Talk:Bible/Archive 19

RFC about history in the Bible
Should the lead include history in the list of types of writing found in the Bible? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2022 (UTC) Please see discussion in section 20, immediately above. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:31, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * No Per my comment above, I think it's reasonable to exclude that particular can of worms from the lead. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Striking per new comments below. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes because to not list history is OR, POV, against fact, special pleading and just bad logic. Those that don't want to include it do so based on evaluations of the historical content as flawed, but this is simple logic: history must be in the Bible in order for it to be evaluated as flawed! This isn't about its veracity. This is simply a list of types of writings in the Bible. You can't doubt the veracity of something that isn't there!


 * Basing our exclusion of history on our evaluation of it is pure POV. History is in fact one of the "genres" of the types of writings in the Bible.


 * Putting it in the list in the lead simply acknowledges the fact that the Bible contains writings that were written as histories and were viewed as histories for millennia. That's fact. Recent evaluations have found multiple flaws and inconsistencies in the details of those histories. That's also fact. That doesn't mean those histories suddenly jumped into another genre of writing. Ancient histories do not have modern accuracy, and they are still called 'history'. To say otherwise is to treat the biblical histories differently from other ancient histories, and that too is POV.


 * But the most significant and most important argument here is that we do not have the right to just decide for ourselves to exclude what all those sources above say is in the Bible just because we don't like the "can of worms". That's as OR as it gets. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes We can refer to the historical books of the Bible, a grouping of 12 books. Just avoid giving the impression that they are in any way reliable. Dimadick (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a suggested wording for the lead that does this? The current lead-text on the OT is "Christianity began as an outgrowth of Judaism, using the Septuagint as the basis of the Old Testament." And is the historical books what you think is meant by "history" in the OP? The rest of the article doesn't mention them, why should they be in the lead? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No - I had reverted "The text includes history" in the lead because "includes history" implies actual history, as in true, reliable history. When most modern academic sources describe "what's in the bible", they say stories, poems, hymns, proverbs, prayers, parables, rules, prophecies, a lot of things... but not "history". The bible has a lot of things in it, but the one thing it does not have is an accurate account of past events. "Narratives" is a better word. Saying "history" suggests biblical inerrancy and should not be stated in the lead like this. Levivich 21:02, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich The definition you use of is a modern one if it exists at all. It is certainly not applicable to ancient history. You must find a source that says the classification of a literary work as history depends upon its accuracy. Otherwise this is just a combination of ignorance and OR.   Think that's about the Bible?  It's about early Greek history.  This  is not a verifiable claim.  And please, this hangup with biblical inerrancy is baffling as well. It's a strawman, a red herring. It sidetracks the discussion. No one has advocated it. No one supports it. You are arguing against something that isn't there in order to prevent the inclusion of something that is. Stop. Please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Dimadick I so appreciate your reasonableness and the offering of a compromise. This goes further than the sources do,  but I am willing to meet you there anyway. We can just say that: The Bible contains ideologically motivated ancient histories that are in many cases factually unreliable. Would that do?  Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång This is not It's the opening to the paragraph on Christianity and the New Testament. The OT paragraph begins with  But the sentence being discussed is in neither of those paragraphs. It's in the first paragraph.  Then it immediately says,  conveying the idea that decisions of acceptance have always been made about the Bible. You ask Dimadick if he has a suggested wording for the lead; I have now suggested something.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Dimadick suggested we refer to Historical books in the lead, a Christian "thing" (according to WP), part of Christian OT. When I said OT I meant Christian OT, sorry if that was unclear.
 * My opinion remains that the current "theologically-focused narratives" covers "The Bible contains ideologically motivated ancient histories that are in many cases factually unreliable." good enough for WP:LEAD purposes. "in many cases" can be read (if one wants to) like "so were saying it's about 65% factually reliable, then?" Hopefully more editors will have opinions.
 * Off topic, but out of curiosity I looked at the lead of Quran. It says "It sometimes offers detailed accounts of specific historical events, and it often emphasizes the moral significance of an event over its narrative sequence.[28]" Hebrew Bible and Torah leads doesn't mention this aspect. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How about this addition to the current text, new text in bold:
 * "...include theologically-focused narratives, some of which include historical events,..."
 * "Include" can be something else, like allude to, mention etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Let me explain: the Bible does not include history in its modern meaning. It includes ancient rhetoric and propaganda, i.e. tall stories, which the gullible conflate with history in its modern meaning. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * 1. thank you for your incredibly open minded input.
 * 2. Yes-assuming the wording is proper. Certainly the bible in and of itself cannot be generalized/describable as a reliable historical account. However, given that the lead includes a total of 9 other subjects found in the books of the bible it would be a serious breach to exclude history. Given the breadth of topics mentioned in the lead already, 'history' can be discerned from "narratives", "parables", "prophecies" etc whose historicity is wholly a matter of faith (not to be defined as history by an encyclopedia). Multiple books/portions of the bible, were composed primarily as and in fact are historically accurate by the standards of sources from the time period and are to a more than token extent reliable. I agree that "narrative" is most often the better term and would not necessarily include portions of the bible that include some proven historical accuracies but were none the less composed primarily as one of the other 9 subjects. OgamD218 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No to the addition of the single word "history" after "These texts include..."; the word is too ambiguous to be thrown in like that without further comment. Yes to a sentence or two summarising the section #Archaeological and historical research (after that section has been properly sourced), with a wikilink to Historicity of the Bible. It's a significant aspect of the subject, and therefore ought to be included in the lead, but it needs more than a cursory mention. Dan from A.P. (talk) 15:03, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * No There's precious little history in the Bible. Jheald (talk) 17:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Jheald Precious little is still there. We can't just decide on our own to exclude something we know is there. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes- it seems obvious that the lead should include history in the line characterizing the content "These texts include theologically-focused narratives, hymns, prayers, proverbs, parables, didactic letters, admonitions, poetry, and prophecies."  There is a large number of the books explicitly stated as Historical books, even naming it such for Books of Chronicles. These were intended as a record of the past: History.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:14, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Our article on Historical books says We probably shouldn't use a misleading term. Levivich 04:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Most scholars give serious credit to narrative books of it as being efforts to be historical accounts, and some credibility particularly the era of Kings, Chronicles and Acts. The events of the more ancient descriptions of prophets and judges capturing verbal accounts circa 2000 BCE are viewed as less precise.  But in all cases, there are factual conquests and migrations being described.  If they portray the Kingdom of Israel as more wealthy or virtuous than it may deserve does not mean it is not a historical narrative.  Certainly there is more ‘history’ content by volume than there is of other types of content in the list so I think it deserves prominent mention in describing the content.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No This is just creating a WP:SEAOFBLUE with little value in the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:25, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed leadtext
Current version, excludes "history":
 * These texts include theologically-focused narratives, hymns, prayers, proverbs, parables, didactic letters, admonitions, poetry, and prophecies.

Live versions from earlier this week, before Jenhawk started talkpage discussion, oldest first:
 * These texts include theologically-focused historical accounts, hymns, prayers, proverbs, parables, didactic letters, admonitions, essays, poetry, and prophecies.
 * These texts include theologically-focused historical accounts, hymns, prayers, proverbs, parables, didactic letters, admonitions, essays, poetry, and prophecies.
 * These texts include theologically-focused narratives, hymns, prayers, proverbs, parables, didactic letters, admonitions, essays, poetry, and prophecies.
 * These texts include history, theologically-focused narratives, hymns, prayers, proverbs, parables, didactic letters, admonitions, essays, poetry, and prophecies.

New suggestions:
 * Jenhawk suggests adding: "The Bible contains ideologically motivated ancient histories that are in many cases factually unreliable."
 * I suggest changing the current text with the bolded: "...include theologically-focused narratives, some of which include historical events,..."

If you have something to add, please do! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång Yes to "...include theologically-focused narratives, some of which include historical events,..." it is accurate and includes all the facts just fine. Well done. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Levivich This: is a perfectly reasonable and valid question. It should be investigated through good sources. That requires mentioning history in the Bible. On the other hand is a personal evaluation, OR, again, requiring a minimalist POV. Still, you very reasonably close with. Alright then, let's get on with that.
 * Is everyone else okay with this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How could it possibly be otherwise? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * ha ha!! You're a lunatic and I love you for it. Thank you for bringing a little humor back! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dimadick, @Levivich, @Tgeorgescu, @OgamD218, @DanFromAnotherPlace and @Jheald, sorry for nagging, but if you're willing, I'd like your yes or no on this specific proposal/compromise/solution/whatever. I know it's a molehill, but enough molehills and we get a mountain. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the effort and don't want to be a stick in the mud but I don't really like it. What historical events are in the Bible? It seems they are such a tiny part of it--we all agree that the Bible isn't a history book, so why is it important that we say "some of which include historical events"? It's like the only reason to say that is to say "some of which is true". Why are we emphasizing that? Wouldn't a more accurate way to say it be "almost none of which are historically accurate"? Maybe it's just me but I think it's important to emphasize the Bible isn't historically accurate, as oppose to emphasizing that some parts are. Most importantly: the sources. There are lots of modern scholarly overviews of the Bible that say things like "the Bible includes this, that, and the other thing"... which of those, in their list of what's-in-the-Bible, mention any word starting with "hist" (history, historical, historicity, etc.)? If the majority of sources mention "historical accounts", I'd be in favor of it, but I'm not seeing that in 21st century scholarship. Levivich 16:22, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * On what historical events, I was thinking Babylonian captivity, Fall of Babylon, Crucifixion of Jesus, stuff like that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I tentatively agree. Much of what we know for the Maccabean Revolt derives from 1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees. These books have a better claim to historicity than most of the others in this collection. Dimadick (talk) 07:25, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

As I am the only one who has referenced any sources in this discussion, I am going to begin with the first one I found: This is a book that is a collection of papers given at an archaeology symposium in Jerusalem. Every chapter mentions history in the Bible. One small example is on page 223, footnote 13, which refers to the Deuteronomistic History.

Amihai Mazar, an archaeologist at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, is the author of chapter 7. He also asks, "What historical events are in the Bible?" He writes that "the periods of the Judges and early monarchy provide a valid general framework for Israelite history." (p.86) The accurate and specific knowledge of Late Bronze Age political structure in Judges, the definition of Hazor in Josh.11:10, and the burning of the city is supported by archaeological evidence. (p.86-87) The network of 250 Iron Age I settlements in the central hill country reflect pre-monarchic Israelite society 'as described in the biblical narratives'.(p.87) He lists 8 more concerning the Settlement era, which I won't list because of length.

He then says, "there are other instances in which disagreement between the biblical tradition and archaeology exists".(p.89) 'History' in the biblical texts does not depend upon accuracy.

From pages 90-93 he discusses 12 examples that cover current scholarship on the United Monarchy. (p.89) There is a lot of debate and disagreement; there is no majority view. Mazar divides modern views on a spectrum, saying there is no majority view about how much history there is in the Hebrew Bible.(p.85) However, as each chapter is written by a different author, and every chapter discusses historical biblical accounts - albeit some negatively - it seems this satisfies the requirement

But just in case... Bodine describes the “historical looking” sections of the Bible as "historiography" which he says (p.50, fn.3)

Let's skip up to the New Testament. This is OUP. (No inerrancy here even if it is NT.) Barrett calls Acts history 20 times, literally.

There are 12 sources in my list above, and all of them are consistent with this, even the negative ones. I really went looking for those, but even there I couldn't find anyone who said there was no history in the Bible. I won't inflict them all on you, but I do hope this will help achieve some closure on this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I support 's version. Here is a WP:RS/AC source: tgeorgescu (talk)  22:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * tgeorgescu Excellent. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Both the patriarchal period and the Exodus-related narratives were doubted for much of the 20th century. The historicity of the monarchical period and events after the Babylonian captivity has been much debated in recent decades, due in part to archaeological findings. The existence of David and Solomon is rather doubtful, but archaeologists found evidence for such kings as Ahab and Hezekiah. Dimadick (talk) 07:41, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to have WP:INTERPOLATEd yourself into Jenhawks comment above ("I tentatively agree. Much of..."), careful about that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned, tgeorgescu has resolved the issue decisively. He has a source, and that source actually discusses the majority view: there is agreement on the lack of historicity, the questionable historicity, and that . 's version is an acceptable paraphrase of the overall view. Do @Dimadick, @Levivich,  @OgamD218, @DanFromAnotherPlace and @Jheald agree? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dimadick, @Levivich, @Jenhawk777, @DanFromAnotherPlace and @Jheald. Not to go off track but my understanding was that while serious scholarship long doubted at least to a significant extent the historical veracity of the patriarchs and the exodus story-but with regards the monarchical period it is widely agreed that Solomon and David existed as Kings of either or both Israel and Judah, though the bible profoundly exaggerates the extent of their power and wealth with the modern debate being just how extreme was the exaggeration while simultaneously accepting the historical existence of the men themselves. It is news to me that the historicity of the Babylonian Captivity is still seriously doubted, my understanding was and remains that this event has been conclusively found to have occurred and is generally at least recorded accurately in the bible. All this being said I'll get to the part that matters the most, I'm not certain what exact wording is being proposed but I would support inclusion of the sentence. I feel this would suffice to cover the issue in the lead without getting too wordy or inciting controversy. But hey that's just my opinion. OgamD218 (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * From my recollections (I don't always trust my memory), David's historical existence tends to rely on the Tel Dan stele, which seems to use the phrase "House of David" for the Kings of Judah. Although this reading is in dispute. Solomon has a more doubtful existence, as his name is not mentioned in inscriptions. The Babylonian captivity seems to have affected the Jewish elite more than the overall Jewish population. The territories of Judah were not depopulated. Quoting from the main article:


 * "Archaeological excavations and surveys have enabled the population of Judah before the Babylonian destruction to be calculated with a high degree of confidence to have been approximately 75,000. Taking the different biblical numbers of exiles at their highest, 20,000, this would mean that only about 25% of the population had been deported to Babylon, with the remaining 75% staying in Judah. Although Jerusalem was destroyed and depopulated, with large parts of the city remaining in ruins for 150 years, numerous other settlements in Judah continued to be inhabited, with no signs of disruption visible in archaeological studies." Dimadick (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * (@OgamD218)That was indeed the wording proposed, thanks for replying. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion on this, but since I'm being pinged, I'm not keen on the proposal. Inserting "some of which include historical events" into a list of genres seems like an unnecessary sidetrack; if I saw that in the article without having seen this discussion, I would think it had been added by someone with a POV to push. As Levivich says above, it's a bit odd to emphasise the historical aspects of the Bible in the first three sentences, when that's a very minor part of what the Bible is. The sources provided by Jenhawk777 in this discussion have all been specifically about the historicity of the Bible, so of course they mention history a lot. What Levivich is saying (I think) is that general overviews of the entire subject of "the Bible" typically don't give history such a prominent place among genres of Biblical writing. Also, specifically addressing the proposed wording, I think it makes the sentence too confusing: "These texts include theologically-focused narratives, some of which include historical events, hymns, prayers, proverbs..." It's not clear whether the hymns etc. are included in the texts or in the theologically-focused narratives. You'd at least need to throw a semicolon in there, which would overcomplicate the sentence.As I say, I don't feel strongly about this, mostly because I suspect this question will be revisited once the ongoing rewrite is finished. Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, it's better to wait until the article is stable before stressing about the lead text. Dan from A.P. (talk) 11:23, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey Dan from A.P. as Graebergs says, thank you for replying, but now I have a question. Since the Bible is composed of multiple genres, that's a very minor part of what the Bible is is a comparative I am not familiar with. I don't know what percentage of the Bible is poetry, or what percentage is prophecy, or how that would even be divided up, or by whom, since there is disagreement about what is what. And it seems to me that, even if you are right, and history is a minor part, it is still a part of it. For us to decide on our own to just leave out an entire category because we think it isn't big enough seems like OR to me. Does it not seem so to you? Shouldn't all the categories that scholars mention be included?Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Short answer: no I started writing a longer answer but I feel like I'd just be repeating myself. I don't mean to sound curt, but I've stated my position and I'd like to leave it at that. I'm not invested enough in this to want to get into a lengthy discussion. Dan from A.P. (talk) 20:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Dan from A.P. I apologize. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Prefer the second phrasing "These texts include theologically-focused historical accounts, hymns, prayers, proverbs, parables, didactic letters, admonitions, essays, poetry, and prophecies."
 * Exclude "some of which include" as excessive because the line already starts with "includes" as in listing parts. So it does not need to be said again at this any more than the other bits need to have "some of which include poetry, some of which include prophecies,...".
 * Reject adding a whole line to get " in many cases factually unreliable." as just pushing OR or POV and taking too long to do it. It is unreasonable to think people expect reliability of any history, much less one thousands of years old and said theologically-focused.  And the wikilink to historical accounts can be followed for more detail.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes A reasonable and intelligent suggestion Markbassett. Thank you.
 * If we wanted to, we could legitimately boil down what's in the Bible to three categories: Theological or moral exposition, historical accounts, and literature of different types. At least I have a source for that. :-) But suggesting this would upset people even more, so I support your approach as the most reasonable one so far. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)


 * That was the version that made me change "historical accounts" (even after I added the wikilink) to "narratives". I'm fine with "stories" too but thought "narratives" more inclusive/generally acceptable. It (your preferred phrasing) reads like WP saying "Creation, flood, Jacob wrestling, Exodus, fifty thousand and seventy men dying for looking at the ark etc etc are historical, they're just a bit theologically-focused." Hence my suggestion of the "some of which include" version, if "narratives" needs improvement (DanFromAnotherPlace makes a decent argument IMO). "Historical accounts" (or just "accounts", really) in WP-voice reads to me "Yup, that happened as written, pretty much." I think it relates to MOS:SAID.
 * Noting that I removed "essays" awhile back since it wasn't mentioned in the article text. I think "parables" could also be removed as it is covered by "narratives" and also has nothing in the article text.
 * Short version:No. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The RFC question is whether to mention history... Given how much the of the articles talks about the content being that and how many of the books are historical - even explicitly titled chronicles and acts I think WP:LEAD and logic says include as to the RFC question and we just need wording.  The “theologically-focused historical narrative” seems a reasonably neutral summary and best of the choices shown.  The word “historical” is descriptive of the nature not the accuracy, see use in “historical fiction” or “historical fact”.   Adding more distance is unnecessary and not a match to article content or balance - making it “some of which is accurate and some of which is inaccurate” is just more than needed.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 13:28, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If your suggestion now is "These texts include theologically-focused historical narratives, hymns, prayers..." I'm not too happy about that version either. What makes "theologically-focused historical narratives" "top-dog" here? IMO, "theologically-focused narratives" is a more reasonable intro of this sentence. "Religious stories" is fine too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Narratives" is a specific literary term, from literary criticism. Literary criticism works from the POV of the Bible as literature, and they always say that because it is a category classification, and it automatically excludes history and includes other things. It includes assumptions. There are 'historical accounts' in the Bible - many of which are factually inaccurate - and some which are accurate. But in reality, that in itself a red herring, because Mark is right: ; just as "literature" and "narrative" are descriptive of the nature, the genre, of any piece of text. In biblical criticism, if a historical account is what's being evaluated, that's how it's referred to. But I have come to the conclusion we are never going to agree on this. The arguments are all circular. So we go round and round. I am discouraged and frustrated and am probably done here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:48, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I said it (with the wikilink) was the best of the 5 stated choices. I’d be happier to alter or drop the “theologically-focused” because basically that isn’t a great overall descriptive - I mean  “theologically-focused” describes Summa theologiea or the Baltimore Catechism, works actually focused on the theology.   When we’re describing the nature of a part and its style of writing, just “poetry” or “psalms” or “historical narrative” all seem enough.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång and Markbassett One more try. What would you think of adding, at the very end of the list rather than the beginning, "...prophecy, and some theologically-focused historical accounts"? I only used accounts instead of narrative so as not to be repetitive. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't like it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So I understand correctly, the suggestion is "These texts include theologically-focused narratives, hymns, prayers, proverbs, parables, didactic letters, commandments, poetry, prophecies, and some theologically-focused historical accounts"?
 * Noting that I think this sentence should start with a version of "religious stories" (as it does. Is "religious narratives" better?). I could go with "myths" ("Biblical mythology" doesn't work), but my WP-sense tells me that would not be unproblematic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you're right, "myths" would become as problematic as history has been as it carries a lot of extra baggage and has multiple popular definitions that don't necessarily line up with academic ones. The "theologically focused" at the front of the list would go away. The list would just begin with "narratives", which the Bible has without including histories in that list, thereby setting "theologically focused historical accounts" apart from the other items in the list. That would modify history separately, which is part of what I am getting that you want. If you don't like this, offer something that attempts to meet us halfway. Maybe you don't agree 100%, but if each of us holds out for 100% our way, we will never get anywhere. What would you consider a compromise that acknowledges the fact that there is some history in the Bible, which is now in the article, without going down the rabbit trail of veracity in the lead? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggested one earlier in this thread, on February 18. It got some acceptance, but afaict, not consensus. Atm I have no further inspiration. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Or how about this. The last lead-paragraph has this sentence: "The study of the Bible through biblical criticism has indirectly impacted culture and history as well."
 * We expand that to "The study of the Bible through biblical criticism has indirectly impacted culture and history as well, and the subject of biblical historicity keeps developing with new scholarship." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For wording, I think "These texts include theologically-focused narratives, hymns, prayers, proverbs, parables, didactic letters, commandments, poetry, prophecies, and some theologically-focused historical accounts" reads like only two parts are theologically-focused.  It is more clearly meant to be for the whole list if such a preface is put further in front "These theologically-focused texts include narratives, hymns, prayers, proverbs, parables, didactic letters, commandments, poetry, prophecies, and some historical accounts".    Though again they really are not Theology.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång I haven't a clue what you proposed Feb.18 and the idea of wading through all the above again searching for it is more than I can bear. I don't mind the addition of the sentence on biblical criticism, which is certainly accurate, but it seems a little odd to make a reference to something that hasn't been included in what's in the Bible. How would that work? Your faith in your POV is strong obi wan, but that's all it is.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Cheers Markbassett I agree, they are not theology, but they are theologically focused. Except that phrase is actually completely redundant if you think about it – everything in the Bible is theologically focused. That's kind of its point. History that is both factually accurate and inaccurate is in there, and why anyone refuses to acknowledge that reality - in either direction - is beyond my ability to understand.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Jenhawk777  For the purpose of RFC, yes to just adding “historical accounts” or “historical narrative” where “historical” is used, an adjective describing the style of an extensive amount of text and the article body mention so belongs in a summary.  Hard no to being phrased as history, which is an academic field, and strong no on adding any extra caveat on just that part, e.g. “poetry, prophecies, and some theologically-focused historical accounts".   I suggest discussion on replacing “theologically-focused” be done as later thread.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

My new (British?) friend, Markbassett, you are clearly a wonderful human being. I agree with all you have said. We are so sympatico, it's like you can read my mind. But none of the others will agree. They don't want any form of historical-anything mentioned at all.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Jenhawk777 On the contrary, I think if you look again there’s clear consensus to say something with any wording except “history”.  The ‘no’ !votes were very specific it was the word “history” that was objectionable, some of them even proposing alternatives like “narrative”.  One is just spoiled for choices here: with about 8 alternatives in play that seem acceptable to pretty much everyone, choosing which is hard.  Since this is a rfc, I would suggest move to close with consensus of “say something but not the word “history” “... then put something in.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Markbassett this motivated me to go back and reread to see if I had lost the thread along this long and winding road. History/historical are same-same to me, and I can see I have confused things by using those terms interchangeably. This did start as an RFC on the addition of history, yes, but when I look back, what I see is that it has since wound through several versions of "historical narratives", "historical books", "historical events", and the latest, "historical accounts". I may have missed it, but no version I could find got consensus support and all got at least some opposition.
 * "Theologically focused narratives" was already in the list in the lead with no mention of historical anything, and I am reluctant to leave "narratives" all by itself, expecting the reader to 'assume' that includes the historical accounts.
 * 1) how do they know to assume that if we leave it out?
 * 2) "Narrative" is not just a style of writing; it is a specific genre of literature (that includes books like Daniel and Esther), and
 * 3) does not automatically include the historical accounts in everyone's mind.
 * 4) Literary criticism classes everything in the Bible as narrative in order to work from that platform, but that's a tool of the method, not an actual characterization of the genres.
 * 5) There are narratives, specifically, in the Bible, and that should be in the list on its own, so I am likewise reluctant to add "historical narratives" to a list that already includes "narratives" because that seems confusing and redundant to me.
 * I am perfectly happy with any of the other three suggestions, (I couldn't find 8) and whether they include theologically focused or not, or any other qualifiers or restrictions to make others comfortable, I don't care. It is my considered opinion that "historical something," in some form, needs to be on that list of what's in the Bible, for the sake of accuracy, and to reflect content.
 * I may very well be missing something here – I often am – and if there are then I surely did miss that, and I apologize for being so dense. If you can demonstrate where there is consensus on anything, Please do! I'm excited to be wrong! Let's put that in and be done! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Jenhawk777 As to why I think there is a consensus here... I read it that "history" had 4 yes, 4 no, and one sidecomment;  and in the "alternatives" three of the four nos were positive indicating yes -- leaving only one no and one no comment.
 * Jenhawk - History Yes,
 * Dimadick- history yes,
 * Levich - history no, and dislikes alternatives
 * Grabergs - "history" no, suggest alternative "include theologically-focused narratives, some of which include historical events,...""
 * OgamD - history yes, and yes to alternative
 * Dan from A.P. -  "history" no, alternative without "some of which" & maybe punctuate "theologically-focused"
 * MarkBassett - history yes, prefer second alternative, & put " theologically-focused texts" before "include"
 * Emir of Wikipedia - No (from dislike seaofblue), nothing said re alternatives
 * tgeorgescu -, yes to alternative
 * so ...
 * The start was 4 yes, 4 no, 1 comment. Then alternative wording got 3 to switch - Grabergs, Dan from A.P., and tgeorgescu.  That  7 !votes favorable to either history or an alternative versus one against either and one who disliked "history" and said nothing about alternatives seems enough to close the RFC 'no to "history", OK with an alternative'.  Move to close ?  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 23:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Markbassett OMG! YES! I got lost in the weeds, and no one else has summed it up this well. It's been as clear as mud to me! Till now! YAY for alternative wording! YAY for Markbassett! Thank you so much. Does that mean we can go ahead and insert historical-something? Which one?!? Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In honor of the wonderful Markbassett, may I suggest: "These theologically-focused texts include historical accounts, hymns, prayers, proverbs, parables, didactic letters, admonitions, essays, poetry, and prophecies." Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I was asked to comment on closing the rfc. I can't read something close enough to a consensus into this, so I think WP:RFCL is the way to go. The reasoning above may persuade a closer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Also FTR of all the various alternatives put forward, the one I like the best is what is currently in the article "These texts include theologically-focused narratives, hymns, prayers, proverbs, parables, didactic letters, commandments, poetry, and prophecies." I don't think any other formulation that's been suggested so far is an improvement on that (although that doesn't mean it can't be improved). Levivich 15:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No to 'history' or 'historical X' (the alternatives) per WP:UNDUE. Lots of fictional books include historical events, but we don't mention that in the lead unless it is major focus of the work per reliable sources. Unless there is a legitimate effort to tackle Levivich's question about which sources list history in their list of what's-in-the-Bible, I don't currently see enough evidence to justify it in the lead. Nosferattus (talk) 12:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nosferattus This is based on the assumption the entire text is fiction with a few historical references, and that is as much a POV as those that claim inerrancy for it. It does not represent a majority view of scholars in these fields of study, which has already been shown – with sources: the majority say there are historical accounts, historical books, in the Bible. Gråbergs Gråa Sång Levivich I wish that those who keep asserting there is no historical anything in the Bible would ever once bring a source that says that is the majority view of scholars instead of just citing their opinions as if they were authoritative.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a straw man argument. First of all, I never said the Bible is fiction. I was comparing it with how we handle fictional books that include historical events. I don't dispute that the Bible contains history. What I'm saying is that I haven't seen sufficient evidence that reliable sources characterize history as a major focus of the Bible. I don't even object to the article stating that the Bible contains history. I just think it's WP:UNDUE to include it in the opening paragraph. The sentence in question is already awkwardly long and I wouldn't mind it being deleted entirely. Nosferattus (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nosferattus If you don't think it's fiction why would you compare it to fiction? Nevermind. All that matters here is  No one has claimed a major focus for any of these categories, just that the Bible is a combination of these things, which apparently we agree on. I would also rather see the sentence deleted than left as it is. So, we agree on that as well.
 * On Levivich's question, here's a sample:
 * "there is not the widespread rejection of the biblical text as a historical source that one finds among the main minimalists."
 * "That the Bible combines myth and history, invented memory and echoes of real historical events? Yes, but that merely restates the consensus view of mainstream biblical scholarship".page 196
 * "Minimalists go beyond the historical-critical consensus in arguing that the complete history, from Abraham to Moses to Joshua to David and Solomon and the other kings is all cut from the same cloth..."
 * "The conclusion leads to the opinion that the methodological shift advocated by the “Minimalists” did not take place, and is not widely accepted".
 * Most biblical scholars and archaeologists fall somewhere on a spectrum between these two [minimalist/maximalist]. This sentence is already in the body of this article. A summary statement that the Bible includes historical accounts is an appropriate representation of the majority view - but not a necessary one - as it is an option to delete the whole sentence from the lead. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:57, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Whether it is fictional or not is irrelevant. The question is whether the fact that it has admonitions and poetry are such a key fact that it needs to be mentioned in the lead. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The four sources above are not good sources for this. The sources for this article, which is a broad overview of the Bible, are sources that are, themselves, broad overviews of the Bible, or what I'd call "intros to the Bible". These are published by every major academic publisher in existence: Cambridge, Oxford, etc. etc., and a number of them are already cited in the article.
 * To Emir's point, I do think that "genres of the Bible" (see biblical genre) is WP:DUE for the lead, because--while my experience is admittedly anecdotal--the "intros to the Bible" sources cited in the article all point out, in their introductions (i.e., the introduction sections of the "intros to the Bible" sources, which is analogous to the lead of our article Bible), that the Bible includes a broad variety of genres. In listing those genres, I've noticed almost all of them mention poetry/songs/hymns/psalms, prophesy, and parables; there are other genres as well, but frankly I don't want to spend the time reviewing the "intros to the Bible" sources and collecting their "lists of genres" from their introductions; I just don't think it's important enough to be worth the effort. That said, while I think a sentence summarizing the genres of the Bible is WP:DUE for the lead, and the current sentence is the best formulation I've seen so far, I agree that the sentence could probably be improved, but someone wanting to improve it would probably need to do the work of collecting "lists of genres" from "intros to the Bible" sources. I also have no objection to the genres sentence being moved to elsewhere in the lead. Levivich 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Admonitions" is not in the current lead/article. Or "essays." IMO "poetry" is ok because psalms, though maybe a bit synonymous with "hymns". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Levivich They aren't good sources? Because they actually discuss the majority view? Intros to the Bible probably are not the best source for finding the majority view. Do you not understand that, and reaching any kind of conclusion about majority views from that, is the very definition of OR? Go here read this: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research.[i] "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article."

If we want to correctly represent the majority view we have to have sources that discuss that, specifically. That's what those are.

It's completely bogus to claim those 'intro to Bible' sources (that you also kept pushing earlier) are in any way superior to the ones referenced here. Those "broad overviews" are written by a Professor of Hebrew Bible at the School of Divinity in Edinburgh; a Professor of Hebrew Scripture and Theology at Notre Dame; another Professor of Hebrew Scriptures at Notre Dame; and an American Catholic priest. The sources I use here are a Jewish scholar at an American secular University, a historian at a secular University in England, a Polish historian at the University of Warsaw, and a religion professor at an American secular university. Please explain to me how and why they aren't good sources if yours are.

In looking for genres, one must be careful not to simply look at literary views, since that is a category in itself. But here is a literary guide to genres: : "On one level it is correct to say that the Old Testament contains stories and poems. These two categories encompass the whole... I would rather survey what may be considered a second level of genre: history, lyric poetry, wisdom and prophecy." That's in a "broad overview". But it's one guy. He doesn't mention whether most scholars agree with him.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Another arbitrary break
Fwiw, here's another compromise-attempt: The current lead-sentence "These texts include theologically-focused narratives, hymns, prayers, proverbs, parables, didactic letters, commandments, poetry, and prophecies." remains as written (though it would be good if "parables" got something in the article-text, there's pretty much nothing). After it, we add "Some of the texts mention historical events." This is similar to what I suggested earlier in the thread and may not sway anyone. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Can we talk about a more significant change maybe? For example, the Bible has very few "commandments" in it. "Laws" or "rules" or some word like that would be better. If I have to look up "didactic letters" then so does the average reader. It's not any better or less jargony of a term than "epistle". Really it's the same as "rule" or "law" or "instruction", and for that matter, so is "proverb". Hymns and poetry could be combined. And "prayer": lots of people pray in the Bible, but are formal prayers a significant genre (separate from poetry)? "Parable" is a form of story, as is "narrative" and history (in its various forms). I feel like the major genres are covered by (in no particular order): And it's so much shorter and more readable. I think this is one of those "an ounce of imprecision saves a pound of explanation" situations. Levivich 14:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds ok to me. It is preceeded by "a collection of religious texts" so I think it works. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I also support Levivich's suggestion.Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:55, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:57, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Citation standardisation
Hi everybody. has asked me to have a look at this article's references. I'll be converting references to sfn with sources moved to the Works cited section. As an example I've already done Brakes and Beekes here. One thing I have noticed is that there are references with large quotes, which I feel would be better served as part of the notes section. If no-one has any objections I'll make this change. I'll likely have questions as I work, as I'm not knowledgeable in the subject area (I also have no opinion in any ongoing discussions). Thanks LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 15:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You ActivelyDisinterested are so-o-o-o my fave! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested I will be able to help with this sometime in the next week - I hope - I am dealing with a death in the family in RL, and that is consuming my time right now.This is wonderful though. You are so good at this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:21, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Very sorry for you lose. Remember Wikipedia can always wait, we're not going anywhere. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 18:13, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've converted most of the book and journal cites to use sfn. Unless someone objects tomorrow (or maybe the day after) I'll start moving the quote refs to notes. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 22:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You ActivelyDisinterested are amazingly astoundingly wonderful, and all the work you have put in here is too wonderful for words. I owe you about a hundred thank you's, and can only plead exhaustion and no time in RL. I will continue to be occupied here for about another week or so, but even having quickly looked this over has impressed me so deeply I had to take a minute and tell you how great you are. I can't say thank you enough. I believe I can find the sources that are missing - hopefully - when I return. All in all, it isn't too bad. We've seen worse, haven't we? For all the people that have worked on and contributed to this article over the years, you and your work are what give it that final polish of professionalism. I love what you do and am more grateful than I can say. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a handful of references without pages, I won't spam this page with them. Once you're back ping me and we'll go through them. Hope you doing well. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 22:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Frank Stagg
First issue - There are two uses of New Testament Theology by Frank Stagg that have no page numbers. The first use is in the Etymology section, while the second is in New Testament section. I can't find any online source to check through, and don't have acces to the book. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 22:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @ActivelyDisinterested Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gråbergs Gråa Sång. I've added failed verification to the use in the Etymology section, as the book makes no mention of the particular Greek translation it's being used to support. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 13:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind it's page 19 LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 13:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The second reference, that new testament was in use by the second century, still alludes me. And searching further has put me out of my depth in the subject. It will need someone with more knowledge to resolve. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 13:51, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested and Gråbergs Gråa Sång I am finally home after over a month. It's been sad and difficult and exhausting and I am very glad to be home and back at work on WP. The easiest solution here, I think, is simply removing this reference to Stagg. I will add some additional pages to the other reference which is entirely sufficient unto itself as it gives a full in depth discussion of scholarship on the subject that goes on for several pages. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you're back, I hope things haven't been to hard. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested Could hardly have been worse. I'll write you on your talkpage. Thanx again for all of this. I am truly impressed by what you do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You are as always far to gracious. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Jacon Neusner
Next issue - Jacon Neusner's The Talmud: Law, Theology, Narrative : a Sourcebook is used in the Ketuvim section, but no page number is supplied. I've tried using online sources and can't find the reference. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 19:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Searcing in the book on google books, I get no hits for Ketuvim, Ruach or HaKodesh. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I found, I also tried several other wordings and found nothing. I suspect it's not the correct cite, as it's supporting the nature of the Ketuvim but is a work about Talmud law. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 20:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the same text/cite has been in the article since at least 2018. Noting that Ketuvim doesn't mention any ruach. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I checked Ketuvim, as well as Holy Spirit in Judaism and Hebrew Bible. None of the other articles mention the same detail. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 20:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested and Gråbergs Gråa Sång Neusner was incorrect. I have now replaced him with an accurate reference. The book is available on the archive. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Jobes and Silva
The book Invitation to the Septuagint is used twice, first in Septuagint and then in Final form (in the header of a table). Neither use has page numbers. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 14:42, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed
I've had to remove a reference in the Book order section. The website link was redirected to the sites front page, and although it was archived at the wayback machine that only archived a blank page. I've added citations needed tags in its place. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:33, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Finally! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Ernst Würthwein
Würthwein's book The text of the Old Testament : an introduction to the Biblia Hebraica is used in the Septuagint section, supporting the statement "The Septuagint is the basis for the Old Latin, Slavonic, Syriac, Old Armenian, Old Georgian and Coptic versions of the Christian Old Testament." It doesn't have a page number specified, and I'm unable to find an online source for it. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:24, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

The following all need page numbers
 * Removed Würthwein; replaced with Marcos. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Tim McLay
McLay's book The use of the Septuagint in New Testament research is used in the Final form section on the table of book name translations. It's the same place as the second Jones and Silva reference above. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Stephen L. Harris
Harris's work Understanding the Bible : a reader's introduction is used in the Pseudepigraphal books. It's used to support list of pseudepigraphal works. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Daniel B. Wallace
Wallace's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament is used to support part of the first sentence of the New Testament section. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Added some content and page numbers. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

George Anton Kiraz
Kiraz's Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament is used to support a statement on the  Harklean Version in the Peshitta section. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 17:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * removed, could not access; replaced with Erbes with page number. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Web sources
What's left after everything else are just web sources. These could be used tidied up, but I don't believe it's necessary. A couple feel a bit lightweight, etymology sourced to dictionary.com and how influential the Bible is sourced to the BBC. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 18:07, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested You are more than wonderful! Thank you, thank you, thank you for all of this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha, you the one fixing all the issues. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 09:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested Double Ha! You the one finding them!  Let's just agree we make a good team. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Good article review (GAR)
Man this article looks so good now, I am thinking we should take it to GAR. Any other feelings or thoughts on that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)


 * As noone else has replied I thought I'd put forward a couple of thoughts on structure. It seems that the bottom of the article is a little unstructured. The Versions and translations sections starts by talking about the Tanakh, but this hasn't been mentioned since the Septuagint section. Maybe it should be moved to just before the Christian Bible section. Similarly the Biblical criticism and Divine inspiration are about the Christian Bible, so should be moved into that section. Finally the Gallery section should be moved after the Illustrations section, and combined with the images from Illustrations. Does that make sense? - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 16:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the Perspectives on the Bible and its authority paragraph could be expanded a bit. Does Hinduism and Buddhism have any opinions? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello ActivelyDisinterested I see this article has captured your interest just as it captured mine. I am so glad. However, I will pass on what Levivich pointed out to me, quite rightly, when I first started working on this article: this is about the entire Bible, the Jewish and the Christian, and all topics must be handled accordingly. All the sections you mention contain aspects applicable to both. (I do not think it matters how long it has been within the article since any topic was previously mentioned); these topics apply to both Old and New, and each section handles its topic in that way. I do not support separating them as if they only applied to one and not the other as that would be an error in fact. This is simply incorrect.
 * However, there is a break in the logical progression. I agree. Sections 4-8 are interrupters of the presentation of the whole Bible as an overview. However, it follows naturally after textual history, so those two should stay together. It would be possible, and perhaps should be considered, that flipping the placement of 4-8 and 9-15 could be done. Or maybe not move 9-15, maybe just move 9-12 up so it follows development, then textual history etc. That leaves museums dangling at the end.
 * And/or possibly 4-8 could be indented more. Simply indenting the two Bible sections under textual history might solve the problem.
 * I moved stuff around the first day I looked at the article because I din't think it was as well organized as it could be either - and it all got moved back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok I see you point, I'll definitely bow to your knowledge in this area. Flipping or moving the sections up would work, but indenting to much my cause problems on mobile. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested Yes, fixing one problem seems to cause another with this article, then everyone has to argue over it for days on end! I couldn't determine that one set of problems was better than another so I just left it.
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång The only other logical place to put "perspectives" is in Biblical criticism, and that's already too long. The article wouldn't be hurt by completely removing it, but I kind of like it. Idk who wrote it or when, but it's an interesting little tidbit imo, and it's only a couple of sentences. Oh wait - are you talking about expanding it where it is? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:34, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's very short, and the included religions, apart from Islam, seems a little arbitrary. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång I'm kind of 'meh' about this. I don't mind if you do but I won't. Do you have any opinions on reordering? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Of the article as a whole? Not atm. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Re-ordering of sections in the article
It has been suggested that the sections be reordered, but WP says what is most important should be up front, and everything else should follow, and imo I think that's what this already does with the exception of the etymology section. I am therefore moving Etymology and leaving the rest as it is. If there is any disagreement, please share that here before reverting. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Recent revert
For what reason was this content removed? 

The article itself is from JSTOR: The author, Lucetta Mowry was a biblical scholar, archaeologist and former dean at Wellesley College. The publisher is the academic Journal of Biblical Literature: "The Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) is a quarterly periodical that promotes critical and academic biblical scholarship. Bringing the highest level of technical expertise to bear on the canon, cognate literature, and the historical matrix of the Bible, JBL has stood as the flagship journal of biblical studies for more than a century". 

The information is pertinent and necessary as another editor commented that they could not find the information contained in the text. That was addressed with this source. There is no valid reason for its removal. I intend to restore it if I don't get a valid explanation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @cough@ This appears to have been a error caused by an automated tool. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 11:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ActivelyDisinterested How weird is that?!? I have used that hyphenator multiple times and have never had it do that before! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:39, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * All the automated tools suffer hiccoughs at some point. Wikipedia is so varied in how things can be achieved that no code can hope to cover all the edge cases. - LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 14:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit war
Elmidae Please avoid an edit war and work with me here. Your reasoning for keeping the 'western' in this paragraph is "Not only that paragraph, but the next THREE paragraphs have a specifically Western focus. This qualifier was put there for a reason" is not really valid. What's in the other paragraphs is what's there and has nothing to do with the validity of what's in this one. The reason western is there is because I put it there. Taking it back out was the right thing to do. It was a mistake.

The Bible has had an influence on learning nearly everywhere it has gone in history, and that has not been solely in the West. is just one early example. There are multiple examples all the way up to the modern day in Africa. Please see Sanneh, Lamin; McClymond, Michael, eds. (2016). The Wiley Blackwell Companion to World Christianity. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-1-118-55604-7. You are simply mistaken in this, so please remove western accordingly. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So your interpretation of "Western" is... western Europe? That's a rather limiting (and artificially limiting) take. Dare I say unsuitably parochial for an article in a global encyclopedia. But I suppose if the entire article is set up that way, then I won't be the one to do anything about it at this point... fine. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * -- Elmidae Nice try at a strawman, but no cigar. The West refers to Europe, North America and often Australia in most common uses. It can be limited to simple geography, but since it isn't defined, and isn't geographically accurate, it is best removed. I thank you for doing that even when you didn't completely agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Some comments
Excited to see this article on GAN; I was going to pick it up but I'm not particularly qualified. Plus there seems to be a sea of previous consensus (or lack thereof) to wade through.... Will continue later. Ovinus (talk) 23:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "It has had a profound direct influence" – This phrasing might not even be strong enough; I'd support "unparalleled"
 * Ovinus as this is now covered in the new influence section, I would like to leave out all expansive adjectives here if that's okay with you.
 * "while understanding what that means in different ways" – Be more specific
 * It's covered in the body of the article
 * "Some scholars argue that it was fixed by the Hasmonean dynasty (140–40 BCE), while others argue it was not fixed until the second century CE or even later." Too specific for the lead
 * If we do that, it will remove the entire discussion of the Hebrew Bible and its founding. Is there a rephrase you would accept?
 * "of the Hebrew Bible of any length" What does "of any length" clarify?
 * More explanation will get unnecessarily technical I think. Would you accept simply removing "of any length"?
 * Probably should decide on one of "CE" or "AD". I'd slightly lean toward CE given the subject, but it's not a big deal.
 * "The study of the Bible through biblical criticism has indirectly impacted culture and history as well" I'd be a bit more specific here, especially on what "biblical criticism" is. Most people will think it is criticism of the Bible and its teachings.
 * That's explained in the body in its own section - can't put anything but summary sentences in the lead
 * "The Bible is currently translated or being translated into about half of the world's languages." A bit too vague. How about a number, even if an underestimate? (Indeed, what constitutes a "language", since there are many moribund or extinct languages)
 * Also in the body in its own section - with a chart!
 * Also in the body in its own section - with a chart!
 * Hey Ovinus! I meant to get to this and have been swamped in RL. So, thank you for your interest and suggestions. Should definitely decide on CE or AD. I think that's been done more than once! I think most of the rest of these are addressed in the body of text already, but I will check! Thanx again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:39, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So Ovinus I didn't do much with these originally but check to see what was covered in the body. I'm afraid these responses make me seem uncooperative, but most of this really is in the body and single summary sentences seem appropriate for the lead. I hope that's okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, Jenhawk. I'm thinking of doing the GA review, but not right away; I'm swamped in real life, too, at least for the next week or two. But I'd like to point out a couple of things that I think need addressing. The ways in which religious traditions have interpreted the Bible aren't addressed very much here. They seem to only be found in the section on divine inspiration and where the article addresses religious reactions to the emergence of biblical criticism. I think this topic merits a section of its own (perhaps with "divine inspiration" as a subsection). When I read Barton's A History of the Bible (2019) a couple of years back, I was rather surprised to see that the Jewish and Christian approaches to interpreting the Bible differ from each other even more widely than I thought, and of course both approaches have evolved a lot over the past 2000 years. A GA only needs to provide a general impression of all those changes, of course, but I think there should be more than there is now.


 * My other point is similar. The note in the lead says "The Bible has done more to shape literature, history, entertainment, and culture than any book ever written", but that massive cultural impact doesn't seem to really be discussed in the body, aside from the passage near the end of the "development" section that doesn't say much more than the note in the lead. Again, it only needs to be treated in general terms, but there should be something about how the history of Western art is full of illustrations of biblical scenes, and Western literature is riddled with biblical allusions and quotations.


 * If these concerns are addressed, I'll be happy to do the GA review when I have time. A. Parrot (talk) 17:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * A. Parrot Aaarrggh!  I would like to moan and complain, but these sound like legitimate requests. I will start work on them tomorrow. Depending upon what I can find, give me a week or so. I'll ping you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * A. Parrot So like any ordinary lazy person, I did the easiest one first. I know it looks a little long, but there was so much material that this is what the cut version looks like. Feel free to edit. The other one will take longer but I will begin on it - tomorrow! Perhaps I will begin with the book you mention. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)


 * A. Parrot I have now added two paragraphs and retitled the section on inspiration. The new section on influence is also completed. It's something. It isn't a perfect something, but maybe others will come along and add - or subtract - accordingly. I tried to access the book you reference and could read very little of it. I used what I could. Anyway, without too much whining, your requests have been met. I am happy you are interested in the review.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * A. Parrot How is your schedule looking? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Not to worry; this week I'll be dealing with a lot of Wikipedia commitments, including the GA review, which I'll probably start tomorrow. A. Parrot (talk) 21:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Cool! Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Influence section
I believe the Special:Permalink/1096014723 section is significantly non-NPOV.

For a bit of comparison, look at the sidebar at the top of the Bible article. Under "Interpretation" are links to sub-articles about capital punishment, homosexuality, incest, rape, sex, slavery, violence, warfare, and women, among other topics. These are important enough to have a sub-article listed on the template. But in our influence section, only one paragraph (the second one) talks about the negative, and it does so framed as an accusation (with the WP:WTW "some say": ), which is attributed to a self-published source (now tagged inline), and a quote attributed to Riches. The remaining 10 paragraphs of the section all seem to be about positive influence, all stated in wikivoice as fact, not "some say" or "others say". Absent is any detailed discussion of the Bible's influence on the things listed in the sidebar: war, slavery, women's rights, etc.

In the past, the "influence section", as it was, was part of a "Views" section, and only had the Riches quote: Special:Permalink/1065614835. This was NPOV in the opposite direction: only negative, no positive.

I think the section needs to be re-written; it should draw upon multiple 21st-century academic sources (not self-published, not 20th-century, not religious or mainstream non-academic publishers, etc.), and should give roughly equal time to the positive and the negative (or a proportion that is proportionate to its treatment in said sources), and should state just about everything in wikivoice (unless the sources suggest otherwise). Levivich[block] 19:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I noticed this section was revised a few minutes before I posted this; I haven't read the revisions carefully, but on a skim, I'm still concerned about wikivoice-vs-attributed statements: positive stated in wikivoice, the negative seems to be qualified and attributed. The link above is to the version I read when I wrote this. Levivich[block] 19:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Development and history section

 * Bible

Reading this section again months later, I still think the prior Development and Textual history sections were better than the current combined section. Examples follow. Levivich[block] 19:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Age
It used to say (Special:Permalink/1065614835, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence):

Now it says:

Why replace a statement in Wikivoice cited to multiple works with an attributed statement cited to one work? I think the older version was better. Levivich[block] 19:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Changes
It used to say (Special:Permalink/1065614835, 1st paragraph, 3rd sentence):

Now it says:

Why is "Hebrew texts contain both accidental and intentional types of variants" attributed to David Carr, when it used to be stated in wikivoice sourced to five academic, 21st-century sources? Why does it specify "Hebrew texts", when NT changes were also intentional? (A well-known example is the King James Version using the word "church" instead of "congregation", which was one of the rules for the translation, made to shore up the power of the church; see discussion and sources cited in our KJV article.) Carr's book is about the Hebrew Bible, so of course his opinion in that book would be limited to HB. Other sources that used to be cited, however, talked about both the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Bible (of which, HB is a part, of course).

Why replace academic publishers with religious publishers? Black 1994 is published by Baker Publishing Group; Wegner 2006 is published by InterVarsity Press; these aren't just Christian publishers, they're Christian evangelical publishers.

Why should this top-level article about the Bible include an attributed statement about error rates by Waltke about the Hebrew Bible, or the United Bible Society's study of the Greek New Testament, instead of having a statement in wikivoice? Are these two studies world-famous in some way, that they are WP:DUE to be called out? I don't think so.

It's sufficient, for the purposes of this top-level article, to simply state that there are both intentional and unintentional changes; we don't need to get into the particulars of what percentage, etc., that should be for a sub-article. We should use academic publishers, not religious ones (I also think we should avoid non-academic mainstream publishers like Viking and Crown, but that's a separate discussion), 21st-century instead of 20th-century, and prefer statements in wikivoice over attributed statements. This is per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, WP:AGEMATTERS, and WP:SUMMARY. I think the older version was better. Levivich[block] 19:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The sentence (the books began as songs...) is the second sentence in the section. It should have its citation back though. I must have removed it because there is no page number. If you can supply that, it would be good to replace its citation.
 * The change you refer to was not a replacement for that sentence.
 * Under Verifiable (criterion 2) and neutral (criterion 4) of the GAN review, A. Parrot wrote:
 * Those are the sentences I changed using a new source. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Changes: It still says


 * I really don't know how to respond to complaints about attribution when in other places you also complain about the use of "wikivoice". Both things are apparently wrong when I do them. The discussion of variants has both the HB and the NT; it's important; and how many there are is an important question.


 * Let's not get back into arguments over sources. Your oft repeated group (Lim 2017, p. 47; Ulrich 2013, pp. 103–104; VanderKam & Flint 2013, ch. 5; Brown 2010, ch. 3(A); Harris & Platzner 2008, p. 22) contains two seminarians and a priest. That doesn't make them a bad reference. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not understanding your response here. What I'm suggesting here is to replace the second block quote (the one after "now it says") with the first block quote (the one after "It used to say"), for the reasons stated in my OP. Levivich[block] 21:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich Yes, I understand what you are saying. Do you understand what I said? This response makes me think you didn't read it - in which case I am wasting my time attempting to address your issues.
 * Both the sentences in the first blocks are still in the article. They can't be used - again - to replace the second blocks. The second blocks actually replaced other things at the GAN reviewers request. Those you'll have to argue with him, not me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Once again you accuse me of something, in this case not reading it. I wrote "I'm not understanding your response here", to which you replied "Do you understand what I said?" No, I do not understand what you said. That doesn't mean I didn't read it. I've read it three times. Still not understanding anything you've written in this subsection. Let's try again. Do you see two green blocks of text above, separated by the words "Now it says:"? I am suggesting replacing the second green block of text with the first green block of text. The first green block of text used to be in the article but is not anymore. I did not suggest that the second green block of text replaced the first (and I don't care how it came about). I am suggesting we should replace the second green block of text with the first. I am not going to argue with you or the GA reviewer, about this or anything else. I am not here to argue. I am sharing my thoughts about how the article could be improved and asking for others' input. Levivich[block] 22:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My response included no accusation toward you. It was merely a statement about my own thinking.
 * You have that:
 * It used to say (Special:Permalink/1065614835#Development, 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence):
 * And again
 * That's incorrect, at least it's half incorrect. The first half of the green block of text is still there; it is the second sentence in the section. It's in the first paragraph of the section:  It does not have its citation because there was no page #. It is without its claim concerning the time period because there were two contradictory claims in this same section with two saying "The transmission history of the Tanakh spans approximately 3000 years". The replacement is a more accurate claim, it is debated, but if you like, an expanded discussion of that debate can be added.
 * The next green block: wasn't removed so much as it was expanded and further explained, at least partly because it contains an error in fact. Text types are not the result of errors and intentional changes.
 * This is a good facsimile then. At this juncture you cannot just "share your thoughts" without consequence which surely you must know. Controversy is cause for failing the GAN. It has taken all of us to get this article to this place, but it is possible for one alone to cause it to fail. This article deserves better than that. It no doubt isn't perfect, and you don't like every word or even every sentence, but it's a good article that deserves a shot at a GA rating. Your complaint about wanting more of the negative in influence was fair, but the rest of this is just a tempest in a teapot. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * FYI, I've asked about religious publishers at WP:RSN. Levivich[block] 02:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. I enjoyed reading that discussion. The few Christian publishers referenced in this article are listed in most places as among the best. Zondervan has been around 80 years and is considered the gold standard. They are a branch of Harper-Collins, one of the largest publishing houses out there. Plus they have a Zondervan Academic division as well. Baker Academic publishes current professors or others in academia only. InterVarsity also does not do mass market, but they like to publish books on social issues. Westminster John Knox Press also leans toward the progressive. Eerdman's has a broader interest, publishing academic books and reference works in theology, biblical studies, and religious history as well as books on spirituality, social and cultural criticism, and literature. Wipf and Stock publishes theology, biblical studies, church history, philosophy and related disciplines. I went and looked and I think these are the only Christian publishers. I think you will be satisfied if you check them out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link. I enjoyed reading that discussion. The few Christian publishers referenced in this article are listed in most places as among the best. Zondervan has been around 80 years and is considered the gold standard. They are a branch of Harper-Collins, one of the largest publishing houses out there. Plus they have a Zondervan Academic division as well. Baker Academic publishes current professors or others in academia only. InterVarsity also does not do mass market, but they like to publish books on social issues. Westminster John Knox Press also leans toward the progressive. Eerdman's has a broader interest, publishing academic books and reference works in theology, biblical studies, and religious history as well as books on spirituality, social and cultural criticism, and literature. Wipf and Stock publishes theology, biblical studies, church history, philosophy and related disciplines. I went and looked and I think these are the only Christian publishers. I think you will be satisfied if you check them out. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

"Some" authors unknown or "most"?
Bible says It used to say (1st para, 3rd sentence)  as part of the same paragraph-level citation that is cited up above in the  thread. "Most" was changed to "some", and I disagree with this change.

I was just reading Barton 2019 p. 2 for the above thread about and I noticed this line:  It reminded me that: oh yeah, scholars universally say that most -- not some -- of the books of the bible are of unknown or indeterminate authorship. We don't know who the authors are of most of the books, and most don't even have a single author. Barton isn't the only one who says this -- there's the other sources that used to be cited in the previous version -- but I think writing "some" instead of "most" is misleading, as "some" implies that we know who the authors are of most of the Bible, or maybe half or some other significant proportion, but the actual truth is that few if any books even had a single author.

Barton 2019, in the endnotes for Chapter 8, endnote 22 says, in its entirety: That footnote 22 appears on page 205 after this sentence:  Levivich[block] 21:13, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

And it's not just the Gospels, but of course the OT as well. Bandstra 2009, p. 8:

Riches 2000, chapter 2 (sorry I only have the e-book) similarly says:

The Bible's authorship is, in a word, anonymous. This is what the scholars say. This is what our article Bible should say, and it should say it clearly. Levivich[block] 21:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * There is no majority consensus on authorship of the books of the Bible. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Source? Levivich[block] 00:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Of the 27 books of the NT, 5 are generally considered anonymous. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:39, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn’t seem something to include, at least not in this tone or amount. The oral traditions from circa 600 BC that are Old Testament books, and New Testament writings from oral testimony of non-literate individuals then going thru umpteen iterations of manual copy-edit ... It doesn’t seem like “author” is quite the right view to seek.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

GAN
Gråbergs Gråa Sång, Dimadick, Levivich, tgeorgescu, OgamD218, Jheald, Dan from A.P., Markbassett, Emir of Wikipedia, Nosferattus, ActivelyDisinterested, Ovinus and Elmidae

Hey everyone. The GAN process has required several additions and changes to this article. I have been okay with them mostly, but I am now balking at this one: My primary concern is that this will open up the article to all kinds of stuff on religion instead of just stuff on the text itself. My lesser concern - but still a concern - is how long this could get! Covering all the various ways the Bible is used in all the different religious groups would get involved. Third, it seems to me that its religious significance as a sacred text is already stated - repeatedly - in every section of this article.

But it's entirely possible that I am blind and just don't see what the reviewers are saying. Overfamiliarity with an article can do that, but since I am not the only editor who has contributed to or cares about this article, I am hoping you will see this more clearly than I am apparently doing. You have a right to have an opinion on this, and I need help determining what is best for the article. Should this be added? Is it necessary? Or is it already there? Please help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:56, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "My lesser concern - but still a concern - is how long this could get!" There is no reason to panic, yet. If the article gets too large, we could always create sub-articles. And the religious significance of specific biblical books can be covered in the main articles about these books. We literally have hundreds of articles about biblical topics. Minor expansions can't hurt us, unless we start quoting fundamentalists, creationists, and other nutcases. Dimadick (talk) 19:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, doing some deep breathing exercises... calming down... Thank you! Dimadick I was panicking! So where does this leave you on whether or not this should be included or is it really already there? And if you think yes it should be added, what do you think that content should look like? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Specific information on whether aspects of certain books have gained central theological or cultural significance for Jews, Christians, etc. For example, the Nativity of Jesus as depicted in the Gospel of Matthew has inspired several centuries of religious art and music, and has turned Bethlehem into a popular destination for tourists. So we know that this gospel has had quite an influence on modern life. Dimadick (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Now I am panicking again! That level of detail - on 66 books - in all the various denominations - and that's just Christianity??? Panic is called for! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, more deep breathing... Maybe I wouldn't have to include it all, just examples. But I think Bethlehem is more cultural influence - but maybe not! Maybe I don't have a clue! Is there such a thing as a source describing the religious significance of the Bible? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is a new section on the Bible's religious usage, I think it would make sense to limit it to the use of the text itself, as in the examples I mentioned (weekly Torah portions, sermons, and hymns). But if others disagree with VR's opinion that such a section is necessary, I'll defer to their judgment; I just didn't want to be unilaterally overruling VR's input. A. Parrot (talk) 01:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, well, my bad. It looks like consensus is leaning toward including it. I will begin working on something in my sandbox right away, and will probably have something tomorrow. I'll ping you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree. I think put in a Significance header with a hatnote linking to the Significance sections of other pages and you're 90% of the way there. Ur-significance, or cross-denominational significance, will require some new content, much of which can be restated from elsewhere in the article. Basically you're right -- it doesn't need much more of this, but it would be helpful organizationally. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Will also say that this comment from @Vice regent was entirely too Christianity-focused. He seems to mean, the Bible article should be :Christianity even as Torah:Judaism and Quran:Islam. This is not correct and would IMO represent a step back for the article if implemented. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't properly understood the toil and necessary compromises this article has taken to write, so I really can't comment! All I can say is from a quick read, the Influence section is coverage enough for the main article "Bible". I do think it deserves a more logical structure (e.g., one paragraph intro using the current first paragraph, then subheadings "Morality and ethics", "Law", "Art and culture" (incl. literature)). In any case, GA status is typically awarded by one editor's opinion, unless they request a second opinion or are otherwise making a totally unreasonable call. Ovinus (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * One person that agrees with me!! YAY!!  But I am now working on a generalized something that can be said on significance anyway. So, is it the influence section that needs subheadings? It could be a good idea, but generally I try not to use them except when absolutely necessary because they don't show up on phones. I'll ask the reviewer. Thank you for caring enough to show up! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think subsections might be helpful. I don't know what you mean by saying they "don't show up on phones"; in my experience (though I don't use WP on phones very much), subsections don't display in the same way as top-level sections do, but the headings are still visible. A. Parrot (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what I was told on my last review. I personally like sub-sections. Maybe I like them too much, and that's why I was asked to remove them! I am happy to add them here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I do like that better. Good call. ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:28, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * you probably only read what was quoted above, rather than the entirety of my comments on the GA review page. I think there should be a section called "Religious significance" which should be mostly focused on Christianity and its major denominations, but also include the religious significance of the Bible for other religions, like Judaism and Islam - all in proportion to the respective WP:DUE weight.VR talk 17:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your input! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems previous commenters have more thoughtful thoughts than I currently do. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps an earlier and more basic aspect was the original intended significance, the identification of this set of books as the complete canonical (from the Greek word for measuring rod implying ‘the standard’) set by the council of Nicaea (325 CE) or Athanasius was and is a unifying factor of Christianity and a consensus of the leaders. The parts of it becomes a structural component in the church calander for example, and marked the eyewitness accounts as uniquely authoritative.   There are minor variations of the books, and a few apocrypha recognized by some, but out of hundreds or thousands of pamphlets in that time and every locale having some different subset and local favorite, this formed a single entire set of works that everyone conformed to.   Cheers Markbassett (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Markbassett How about sourcing that and just jumping in and adding it? I am still worried about this getting too big, and I don't support a section that focuses on Christianity alone. This article isn't about religion, and the Bible doesn't just belong to Christians. But I think your comments here would be a good counter to Barton's. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Most influential book of all time?
Bible: I changed it to "one of the most," which I think is something we can state in wikivoice. I don't think we can state "the single most of all time" in wikivoice. My change was reverted. I check the source, and I don't see anywhere on page 2 of the source (or anywhere else in the entire book, which I own) where Barton says it is the single most influential book of all time. (Surely we're not citing the title of a book for a statement in wikivoice.) So, I've added a fv tag. I think we should go back to "one of the most"; second choice would be to attribute Barton, but we need to do so accurately. Levivich[block] 20:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You are posting complaints faster than I can respond. This is fixed. Thank you for catching the problem. It would be great if you went through and checked them all. As much as everything got moved around, there are bound to be more. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * These aren't "complaints", they're concerns, and you needn't respond to them at all, much less before I post a new one. I'm not writing this just for you, I'm writing to all the editors participating here. I'm not putting together a laundry list of to-do items for you, I'm bringing my concerns here for discussion amongst everyone.
 * This isn't really "fixed". I'm glad that you reinstated my change from "most" to "one of the most", but "one of the most" needn't be attributed, because that's not just something Riches says. To attribute it to Riches makes it sound like it's just his opinion. Everyone agrees that it's one of the most influential books of all time; we needn't attribute such an uncontroversial statement. I'm gonna remove the attribution and then for my part, I'd consider this part resolved, although other editors may have other thoughts to share. Levivich[block] 21:30, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Levivich|Levivich The GAN has been failed because the reviewer said, on my talk page, that he just couldn't get past this. Good job. I am now going through the article one citation at a time. The very first reference is one of your mass group references, and I am finding the same kinds of problems with it that I have found in the past. Referencing an entire group of people seems as though this must provide overwhelming evidence of what's been said - surely they must all say it or they wouldn't all be referenced - right? But when they are checked individually it's a whole different picture. In citation #1, only 4 of the names have page numbers; some names list an entire chapter as the reference, but doing a "search" of those chapters turns up nothing from the sentences referenced; one is a name with nothing else. Referencing a group with no indication which of the group is meant to support which sentence is problematic enough; repeating that same group over and over, as if they all say all the things you connect them to - which they don't - is blatantly false. Ferreting out which one of the mass actually says what's written makes verifying your citations virtually impossible. This method should be banned. But I will check them. I will check them all, every citation in this article, if it takes me another year and a half. This is now my mission. I will work on nothing else. I will keep a record as I go, and I will post it here on the talk page, so everyone can monitor as they see fit. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

removal of NT canon
KlayCax It may be a common misconception but it was a sourced and verifiable one. Please bring a source that says what you wrote in your reasons for editing. This is contrary to what I was taught - which granted may be out of date. I am not reverting in response because of that possibility, but I do need to see something that says that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Beginning citation verification
1. . This is this editor's favorite grouping. I object to this mass citation method. It is not possible to tell which source applies to which statement. They each have to be checked separately every time they are used. It covers up a lot instead of facilitating verification.

Lim: I have had to put out a resource request. Preview does not go past page 14. Hayes - 2 locations in chapter one - no page #s; has acronym of three divisions on page 10; none of the rest of this is in Hayes chapter one. Brown - 3 locations in the introduction, no page #s; can find no sample anywhere with page numbers; have a resource request out.

That's a poor beginning, but it is all I can do tonight; it's 1:30 AM where I am. Hopefully Resources will be able to help tomorrow, but anyone who feels like it, jump in and verify any citation you feel like verifying. All the citations in the article must be checked. Please post it here, any that you do. As before, any and all help is appreciated. Tomorrow I will begin on the rest of the mass reference:

Carr - pages 3, 17 Bandstra - pages 7-9 Gravett - 54 Harris - nothing, no page # Platzner - page 3 Riches - chapters 2 and 3, no page #s Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Here is what I wrote on February 5, 2022 (link to full discussion):
 * Those group citations were added over a year ago, in March 2021, and at the time they were paragraph-level citations, meaning they referenced an entire paragraph. This remained the case until January 14, 2022. At that point, text was moved around -- cut from one section, pasted in another -- and text was added and removed, but the sources were not updated. I saw this at the time and complained about it, a lot, in January and February (the above quote being just one, but the entire of Archive 18 is filled with this).
 * So, yeah, those group cites no longer cite what they purport to cite. They used to, but then you and another editor rearranged the article, and ignored my warnings that text-source integrity was being lost. They are not my cites. They were, but after you edited the article and rewrote those paragraphs, they are now your cites.
 * I once again will say what I've said all along: the Jan 14 versions of the Development and Textual history sections should be restored, and we should work from there, because we have text-source integrity as of January 14, but not afterwards.
 * (BTW, no page numbers because they're e-books.) Levivich[block] 16:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, going back to March 2021, here is the paragraph that this citation originally cited: All that is cited to Lim 2017, pp. 40, 44–45, and 58–60; Hayes 2012, ch. 1; Brown 2010, Intro.; Carr 2010, pp. 3 and 17; Bandstra 2009, pp. 7–9; Gravett et al. 2008, p. 54; Harris & Platzner 2008, p. 3; Riches 2000, chs. 2 and 3. I have all those books and can confirm that they support that paragraph. However, I cannot confirm if they support the paragraph as it stands now. Levivich[block] 19:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's go with the original paragraph as you have it here. Which source supports which statement? I can confirm they do not all say all of this. They simply do not. The first sentence, for example, is not in Hayes (if the search function is anything to go by). Half of the second sentence is there, (about the three parts of Tanakh), in that first chapter, but not the statement about what was earliest, nor does Hayes explain what's in them, and doesn't give dates for canonization - according to search, which I had to use since you cite an entire chapter. Hayes supports one part of one sentence. This reference makes it seem as if the entire paragraph is supported. It's misleading. Clearly, all of this is correct, but if multiple sources are necessary, which is not the case here, but if and when that is the case, they need to be listed singly, with page numbers, behind the sentence they support, so that others can see them as well. Since you own the books, and I am running into problems seeing Lim at all, perhaps you would be so kind as to provide which page number supports which sentence from Lim.
 * This entire group is referenced 8 times in that January 14 version. It's not superior. It's a problem. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The entire paragraph is a summary of those eight sources, and thus has a bundled paragraph-level cite. (See WP:SUMMARY, WP:CITE, WP:ILC.)
 * Hayes, Chapter 1, subsection called "Structure and Contents", here's a partial quote:
 * Hayes Table 1 is a table that compares the books of different biblical canons, specifically the Hebrew Bible, the Protestant Old Testament, and the Roman Catholic Old Testament. (It's one of the tables that was the impetus for my suggestion that our article also have a similar table comparing books.)
 * Lim p. 40:
 * Lim pages 41 and 42 is a table that compares the books of the Jewish TaNaK, the Protestant Old Testament, and the Roman Catholic Old Testament. (Another example of such a table.)
 * Lim, p. 44:
 * Lim, p. 45-46: Levivich[block] 20:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, overcitation is not a failure of verification. I admit that there are probably more cites than are needed (though I think more than one should be provided; three is the magic number IMO). However, if you concede that this paragraph is accurate, why are we talking about it? This paragraph conveys very basic information that would be contained in any book about the Bible. Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 20:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia says otherwise it should have this:
 * "The sun is pretty big, but the moon is not so big. The sun is also quite hot.
 * Notes
 * ^
 * For the sun's size, see Miller, Edward. The Sun. Academic Press, 2005, p. 1.
 * For the moon's size, see Brown, Rebecca. "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51 (78): 46.
 * For the sun's heat, see Smith, John. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2005, p. 2. Line breaks
 * ^ For the sun's size, see Miller, Edward. The Sun. Academic Press, 2005, p. 1. For the moon's size, see Brown, Rebecca. "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51 (78): 46. For the sun's heat, see Smith, John. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2005, p. 2.
 * ^ For the sun's size, see Miller, Edward. The Sun. Academic Press, 2005, p. 1. For the moon's size, see Brown, Rebecca. "Size of the Moon", Scientific American, 51 (78): 46. For the sun's heat, see Smith, John. The Sun's Heat. Academic Press, 2005, p.2
 * Your bundle of 8 references has none of that and never did. Being moved doesn't have anything to do with that nor is moving why there is an absence of page numbers. This bundle fails verification accordingly. It may be accurate information, but we are talking about accurate sourcing. This is part of it according to That was the point you made above. A perfectly valid point too. It is possible to use, but since the page number in that citation was incorrect, and it is correct sourcing that's at issue not correct information, it was totally important enough to address as you did. But it does likewise mean we can not return to any version where the "8" are listed without their appropriate notes.
 * What page is Hayes? The three categories are repeated in both, you could certainly bundle for that single sentence.
 * Thank you for posting this. I will begin a recheck immediately. I now own Lim's book too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for posting this. I will begin a recheck immediately. I now own Lim's book too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

So, back to citation verification. The first sentence of the original says, and the rewrite says (Not what I would call a big change.) Hayes has "different biblical canons have served different communities over the centuries". Not the same as compiled. One is before and one is after. Neither Hayes nor Lim source that particular claim.

The original paragraph is quoted above. The rewrite says Also not a big change imo. Throw out the first sentence or resource it, but I'm good with Hayes and Lim both citing what's in them - with page numbers - though not the rest of the group of 8.Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * To repeat what I said above: . E-books do not have pages, and thus do not have page numbers. Above, I pointed you to WP:CITE, let be more specific and point you to a section of that guideline, WP:EBOOK.
 * I'm going to ask that, in the future, before you ask me or anyone else to verify a citation, you first get a copy of the source and look for yourself. You should look first, and then ask, not the other way around.
 * Hayes verifies "compiled", in Chapter 1, at the beginning of the "Structure and Contents" section, Hayes writes . I searched and Hayes uses the word "compile", "compiler", "compiled", or "compilation" over a dozen times in her book. Similarly, Lim refers to the TaNaK as, which is part of what I already quoted above. "Compile" seems like the right word to use to describe collecting books together into a group.
 * I'm not quite sure how we got to verification of a paragraph that used to be in the article but has since changed. As I said above, the bundled cite used to cite the paragraph, but after the changes starting in January, I can't really say anymore because I didn't make those changes. Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 00:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * A false accusation. It's obvious I did so, then got the resource exchange on it, then bought the book. But that really has nothing to do with what's missing from these bundled citations does it? Nor does being an ebook. Lim has page numbers you could have cited to individual statements, but didn't. The correct page number for that statement by Hayes is page 9. I did say from the start that the content was correct, it's the citing that's the problem. The paragraph is shorter, but its substance is the same, and you have just demonstrated that Lim and Hayes are in fact valid sources for it. It therefore seems inescapable that claiming verification problems were created by the changes is disingenuous. You can't very well prove them right then claim they aren't verifiable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * In the OP you wrote, so you obviously didn't even have the book, much less have read the cited pages, before you posted this post. Yes, it did have page numbers cited. You even put the page numbers in your OP. You're obviously writing "Lim" when you mean someone else. I'm not accusing you of lying, but you move too fast, so fast you're not even paying attention to what you're writing. Slow down, and be more considerate of how much of others time (especially my time) you're asking, because my responses here have been a waste of my time, and anyone reading this probably feels their time has been wasted too. You're raising issues that aren't issues because you're not being slow and careful enough. And you need to stop with this WP:BATTLEGROUND approach. You're obviously trying very hard to "catch" me doing something wrong. Stop it. I didn't say #1 failed verification--that's what you've said here--I said I couldn't vouch for it in its present form. Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 16:04, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Levivich I count 8 personal accusations toward me just in the paragraph above, not including previous ones. I have made no accusations toward you personally. I have only stated WP's requirements for the correct use of bundled references, which has not been responded to as of yet. I didn't need the book to see the page numbers for Lim, I needed to see what connected to what, since there were no notations in the correct manner. And if you check, you will see I didn't put out an ask to you, didn't mention you, until after you responded. As it is, this group ref does fail verification because it is impossible to check. Right at the top of Citing sources it makes it clear that That is simply not possible the way this bundle is presented. I would appreciate it if you would please stop making assumptions and statements concerning my motives or methods or reasons, and would instead, focus on fixing the citations so they are verifiable.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) 2 is the Guinness book of World records and it does say exactly what is claimed.
 * 2) 3 is also correct, but I am going to remove it because #3 is an opinion blog. That creates a new number 3 which I'll get back to in a bit. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2022 (UTC)


 * References #1 and #2 have now been changed to the single citation of Hayes with correct page numbers. Making #3 the GBofWR, and #4 Schippe and Stetson. Pages 8 and 33 are correct.


 * 1) 5 is dictionary.com and it's correct
 * 2) 6 is cited to Bandstra 2009, p. 7; Gravett et al. 2008, p. xv. these are both correct
 * 3) 7 is Brake 2008, p. 29. and #8  Beekes 2009, pp. 246–247. in support of the same two sentences, but Beekes only supports the first sentence, while Brake supports the second one.  I have now moved Beekes to #7 and Brake is #8. They are correct.
 * 4) 9 is Stagg, but I don't like this reference. The publisher is the Baptist Sunday School board and I don't think it should be used. Tomorrow I will look for something better. I'm done for tonight. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I've removed references from the lead (formerly refs 1-3); refs aren't needed in the lead, and the content being cited was already ref'd in the body and it was all uncontroversial widely accepted facts. Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 16:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah, removing everything is certainly one approach to resolving the issues with the bundled ref, however, the problem remains with its other uses. And look! Its first use is now on the paragraph you said was missing - the fifth paragraph in "Development". Huh. How about that? And it still has its original citation. I guess you would assert it has not lost verifiability just from being moved then. I will check the other uses when I get to them. Thank you for all your help with this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Citation check restart
In Etymology: Stagg was #5, but I removed him as an unsuitable reference. PBS is now #5 and it is verified as a correct citation.
 * 1) 6 is Bruce and it is now verified as correct
 * 2) 7 had the names written in backwards order, but the ref is verified.
 * 3) 8 is the Catholic Encyclopedia, and it is verified and correct.

Development and history:
 * 1) 9 is Carr, and is verified as correctly referencing the two sentences immediately prior including the quote. The first two sentences are non-controversial common knowledge so they can be stated in wiki voice.
 * 2) 10 is another bundled list, which automatically claims every one of the refs cited support this sentence. They probably do, and I have no issue with the content. I feel confident it's a true statement, but because verification of the references in this article has been raised as being the significant issue for failure of the GAN, I feel compelled to check that every one actually does say this sentence. It has "Hayes 2012, ch. 1; Brown 2010, Intro.; Bandstra 2009, pp. 7–9; Gravett et al. 2008, pp. 41, 59; Harris & Platzner 2008, pp. 21–22; Riches 2000, pp. chs. 2 and 3." and why so many are necessary is beyond me. This will probably take awhile. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I haven't found "most of whom are unknown" anywhere yet. On the face of it, it seems like a common enough statement that it hardly needs verifying, yet it has these multiple citations, and the way the citations are bundled means that, in wiki-world, every claim is supposedly supported in every source listed. The fact I can't find that with an ordinary search is a problem. If one source supports the first part of the sentence, and another source supports the second, and another the third, that's perfectly legit - but there must be notes explaining what supports what. That is the wiki-way. This must be addressed, and it should be addressed by the individual editor who put them together and reverted a replacement.
 * 1) 10 The sentence being supported is
 * Hayes supports the first part - The Bible was written and compiled by many people - on page 68, but I did not find the rest of the sentence in Hayes.
 * Raymond Brown says 'intro', but there is no section titled introduction in this book. There's a forward, and since I was able to access the whole book on the Archive, I was able to read the entire section. I have been unable to find any part of this sentence in the foreward.
 * Bandstra, the first part of the sentence is on page 9, as the citation says, "a variety of authors" is on the bottom of page 7-top of 8, though a variety of cultures is not.


 * Levich Since you are the one who raised the issue originally, and since you have repeated your concern here again that, and since, when I questioned those same sources, you are also the one who demonstrated that they were still verifiably correct, and since these are your references, and since you own the books, it would be fair and reasonable and demonstrate good faith if you would simply check those at # 14, 21, 25, 32, 36, 49, and 50 and show that they are or aren't still valid. You said you can't vouch for them anymore, then you demonstrated that you can by doing so in the above exchange. Prose was shortened in response to GAN, but no meaning was changed. If they were valid when you placed them, they most likely still are, but it would be good if you would show that or demonstrate how they are not, so they can be fixed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel like a broken record. I've already said: those bundled cites all come from my March 2021 rewrite of the Development and Textual history sections. They were paragraph-level citations, which cited the entire paragraphs that they followed. I verified them all when I wrote them. About a year later, you came along and changed them. It's up to you to check that the changes you made maintained text-source integrity. I will not volunteer my time to do this for you, especially when I warned you about this seven months ago, while you were doing it, that we were going to end up losing text-source integrity.
 * More to the point, the easy way to fix this is to just restore the old Development (Special:Permalink/1065614835) and Textual history (Special:Permalink/1065614835) sections. I still do not see why the current, combined section (Special:Permalink/1096822285), is better than what was there before. You haven't yet explained how the current section is an improvement on the two old sections, or what your goal was in rewriting it. I am minded to launch an RFC proposal to restore the old sections, but I'd like to hear from you (or any other page watchers) first. Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 15:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich First, you wouldn't be doing it for me. You would be doing it for the article and for Wikipedia. You would be doing it because you are the one who has said there might be a problem with text-source integrity caused by the rewrite. You would be doing it because I don't think it's likely that's correct. I could certainly be wrong, but then so could you. You would be doing it because that needs resolution in order for the article to go forward rather than backward. You would do it because if I do it, I will replace the bundles with single references that are more easily verified by an ordinary reader.
 * Second, I don't think it's likely the problem you think might exist actually does exist, because a simple distillation of prose from to  doesn't alter meaning and wouldn't invalidate the source.
 * Third, as demonstrated above by locating the paragraph you thought was missing, which is now the fifth paragraph in the combined section, most of the paragraphs your bundle supports are unchanged; text and source were just relocated, together, which would also have no impact on their validity. On that basis, going backwards to a former version would not improve text-source integrity.
 * For myself, I can't see that going backwards would solve the problem of the elephant in the room. It isn't necessary to repeat that these are bundled references. That by itself isn't the problem. Bundled references, that are used as these are, support everything that's said. Every reference has every claim. I won't relink to WP's page. I know you are familiar with where WP explains that. But when a bundled citation for an entire paragraph is, instead, a summary of different points made by different sources, which is what you have said these are, there needs to be a way for the reader to find out which source supports which statement. WP has a provision for that. Individual citations for each claim should be in Notes. There are no Notes on any of these bundled refs. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I see that absence as a verification problem. A problem that pre-existed any changes made to this article. Therefore, it is a problem that a restoration of a former version would not fix.
 * Thank you for asking about the reasons for combining sections. According to the GA reviewer, 'Development' and 'Textual history' repeated too many of the same things, had technical terms that were unexplained, and assumed a level of knowledge about this topic the average reader might not have. Both sections. They were too long, too complicated, but still left things out. Combining the sections made it possible to remove repetitions, shorten the overall length, and explain more, using simpler terms. Going back to before would restore the problems the reviewers recognized.
 * Perhaps an RFC on whether or not the bundled source can be seen as verifiable, since it's a summary without notes on what supports what, would also be useful. I don't know that we can do that for wiki-policy, but I suppose we could ask whether others think wiki-policy has been followed sufficiently for verifiability. Certainly do an RFC if you don't agree the combined sections address the issues the reviewers raised.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The GA review started on May 30. Special:Permalink/1090453361 is what the article looked like then. Yes, there were two sections, and yes, they were duplicative. But my question is why is the rewrite of those two sections, done in January and February, an improvement? Forget about the GA in May, I'm talking about changes made in January. You're still not really addressing the core of my question: What was wrong with the Development and Textual history sections before you rewrote them? what was wrong with the January version? Why did you rewrite them? What was the purpose, what was the improvement made? Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 17:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * But what difference does the January version make now? You asked about the current version: The current version is a direct result of the reviewer's observations - which it seems like we both agree were fair. What the reviewer said was wrong was actually what was wrong. That was why I rewrote those sections. The purpose was as I said above. The reviewers saw this article as insufficient in its coverage of a humongous and important topic: it needed more at the same time it needed less. That is also what I saw when I first started work here, so I thought they were both right and cooperated accordingly. They also criticized the organization, and kept asking for additional sections. That's all there is. There were no other reasons or motives. I am genuinely sorry you are still so distressed by changes being made to this article. I kind of had no real choice. It had nothing to do with the accuracy of your content. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok I'll try again. I'm asking you why you rewrote the sections in January and February. It makes a difference because I'm about to propose restoring these sections in an RFC, but I'd like to hear your reasoning before I do so, because you may have had good reasons that I am not appreciating, but I don't know what they are.
 * To be clear, I am not asking you why you rewrote the section in May at the GA. I'm asking you about why you made the edits you made in January and February.
 * Just as a reminder, I reverted your bold edits to these sections on February 8, months before the GA: Special:Diff/1070686468/1070697768. You reverted me and reinstated your bold edits: Special:Diff/1070701524. So to be very specific, my question is, why did you make that edit, reverting my reversion and reinstating your changes? Why is Special:Diff/1070701524 an improvement over what was there before? Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 18:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is all moot. Why beat a dead horse? The January version, the February version, whatever, it doesn't matter anymore. They have all been changed into the current version, which should be kept because it addresses legitimate issues. Let it go. Please. Let's move on to what's needed now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not moot. What are the "legitimate issues" that Special:Diff/1070701524 addresses, is what I'm asking. Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 18:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is going in circles. There is too much ownership. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Still on number 10, "most [authors] are unknown" is not in Gravett.
 * Ahh, found it on page 39 of Harris and Platzner. YAY!
 * Since I have now found two sources that support two of the claims, I will edit to reflect that and hope I won't get reverted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes it's in Gravett, pp. 58-59: You're not seriously suggesting that, in the case of a bundled cite, because you verified two of them, you're going to remove the rest? Huh? We should select cites based on what are the best cites for the text, not based on which ones you personally happened to have read. Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 18:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, I searched authors, unknown, anonymous, and so on, assuming that any form of those terms would also show up. It usually does. Authorship. I did not see that. Thank you for finding it. This helps. So, you tell me what is reasonable in this circumstance. You assert a lack of text-source integrity, then when I try to replace the refs with those I can and have actually verified and can list page numbers for, in. order to insure that integrity, you want them to stay as they are. I know your solution is to go backwards, but that has been proposed in the past, and no one else supported that approach. We have to find a way forward. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What I think is reasonable in this circumstance is that if you want to verify citations, you actually read the cited source, not just text search it, because text searching isn't good enough. Citation #10 specifically cites Gravette p. 59; it should not have been difficult to find if you actually read that page (or the one before it, since the relevant passage starts at the end of page 58). Still, you should be reading the cited page and adjacent pages, before you ask someone else to spend any time verifying it. Because, for a third time now in just a few days, I have posted quotes verifying things that I already said I checked and verified in response to you asserting they fail verification. This is not a pattern that can continue.
 * What I also think is reasonable is, if you want to verify citations, that you start with the citations that you added, and only then go to the citations that others added. But that's your call.
 * Mostly, though, what I think is reasonable is to restore the older version. No one else supported that approach because there is no one else here except you and me. That's why I'm planning to propose it via an RFC. But I'm first waiting for you to articulate why you oppose restoring the prior version. Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 18:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, please remember not to make personal accusations and assumptions. When did you say you had checked and verified the current validity of these references? Weren't you the one who said all the newer versions of this article lacked text-source integrity? How can both things be correct?
 * I didn't start with anybody's sources. I started at #1. Then I went to #2. And so on.
 * No one else supported a rollback approach back in the wayback when you proposed it months ago. I suppose it's archived, and I could find it, but I don't care enough to go look. None of this is pertinent to where things are now. I oppose a rollback because all that will do is restore old problems that have since been dealt with and lose all the work that others - not just me - have contributed to this article. Going backwards is not progress. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What are the old problems that have since been dealt with? What old problems did your edit at Special:Diff/1070701524 deal with? Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 19:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That's February. Let it go. Deal with now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Jenhawk asked for my input here, so here it is. Forgive me if I'm missing details (I'm often bad at following talk-page conversations), but I gather is advocating a reverting these sections to a version from January, before Jenhawk began reworking the article, because those citations had been thoroughly checked. Correct?

My problem with Levivich's argument, and it looks like Jenhawk has also seen it, is that the citations from those versions aren't good at maintaining text-source integrity because they bundle so many sources together. Without access to all the sources in question, it's not feasible to tell which sources support which statement. I'll give an example. I once tried to spot-check Cleopatra during its (successful) FAC. Much of the text was written based on two sources, one of which I was able to obtain, the other of which I was not. The nominator, who had largely rewritten the article for FAC, had structured the citations in such a way that a sentence would often be supported by two citations, one to each of the two major sources. I often checked the book I had and found that it supported part of the sentence but not the other. I could only assume that the other source covered the rest. In this case it was a safe bet because the nominator had a very long and distinguished FAC track record, but in an article like this one, with a long history of collaborative work and a lot of contentiousness, that's not going to be good enough.

Obviously, when a claim is contentious, it's often better to have more than one source so as to demonstrate that the claim has broad support, but that works best if the sources are saying the same thing. If you have to check each of the sources to fully support all the text the group of citations covers, it actually weakens verifiability. In the version Levivich wants to return to, the last paragraph of the Development section, covering a pretty wide range of topics, is supported by a single bundled citation incorporating eight sources! I'm simply not convinced that this is the best way to maintain verifiability. A. Parrot (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing your thoughts. My suggesting reverting to an older version has nothing to do with paragraph- or sentence-level citations, or bundled citations. (FYI, those paragraph-level citations cite the entire paragraph; every source supports every statement.) I agree that we don't need eight sources for the statements in the paragraph. When I added them, I wasn't sure which ones were best, I wanted to show the statements in wikivoice were well-supported, and I figured at some point I or someone else would reduce the number of cites by looking at which sources were best for which statements.
 * I think Special:Permalink/1065614835 and Special:Permalink/1065614835 (the Jan 14 versions) are better than the current version, Special:Permalink/1096822285. I think the prose is clearer. It's shorter. It's better-cited (because it contains multiple citations for the statements). There are more statements in wikivoice and fewer attributed statements. The level of detail is more appropriate to a broad summary.
 * But I'm not sure this whole discussion about the prior version of these sections is worthwhile, because I actually think the best thing to do is to have neither the old sections nor the new section, but rather to distribute both development and textual history to the sub-sections about the various major canons of the Bible (Hebrew Bible, Protestant Bible, Catholic Bible, etc.). Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 23:30, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Levivich and A. Parrot Yes, thank you. It is my opinion that there needs to be a development and history section, and that redistribution would not be an overall improvement. It would end up recreating that duplication we tried to get rid of.
 * I also think that fewer attributed statements is not better. Many of the statements in these various paragraphs are non-controversial and common knowledge in this area - though not necessarily for the ordinary reader - so they still need to be referenced, and in some cases, attributed. This is still a controversial topic overall.
 * Also, no previous version is for all the reasons previously discussed.


 * Since those bundled citations can't be easily verified, and since Levivich agrees, I would like to break up the bundle and have single citations for each separate sentence. There is no real difference in the quality of any one of those 8 sources verses another. There is no "best" source. They are all equally good sources, and it doesn't matter which is used, but surely one or two actually connected to a single statement, with page numbers, would be better than the way it is.


 * I would like to move forward by doing that, in every use of this bundled group, in order to establish text-source integrity which has been questioned. Part of that issue has, from the first, revolved around these bundled sources. Part of A. Parrot's comment is that text-source integrity about these bundled sources cannot be assumed. Since Levivich has claimed their continued use after revision caused a lack of it, it would seem there is agreement on that point. And since everyone agrees that text-source integrity absolutely must be established, it seems to me that problematic citations should be removed and replaced with more easily verified ones.


 * I do agree the whole discussion of prior versions is not worthwhile. Let's move forward from where we are. Unless there is consensus that elimination of the development section and its redistribution is necessary, (which would still not fix the referencing problem), I will do the work, fix the refs, and leave the rest. Can we establish some consensus on this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Third reboot
I cannot find a source for "most of whom are unknown" but I'm sure there is one out there. Can anyone provide that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hayes 2012, ch. 1; Brown 2010, Intro.; Bandstra 2009, pp. 7–9; Gravett et al. 2008, pp. 41, 59; Harris & Platzner 2008, pp. 21–22; Riches 2000 (now 2nd ed., 2022), pp. chs. 2 and 3, and Barton's "The Bible: The Most Influential Book in the World", but I forget year and page numbers, I think I may have mentioned it here already. I'll take a look later at reducing the cites for that sentence down to three. Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 20:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * One is sufficient, please, with a page number.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Multiple sources are better than one for statements in wikivoice, and ebooks don't have page numbers. I posted some sources and quotes last week at . That citation is now down to three sources. Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 05:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I had an entire response to your previous post - the one this replaced - and I have just deleted it. Perhaps this is a kind of progress. And I am glad of it. Why use ebooks that don't have page numbers? You have plenty of sources with page numbers to choose from. Multiple sources are not always the best choice; more is not always better. Sometimes less is more. One reference that is easily verified is better than 8 no one can find or read. If you want three, that's fine, but that does put you back in the realm of connecting them to the statements they support, with page numbers. Always with the page numbers! I have learned that the hard way. Thank you for making the effort to bring this article forward. I do genuinely appreciate it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) 10 has now been fully verified by Levivich.
 * 2) 11 is Riches, and I cannot get access beyond page 7. Levivich will you verify this quote is word for word correct? Reviewers will not accept it as accurate if there is one word, one comma, anything at all that varies in any way from the source. I don't need to see it myself if you can verify it, but in this one-by-one check list, it needs to be stated that it is fully accurate.
 * 3) 12 is Lim p.47; I added page 7 for papyrus
 * 4) 13 is Hendell and Joosten; multiple page #s all correct
 * 5) 14 is the bundled 8; Levivich will you edit down and either have one source per sentence or put in a note which source, with page numbers, supports which sentence please? Then these can be validated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stop pinging me and asking me to verify sources for you that I have already verified. I already told you I verified all of these sources when I added them in 2021. They were verified at that point. If you've made changes since then, you need to check yourself that the changes are verified, don't make changes and then ask me to verify for you. And seriously, stop pinging me here so often (it seems like a daily occurrence) and asking me to do this and that. I don't work for you, and I don't want you to be a part of my daily wiki-life. Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 16:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow. Okay then. As you wish. I take this as a declaration that I can make the changes necessary without you reverting them. Will do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) 14 is now Lim, and it's verified.
 * 2) 15 is Wegner and verified
 * 3) 16 is also Wegner, also verified
 * 4) 17 is Wegner, also verified
 * 5) 18 is Vander Kam and Flint, added 2 pages, now verified as correct
 * 6) 19 is Wegner pages 62 - 63, correct
 * 7) 20 is also rechecked and verified
 * 8) 21 is another entire paragraph (the one described above as missing) cited to the bundled 8 with no notes. The first sentence is "Considered to be scriptures (sacred, authoritative religious texts), the books were compiled by different religious communities into various biblical canons (official collections of scriptures)." It is now Hayes and verified as correct
 * 9) 22 is also Hayes and # 23 is Lim and they are all verified.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) 24 through 27 are Segal and  Dorival, Harl & Munnich; Lavidas and Dines are all correct.
 * 2) 28 is Hauser, Watson & Kaufman, p 201; 30, can't verify 201, but 30 - 31 say the same thing; adding 301, removing 201: verified Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:36, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Overview books about the Bible
Trying to put together a list of 21st-century books that provide an overview of the entire Bible (as opposed to some specific sub-topic like Hebrew Bible or New Testament). This is what I have so far (all of which I believe are already in the article, and most of which were, oddly, written by someone named John):
 * John Riches (2022), The Bible: a Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press
 * John Barton (2019), A History of the Bible, Viking Press
 * The New Cambridge History of the Bible (2012-2016), Cambridge University Press
 * John W. Rogerson (2012), An Introduction to the Bible, Equinox Publishing
 * John Barton (2010), The Bible: The Basics, Routledge

Does anyone have any books to add to this list? Thanks in advance, Levivich<sup class="sysop-show">[block] 19:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * A few from Oxford University Press:
 * Michael Coogan (2020), The Bible: What Everyone Needs to Know, Oxford UP
 * Bart Ehrman (2017), The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction, Oxford UP
 * J. W. Rogerson and Judith Lieu (2006), The Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, Oxford UP A. Parrot (talk) 02:06, 11 July 2022 (UTC)