, but I knew it was right, so I went and found a book edited by Bart Ehrman that contains the same concepts and added it. Can't be accused of POV with Ehrman. I am not the only editor to have worked on this page over the last few weeks, so all the complaints were not all my edits. I am just the most verbal one who came here to the talkpage to try and work things out. At any rate, there is always only ever one current version of any page. I hope you will check it for any problems, and I will happily work with you to fix/revert/adjust them in any way I can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It would be worth putting the council of Rome (382) in the lead ?
The article says: "The list of books included in the Catholic Bible was established as the biblical canon by the Councils of Hippo in 393 and in Carthage in 397." but omits the council held at Rome in 382 which gives another canonical books list. Opinions about it? --Rafaelosornio (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, Rafaelosornio the lead is just a summary of what's in the body of the article, and I don't see that discussed anywhere – am I missing it? It seems like it should be in there somewhere. I say Be Bold! Add it in. Then it could be alluded to in the lead.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Rafaelosornio Well done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

On the recent revert: Is there any history in the Bible?
I spent a few hours and could find no scholar that gives an absolute 'no' answer to this question. There may be one out there, but they cannot be considered a majority. The sources pretty much all say both yes and no, there is history, it's just not all perfectly accurate history. But then no ancient histories are. Arguments about the accuracy of Tacitus or Josephus don't claim they were not attempts to write history just because they contain some inaccuracies.


 * Yes and no. Amihai Mazar argues that an archaeological perspective justifies a middle–of–the–road position. Even though the OT texts that now exist were probably originally written during the seventh century BC, they incorporate early material which predates writing and contains kernels of valid historical data.


 * Yes and no. I like this one: "The historical value of the Bible is not entirely absent". Bodine recommends a cautious approach: "while each detail should be taken into account and carefully weighed, it does not follow that Kings, Chronicles, or other texts are historically worthless and devoid of any value"..


 * Yes and no. Archaeology shows that David the outlaw contains "germs of genuine early history", that David's wars, Rise, and succession fit the archaeological evidence from the period of the fall of the Northern Kingdom, and no thereafter.


 * Yes and no.


 * Yes, the book of Acts contains a "good secular history."


 * Both Luke and Acts contain history.


 * Yes, Acts is generally historical.


 * Yes and no.


 * Yes.


 * Yes and no.


 * Yes.


 * Yes.


 * Yes.

History is suitable to include in the lead's sentence "These texts include ..." because the Bible does include historical texts however inaccurate they may or may not be. A discussion about the accuracy and dependability of these histories can be added to the body of the text. They are histories whether they are true or not. It is OR to simply exclude it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I should have pinged Levivich. Please excuse the oversight.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * " it's just not all perfectly accurate history" I doubt if there is anyone alive who claims it is an accurate historical account. The problem tends to be that it offers a rather distorted history of certain periods, and a clearly biased one on others. The Books of Kings for example were written from a Kingdom of Judah-perspective, and depict all Kings of Israel as "uniformly bad". Dimadick (talk) 08:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, Bible people. My view is that per the WP:WEIGHT given to Bible in this particular article, it's reasonable to let that aspect of the topic be folded into "narratives" in the WP:LEAD. Even if the kernels are not entirely absent, "narratives" fit. History/Historicity has too much devil in the details for the lead, so let's just jump over it as in the current version. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dimadick and GGS. Including "history" in the list would be misleading, and isn't supported by 21st-century mainstream scholarship. Levivich 15:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Dimadick is still a statement that it contains history. It has to be there to be evaluated. If the only ancient history accepted as history are those without bias or inaccuracies, then there is no ancient history.
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång Narrative and history are not the same. If you consider that history is in the archaeology section, then it has a place in the lead.
 * Levivich Find a source that says there is no history in the Bible. Otherwise this is pure OR.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's not OR. It's not like we say "X" unless a source says "not X". We say "X" if and only if "X" is an accurate, NPOV summary of mainstream modern scholarship. In this case, "The text includes history" is not an accurate, NPOV summary of mainstream modern scholarship. As a starting point, you'd need multiple modern mainstream scholarly sources saying "The text includes history". I'm really surprised an editor with your level of experience would even make this argument.
 * Also, false history is not "history".
 * All that aside, of course there are sources that say the Bible doesn't contain history. For example, Barton 2010 ("The Bible: The Basics", Routledge), pages 2-3, a section called "Truth": Barton is saying quite directly that the Bible does not contain accurate, factual historical truth, and that--other than Biblical literalists such as creationists--the truth of the Bible "may sometimes be poetic or symbolic truth rather than factual truth". Levivich 16:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No, they are not the same, but a narrative can be a "manner of conveying a story, fictional or otherwise, in a body of work." History is not excluded from the term. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich except what you have here does not say that. What you quote is an evaluation of the history in the Bible, and it has to be there to be evaluated. This is an evaluation of something you say isn't there. That is self-contradictory.
 * This isn't about "truth". This is about how we identify the kind of writing that we call history.
 * It is history as they saw it and interpreted and wrote it, but no scholars claim these Greek and Roman and other ancient histories are not histories because of that. The same standard must be applied to the Bible texts if there is to be any hope of a NPOV.
 * To go from interpretation of histories in the Bible to saying that means there is no history in the Bible is pure OR, as there is no source that defines "history" in that manner.
 * Your argument applies special pleading to the Bible, and treats it differently from all other ancient texts. That is most decidedly not NPOV.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång There might be some overlap in the idea that they both tell of connected events, but the definition of history requires those events be an attempt at recording the past which is different from narrative. Please note there is no definition of history that requires accuracy or the absence of bias in order to qualify as a kind of writing we call history. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "Barton is saying quite directly that the Bible does not contain accurate, factual historical truth" The text you quoted does not state this at all. Barton starts with referring to modern Christians which seek symbolic meaning in the creation narrative of the Book of Genesis, and their view of God/Yahweh as a creator deity. (Which to be honest, is the primary way Genesis depicts him.) The second part addresses the obvious contradictions in the narratives of four different Gospels. But states that modern Christians do not really care about when an event in the narratives happened, but what is the event's underlying meaning. Barton is not talking about the historicity of the Biblical texts, he is talking about the way these texts are perceived by modern Christians. Dimadick (talk) 19:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Bodine, Joshua J ref
Per I wonder if this is a source we should use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * OOPs! Should have checked that. Will remove. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Archaeological and historical research section
The last paragraph, "The earliest material culture that is archaeologically recognizable as distinctly Christian..." seems to go off-topic a bit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång Might as well check my revisions to the 'Version and translation' section too while you're at it. I appreciate having someone check my work. I do occasionally make mistakes, and it's good to know I am not just left alone on my own in verifying accuracy and dependability. I am grateful to think I stand with a group of people all committed to the same standard, all looking out for each other. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

A Modest Proposal
@OgamD218 @Gråbergs Gråa Sång @Dimadick @Levivich  @Tgeorgescu @Jheald @ Markbassett

Without letting this 'consume' anyone, I want to give a short recap.


 * On the 17th of November, 2019 Game4brains edited in the original version of the contested content:


 * On 9 June, 2020, Redslash changed "embellished" to "focused" here:


 * Other changes to the list were made along the way, till we get to ours:


 * On 15 February, 2022, Gråbergs Gråa Sång removed "historical accounts" from the lead and replaced it with "narratives". Here is the diff for that one:


 * I thought I was putting the same thing back, but used the word "history" instead, which was then reverted, correctly, and I came here, using the same term as though history and historical accounts, etc. were interchangeable, and that confused everything. Mea culpa. Still you all worked around me offering several good suggestions:
 * : Dimadick) 18:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * : Gråbergs Gråa Sång 08:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * : Markbassett 04:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I also offered

Levivich wrote a legitimate question that gets to the nut of everything that's been discussed: Is that true? Jenhawk777 03:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I have "voted" in favor of each of these, but there has been no consensus. Mountains of text later, we do not seem closer to resolution, but there is no real reason why. Combined with all the qualified "yeses" in the above RFC, I personally think we can find a way for the valid addition of "hist-something" in a phrase we can all agree on. Can we get a consensus? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * "There are lots of modern scholarly overviews of the Bible" so no one source is dispositive. Levivich 00:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and "most" of them form a majority view, which is what was referred to in the source, and is what we go by. Markbasset has now suggested closing the RFC. See above under "Arbitrary break". Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

citation needed tags
There are currently 14 'citation needed' tags. Would anyone like to help in getting rid of these?


 * under Tanak "The name Tanakh (Hebrew: תנ"ך‎) reflects the threefold division of the Hebrew scriptures, Torah ("Teaching"), Nevi'im ("Prophets") and Ketuvim ("Writings").[citation needed]"
 * There are no doubt better sources for this, but in lieu of those, I found an adequate one, if anyone wants to check it out before I insert it: Page 651, footnote 1. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * under Ketuvim: "These three books are also the only ones in Tanakh with a special system of cantillation notes that are designed to emphasize parallel stichs within verses. However, the beginning and end of the book of Job are in the normal prose system.[citation needed]"
 * This was apparently taken directly from a religious site called "Filadelfia Ministries"; no wonder there was no citation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I found this: Parallelism was found early in the study of Hebrew poetry such as that found in the book of Psalms. "Stichs" are the lines that make up a verse "the parts of which lie parallel as to form and content". (page 33) Hebrew cantillation is the manner of chanting ritual readings as they are written and notated in the Masoretic Text of the Bible. Psalms, Job and Proverbs form a group with a "special system" of accenting used only in these three books. (page 12). Will that do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * under other books: "Besides the three books and the five scrolls, the remaining books in Ketuvim are Daniel, Ezra–Nehemiah and Chronicles. Although there is no formal grouping for these books in the Jewish tradition, they nevertheless share a number of distinguishing characteristics:[citation needed]"
 * What I found: on page 12: "The books of Esther, Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah and Chronicles share a distinctive style that no other Hebrew literary text, biblical or extra-biblical, shares.(p=23) They were not written in the normal style of Hebrew of the post-exilic period. The authors of these books must have chosen to write in that distinctive style for unknown reasons.(page 24)"Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * under book order: "References in the four Gospels as well as other books of the New Testament indicate that many of these texts were both commonly known and counted as having some degree of religious authority early in the 1st century CE.[citation needed]"
 * ✅ used source already in article Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Book of Enoch: "However, the Enoch books are treated as canonical by the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church and Eritrean Orthodox Tewahedo Church.[citation needed]"
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Deuterocanon: "In general it can be said that Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches embrace part of these books as part of the biblical canon, while newer denominations with roots in the Reformation to varying degrees reject those as part of the canon.[citation needed]


 * In Eastern Christianity, translations based on the Septuagint still prevail. The Septuagint was generally abandoned in favour of the 10th-century Masoretic Text as the basis for translations of the Old Testament into Western languages.[citation needed]


 * Some modern Western translations since the 14th century make use of the Septuagint to clarify passages in the Masoretic Text, where the Septuagint may preserve a variant reading of the Hebrew text.[citation needed] "


 * In addition to those, the Greek and Russian Orthodox Churches recognize the following:[citation needed]

1 Esdras Prayer of Manasseh Psalm 151 Russian and Georgian Orthodox Churches include:[citation needed]
 * 3 Maccabees

There is also 4 Maccabees which is only accepted as canonical in the Georgian Church. It is an appendix to the Greek Orthodox Bible, and it is therefore sometimes included in collections of the Apocrypha.[citation needed]
 * 2 Esdras i.e., Latin Esdras in the Russian and Georgian Bibles

The Syriac Orthodox Church includes:[citation needed]"


 * under Ethiopian canon: "In addition to the books found in the Septuagint accepted by other Orthodox Christians, the Ethiopian Old Testament Canon uses Enoch and Jubilees (ancient Jewish books that only survived in Ge'ez, but are quoted in the New Testament),[citation needed] Greek Ezra and the Apocalypse of Ezra, 3 books of Meqabyan, and Psalm 151 at the end of the Psalter.


 * The three books of Meqabyan are not to be confused with the books of Maccabees. The order of the other books is somewhat different from other groups', as well. The Old Testament follows the Septuagint order for the Minor Prophets rather than the Jewish order.[citation needed]"

All contributions are appreciated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I've been looking a bit, but gbooks are kinda stingy. Perhaps a few of these could be weeded? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gråbergs Gråa Sång I am currently working on the last set of problems - I think - which are all under deuterocanon. I have refs for the last two already, just haven't had time to put them in.Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * These are all ✅ and ✅ now, and it was a huge pain in my patooty, and part of this "WP experience" that I most hate, but I hate citation tags even more, so I got them all, finally! They went down! No one better fuss at me! If you don't like my references, find your own. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If I find something to whine about, I will. It may not surprise you that my area of Sweden is known as "The whining belt". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)