Talk:Bible/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: A. Parrot (talk · contribs) 20:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm going through the article, but it will take a few days; this is probably the biggest topic I've ever reviewed! A. Parrot (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * It is a huge topic and a long article and you have all my sympathy and support. Take all the time you need. I'm just grateful someone was brave enough to tackle it!  Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

These are the problems I saw on my first examination. I'm putting the review on hold, pending improvements on these points. I intend to go over the article again soon; this is one of the most significant articles on the site, and it needs to be examined thoroughly even when just going through GAN.

I'm not using a GAN template, but I'll still use headers loosely relating to the GA criteria. A. Parrot (talk) 06:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A. Parrot How long do you suppose this hold will last? I have completed everything listed here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry—I've had a pretty tiring couple of work weeks. I will find time to look over things thoroughly over the weekend. A. Parrot (talk) 06:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A. Parrot Oh hey, no problem. Perfectly understandable. I just didn't know what had happened, so now I do. I think I have a fear of abandonment...   Hope all is well with you and yours. Don't let this add to your worries. We're good. I am happy to wait as long as you need.Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * A. Parrot I just finished the Tiberian problem, and that is the last of the things listed on this page.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Well written (criterion 1)


 * "Even those texts that seem to do so must be interpreted according to their original context…" — This feels like it's instructing the reader how the Bible should be read, which Wikipedia should not be doing.
 * ✅ removed.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "The Ketuvim are believed to have been written under the Ruach HaKodesh (the Holy Spirit)…" — Rather than "under", should this say "under the inspiration of"?
 * ✅ Yes: changed accordingly Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "The Tiberian tradition, which became the medieval Masoretic tradition, is built upon the Babylonian tradition which Samuel b. Jacob merged with the Tiberian leaving numerous traceable differences." I'm not following this sentence—it seems to suggest that ben Jacob merged the Babylonian tradition with the Tiberian tradition to create the Tiberian tradition.
 * ✅ I hope this is actually better and not just different. Made it two sentences.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid it's still unclear; what traditions was ben Jacob merging? A. Parrot (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is mine, so it's my mistake. I'll figure out what needs saying here - hopefully - and clear it up. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I have replaced this section with all that seems relevant to the section and its topic. Hope it's okay now. I will mark this one ✅ if you agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "Since late antiquity, once attributed to a hypothetical late 1st-century Council of Jamnia, mainstream Rabbinic Judaism rejected the Septuagint as valid Jewish scriptural texts." The reference to the Council of Jamnia doesn't really fit into the rest of the sentence as it stands, and readers unfamiliar with the hypothesis won't know what it means. That clause can easily be cut.
 * ✅ Plus, I added some of the further discussion of the Septuagint as valid here. Reread and approve or disapprove, please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "a Christian canon similar to its modern version was asserted in response to the plethora of writings claiming inspiration that contradicted orthodoxy: what they called heresy." The sentence says "was asserted", without saying who did the asserting, but then mentions "they", referring to the people who did the asserting as if they had been mentioned.
 * ✅ Rewritten accordingly.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Verifiable (criterion 2) and neutral (criterion 4)

✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "The transmission history of the Tanakh spans approximately 3000 years" — The source supports this sentence, but unless one adheres to the old dating of the Pentateuch sources to the tenth century BC, this requires a sizable amount of rounding. As I understand it, the oldest biblical text that is considered to be securely dated is Amos, which is roughly 2,750 years old.
 * This has now been rewritten and newly sourced. It is ✅ for sure! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "The Hebrew Bible is three times the length of the New Testament, was composed over a long period of time, possibly three thousand years" — Same problem. The source says this is true if Moses "wrote or collected any of the Pentateuch". I don't need to tell you that most scholars are dubious that any of the Pentateuch goes back that far. Besides, the way this is counted seems strange; the composition of the HB ended in the early centuries AD/CE, which would only make about 2,000 years even if its beginnings were attributed to Moses.
 * ✅ removed phrase. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "The scientific revolution, the founding of the English and American democracies, the repression of usury, the origins of banking, and a sociological thesis that asserts the Protestant work ethic was an important force behind the development of capitalism and the industrial revolution, all reflect the widespread influence of the Bible." — The passage about democracy doesn't seem to be supported by a source. The Protestant work ethic hypothesis has been challenged on several fronts for decades, as that article shows, and while I know less about the claim regarding the scientific revolution, I'd be surprised if it has widespread acceptance. Of course, the scientific and industrial revolutions emerged in cultures that were permeated and shaped by Christianity, but that doesn't necessarily mean one can draw a clear through-line from them all the way back to the biblical text.
 * ✅I went ahead and removed most of this, but thought that mentioning the indirect influence was worth documenting a couple of them, so I added that, with refs, and if you hate it I am happy to remove it entirely. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "Many scholars believe that the limits of the Ketuvim as canonized scripture were determined by the Council of Jamnia c. 90 CE." According to the article about the Council of Jamnia (and as implied by the other reference to it in this article), the idea that there was such a council is a largely discredited hypothesis, which, if true, makes this wording misleading.
 * ✅ removed Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "The Greek content of the New Testament was fixed by 367CE under Athanasius, the bishop of Alexandria." Was it really Athanasius who finalized the canon, or is his letter of 367 simply the earliest surviving source that lists the modern canon?
 * ✅ removed Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but there should probably be a sentence stating when the NT canon reached its final form; we know roughly when it happened (the late fourth century) even if we don't know exactly how. A. Parrot (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It's in the fourth paragraph of the New Testament section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "The biblical account of events of the Exodus from Egypt in the Torah, and the migration to the Promised Land and the period of Judges are generally not considered historical." My understanding is that it's thought this part of the Bible may contain a grain of truth. If you meant to convey that in this sentence, it may need to be recast for clarity. More significantly, the citations for this sentence don't seem to support the sentence; I'm going to do more extensive citation spot-checks over the next week.
 * ✅ rewrote, see if it's okay please Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A. Parrot This article has had multiple contributors over the years as it has evolved into its present state. I would say every one of them has made this article better, including you and your suggestions, but I am not completely surprised at a citation failure. I nominated it because I did the last extensive rewrite, and I do believe I can guarantee mine, but I admit I did not go back and check all the citations of what I didn't redo. It is truly excellent that you are willing to do a citation check. I know it's a pain. If you find problems, I am more than happy to fix anything you find. If you check the talkpage, you will see ActivelyDisinterested and I did some of that, but that's all. I agree this is an important article, so this is very important. Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * "This led to the first hospital for the poor in Caesarea in the fourth century and, eventually, to modern health care." The latter part of the sentence seems far too sweeping a claim, and the sources quoted don't really go that far.
 * I have a source that does. It's accurate. I will bring and add it tomorrow. I am beat from traveling all day today. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Broad in its coverage (criterion 3)

Although there's a link to Oral Torah, and the Talmud is mentioned in passing as a source for understanding the Bible's textual history the Jewish tradition of commentaries-upon-commentaries-upon-commentaries on the Bible isn't really touched upon here. I'd expect at least a sentence or two about the Talmud, given its significance in how Jews relate to the Bible.
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * There is now a short paragraph on the Talmud that seemed to fit best under the interpretation section. I had three additional references but did not see the need to use them, that is, unless you are hard over about not using a single reference in which case I will go back and get them and add them in as well. Otherwise, this is now ✅ as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Citation check
I spot-checked 13 claims in the article (I would have done more, but a lot of sources were inaccessible to me). Eight were OK, but five others were concerning.
 * Citation 2b doesn't support the revised claim. Yes, I know you changed the sentence in response to my comment, but if you can't find a source that supports the revised date, you may have to remove it.
 * That particular sentence has now been removed. It wasn't mine, and I didn't recognize the reference, so I went and did some more research on that claim. I found another source that says essentially the same thing but uses 'iron age' instead of a number of years. It is now by itself ahead of the paragraph on canon dates. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Citation 6: I can't find the portion of the quotation that comes after the ellipsis in Note B.
 * This is also not mine, so I read through the entire article, and I couldn't find the rest of that quote either. I have removed everything but the one statement that is there, and have taken it out of the note. I did go and find another source that, again, says basically the same things, but at least this is sourced properly.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll be back tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Citation 53: Of the two sentences supported by the citation, Wegner 1999 supports the first, but on pp. 177–178, not pp. 24–25. I can't find support for the second sentence in the Google Books preview.
 * There is no Wegner 1999 at reference 53. Wegner 1999 is reference 13. It supports one sentence accurately: Page 172. It's available to borrow at the Open Library.
 * Wegner is also used for reference 50 supporting Page 41 has "utmost care"; the rest of the page numbers are not applicable, so I added Black instead.
 * Aha!! I think this must be what you are referring to: Ref #56 says It is Wegner, and it is page 25, but it is the 2006 version of his book, not 1999. My bad! That's on me. Boy that took forever to find! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Citation 60: Pages 23–25 don't seem to support the sentence.
 * Ref 60 doesn't cite pages 23-25; it cites page 116 and 123, and those page numbers are correct. It's also here on wikiquote: [] I am not going to try and guess what else you might be referring to, but 60 is correct. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Citation 83 & 84: I can't check 83, but the page cited for 84 doesn't mention the Bible at all.
 * 83 is Philbrick 2006; page 9 and pages 41-42 discuss biblical covenant as the basis for the Mayflower compact; page 352 is also pertinent to statements on the Compact's impact on democracy.
 * I do not know what is going on with 84 and 85. I think they must be leftovers from previous work that simply got incorporated here. They are removed.
 * I would like to add which says: p= abstract
 * It's 20 till one. I am going to bed now. I think these are all  Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Another round, June 23
I think the article content is mostly OK, though I have a couple of particular sticking points, followed by a larger concern about prose.
 * "Since the 17th century, scholars have viewed the original sources as being the product of multiple anonymous authors while also allowing the possibility that Moses first assembled the separate sources" — This wording implies that scholars down to the present allow for the possibility that Moses first assembled the sources, which I'm pretty sure hasn't been the mainstream opinion since before Wellhausen, and I don't see support in the cited sources for it.
 * Actually, later scholars have confirmed the assembly of sources that date back to what was probably Moses' day, which is what it says here: Van Seters, John (2015). The Pentateuch: A Social-Science Commentary (Second ed.). Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-0-56765-879-1 on page 32. Much of Wellhausen has been undermined by later scholarship (see Biblical criticism. What hasn't been challenged at all is simply that one fact: that the texts were assembled from earlier ones by someone (and in some cases by someones).


 * I'm still concerned about the passage about the roots of American democracy; I feel like it receives a disproportionate amount of space (most of a paragraph) despite the indirect nature of the connection between the Bible per se and modern traditions of self-government.
 * Well, the Mayflower compact is seen as significant as the Declaration of Independence, but I can remove that whole paragraph if you like. The section is about the influence of the Bible, not the US, and the rest of that section's content establishes that sufficiently, so it isn't a necessity, and in a previous sentence in the second paragraph it already says 'democracy', and it would be perfectly reasonable of you to decide that is sufficient. Let me just do that. This article and this section are plenty long without it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Something that has been nagging at me for a while is the prose criterion. While the GA standard isn't nearly as stringent as the one for FAC, the prose does need to be "clear", and for an article with readership as broad as this, that's especially important. Many readers will be coming here with only a general understanding of what the Bible is, and a lot of the article uses terminology that will be unfamiliar to many of them. This is especially true of the stuff about textual history, which is fairly technical and unfamiliar even to most people who have read the Bible extensively. I'm not arguing that this information should be removed, but I think the text needs some streamlining. A basic example would be when the article mentions alternate names for subjects that have their own articles; with the exception of a few key terms like "Torah"/"Pentateuch", most of these aren't all that relevant (I removed one example here). Another example is the sentence about the Decretum Gelasianum, which goes off on a tangent about its purported authorship that really isn't relevant here, or easy to read. I feel like the odd structure of the article may also create redundancy, and perhaps even confusion: for example, why is there a section on pseudepigraphal books that overlaps with the passages about the apocrypha in the sections on the Septuagint and Christian Bible? I think some streamlining is needed, both on the level of article structure and a sentence-by-sentence level. It's not easy to tell article authors how to do this, and they often have difficulty spotting redundancies because they're so familiar with the text, but I think it needs to be done here. A. Parrot (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to say I agree. I had noticed some redundancies the first time I read it through but left them as someone else's work, since there has been some struggle and disagreement over content in this article from the get-go. I will go fix the ones I see and try to shorten this very long and perhaps overly technical article. It's not a big deal really, and I think you are in the right to request it. It won't be that much work, and probably it won't take me long. I will ping you when I think I am done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A. Parrot I think this is now ✅ Please check and see if this meets the standard you were thinking of. If you let me know quickly, I can finish up anything left tonight. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have attempted to track down any and all jargon and be sure all necessary terms are explained and others are eliminated. I only did that in their first usage. Hope that's okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A. Parrot I forgot to answer this part above. Pseudepigrapha and apocrypha are not the same, and that did seem confusing the way it was written, so I moved all the apocrypha into the discussions of the Septuagint and the Old Testament that contain them, which are the much more appropriate places for it imho. I included a definition in the first mention in the Septuagint section too. Pseudepigrapha on the other hand, needs its own section and is placed between the Hebrew Bible and the NT because they both, allegedly, contain some. I left the "allegedly Moses" in BC, since that is supported, and it is just referred to as a possibility, not a fact. The Decretum Gelasianum, is gone now. (I didn't like it either.) The rest has been rearranged and combined and repetitions have been eliminated. If you check, you will see the article is a good bit shorter, and I hope, more straightforward and clearer. Please let me know if anything else needs doing. I know I am faster at responding than you seem to expect, and that comes across as pushy, but that's just how I always work. Give me a list and I work it till it's done! So, this is done - I think! Hope to hear from you sometime soon. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The older version had 71 kB (11622 words) and this revised version has 65 kB (10609 words). Not a huge change but some. However, I think it's the rearrangement that makes everything clearer rather than the cutting. I hope you agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'll be busy today, but I will look it over tomorrow. A. Parrot (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A. Parrot I'm cool with that. Thanx Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Moses was also placed in the second sentence of the Tanakh section, by someone not me, which says almost exactly the same thing from two alternate sources. It's accurate, really, I promise. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

New discussion

 * I just want to give some thoughts. The Bible plays a significant role in Islam, the 2nd largest religion in the world. I'm surprised to very little coverage of that. There is a sentence about Islamic criticism, but the Islamic view is much deeper than that. Unfortunately, Islamic view of the Bible is poorly written so its not a good resource either. But I would hope to see that perspective covered as a good article.VR talk 06:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, personally I'd organize the article a bit differently. I would put the "Influence" section near the end of the article. Discussions about impact of the subject ("legacy" etc) are usually treated at the end of the article, after the subject has been described. I would Etymology at the top of the article, as Etymology is usually always at the top of the article (see for example, Qur'an, Torah and Bhagavad Gita). I'd make sections 4,5,6,7 and 8 subsections of a larger section called "Books of the Bible". I'm also wondering if the article currently has too much detail on the books of the bible, which is a big topic of course. It might also be worth having a section or subsection on the teachings of the Bible, like morality and ethics and how these have been interpreted (another big topic, I know).VR talk 07:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

A. Parrot What do you think concerning VR's comments? In my own opinion, this topic precludes spending too much time on different religious views. It's all we can do as a parent article to cover content, development and impact. The Quran mentions some books of the Bible, but it does not contain the Bible in the way the Christian Bible contains the Hebrew one. There is no Islamic version of the Bible. Differing views are mentioned under "Interpretation and inspiration", and Islam gets the same mention as Christianity and Judaism, but creating a section on the Islamic view would require creating a section on the other views as well. I think those are all daughter articles that are sub-topics of this one and don't really belong here in a big way, and it is already here in a small way. I will add a link to the Islamic view of the Bible in that section at least.

Yes, etymology is often at the top of an article. When the definition is important to understanding the topic, that is critically important, and that's probably true for the majority of topics. In this case, it just isn't. It is safe to assume that everybody knows what the Bible is, and the evolution of the term itself has very little to do with understanding it. Since articles should be arranged based on most important to least important, etymology should be among the lesser. Influence, on the other hand, should be toward the top. It can certainly be moved to after the Hebrew and NT sections if you like, but it does not belong at the end - not in this particular topic. The Bible's influence as foundational to western culture is a critical point that was only barely made until you pointed that out. You were right, and I support keeping it where it is.

We could add some, maybe a short paragraph if you like, on teachings of the Bible. For the most part, that should also be reserved for daughter articles - imho - but a small addition might actually be a good idea anyway. We should have more links to those daughter articles that already exist, such as Ethics in the Bible, Jewish ethics and Christian ethics which are already full fledged articles themselves. We could designate this as the main article on each of those pages, and link them here. There are several Bible articles already in existence. We do not have to try and cover every topic here as they are already covered elsewhere. But some mention of these might still be good. It could easily fit in the interpretation section.

I will wait until you decide if you want a paragraph on teachings. I will add the links there if you agree. Please let me know what you decide. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not mean for there to be an entire section on the Islamic view, but rather a subsection. The Quran doesn't contain the Old Testament in the same way that the New Testament doesn't contain the Old Testament. But both Muslims and Christians revere the Hebrew Bible, albeit to different degrees.VR talk 18:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * VR The Christian Bible does in fact contain the Hebrew Bible. All Christian Bibles have both Testaments. The Quran does not. So in an article on the Bible, the Christian and the Hebrew must both be included. In an article on the Bible, the additional writings of Mormons, Muslims, and others must be mentioned, but that's all, because they may revere it but do not include it. That's defined simply by content, that's all. I have already gone and moved the 'Influence' section and the 'interpretation' section to below the content sections as you suggested. What's in the Bible probably is more significant in an article like this. I've already done a little research on teachings, and now I think I will write that article next! I can keep it to a general paragraph - I think - but it might very well be an appropriate addition here. Anyway, we'll see what A. Parrot thinks. He's the reviewer and the decision is his. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * VR maybe you have a point about etymology as well. Perhaps moving it back to the front where it was originally would preclude anyone wondering why there is no Islamic section or subsection. I'll give it a try and see what A.Parrot thinks. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey, what if we created a section called "Content", placed it right after 'development and history', and put the 'Hebrew Bible', the 'Christian Bible' and added teachings as sub-sections in it all together? What would you guys think of that approach? Having deeper subsections makes things harder to see on your phone, but sometimes it's called for.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the reorganization you've done so far is an improvement. More detail on the Islamic view of the Bible would be welcome, but I question whether it merits a section or even a subsection of its own. I'm a bit skeptical of a "teachings" section, though it might be needed. More information about the content and themes of the Bible would probably be an improvement, but many parts of the Bible weren't originally written as teachings, exactly, even if pretty much all of it is often read that way, and of course different groups draw wildly different lessons from it.
 * I'm still uncomfortable with the "pseudepigrapha" section, as it doesn't seem like a top-level topic. I think maybe the content there could be incorporated into a broader section on "authorship"; passages from other sections that discuss the authorship of various books might belong there as well. A. Parrot (talk) 00:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Wow A. Parrot you're hard to impress. I have now created "Content and themes" and put the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, pseudepigrapha and the Christian Bible - along with the newly created section on themes - under that big heading (section #3). is certainly true and I hope you will find it sufficiently represented in that new section.
 * I can't tell you how sorry I am to disagree with you about anything, but I'm afraid that no decent Bible scholar would leave out a discussion of pseudepigrapha. It would be like leaving Newton's laws out of an article on physics. It's a truly big deal in the field, hotly debated, much studied and written on, and it simply must be included in any article on the Bible. Please call for a consensus opinion on this. Anyone who knows anything on this subject will say the same.
 * If someone else wants to add more on the Islamic view, which seems like a special appeal to me, I won't oppose or revert, but I personally think it would be out of place, so I won't be doing it myself.
 * That's everything that's been requested, again. The article has been improved by your input, and for that I thank you deeply and genuinely. We've made a good many changes, but I live in hope this is all now ✅. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sigh. On the contrary, I'm very impressed by how fast you're able to respond to input, and I do think this is close to GA status. Part of my struggle here is that there's a wide quality range between the stringent FA criteria and the B-class criteria, and because I don't often do GA reviews, I'm not sure where to draw the line. (Incidentally, I wasn't suggesting you should eliminate coverage of pseudepigrapha—far from it—but that such coverage might work better as part of a section about who wrote the biblical books and how authorship is determined, but I don't think that's necessary for GA status.)
 * The Moses sentence is still a sticking point. Citations 74 and 75 (as they are numbered in the current revision) still don't seem to support the final phrase in the sentence, and while I checked the van Seters source, it doesn't say what you're referring to on page 32. (It might on 34 or 35, which I can't see in the Google Books preview.) More broadly, it was my understanding that while nearly all of Wellhausen's specific claims have been rejected, scholars still date the earliest sources of the Pentateuch no earlier than the united monarchy, and the trend has been to move the dates downward rather than upward. From what I understand, the archaeological record shows Israel only gradually re-developed full literacy after the Bronze Age Collapse, so we wouldn't expect to find lengthy texts much earlier than when the first datable books of the Bible show up in the eighth century, hence no Pentateuch-assembling Moses. My impression may be wrong, but I need to see the evidence for it; could you quote the relevant passage of van Seters, and perhaps cite it in the article? A. Parrot (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

A. Parrot Thank you so much for this lovely, thorough, and careful response. I appreciate it. I also appreciate your struggles as a reviewer. I have only done GANs, so in my view, you have already done more than most, which I deeply respect. You are doing a good and careful job, and I think that is indisputably a good thing. All your comments have improved the article in my view, and no one can ask for more than that. You're great, truly, absolutely great, and I hope this is not the last time we work together.
 * Moses: Since Moses is in the section on BC which opens with "The method, purpose and approach of biblical criticism is demonstrated in its beginnings.", and the discussion is about the origins of BC, and Astruc, and it carefully says, "", it is a historical claim which is 100% inarguably correct. There is no argument about contemporary views, or fact, or whether he was correct, or any of that; it's history, and it demonstrates the kind of 'on again-off again' disagreement BC has produced. For example there are these:


 * "The Documentary Hypothesis has lost its dominant position in current pentateuchal studies."
 * "...the Documentary Hypothesis suffered many challenges, from the time of its inception through contemporary scholarship. Scholars have contested and even refuted the arguments from Divine names, doublets, contradictions, late words, late morphology, Aramaisms, and every other aspect of the Documentary Hypothesis." As a result, some scholars denounce source criticism en toto, while others posit alternate hypotheses." Stern advocates for what he calls the "synchronic method" which rests on previously undetected textual phenomena.
 * "Since the latter half of the twentieth century the literary origin of the Pentateuch and its sources have been re-evaluated. As a result the validity of the long-standing classical formulation of the Documentary Hypothesis has been called into question".
 * Was Astruc right or wrong? I haven't a clue, and no one else does either - or probably ever can. The Documentary hypothesis is out, but nothing else has risen to take its place yet. I am guessing Jewish scholarship will prevail in the end, and we may see the return of Moses, but who knows? I surely do not, and since this is simply history, I don't really think I have to.


 * In this article there is a statement by William Dever that is fair and should probably be remembered by all of us when evaluating and concluding about things like this: We don't know all that we don't know.


 * Authorship. This should be studiously avoided. It would absolutely require a one-by-one approach to 66 books - 66! There is no possible way to discuss authorship without discussing every single frickin' book, and all the disputes, and everything connected to all of that. YIKES!! Every book named in this article is already linked to its own page where they do that. Thank the gods of Wikipedia! Therefore, we should not, definitely should not, get into all of that in this article. (You may notice I feel strongly about this)


 * Pseudepigrapha. Without getting into the horrible sucking quagmire of authorship, where else can pseudepigrapha go? I will put it wherever (else) you suggest.


 * I rechecked the refs for Astruc. I changed one - then realized I changed it to the same reference. Oh well. So I added another. They all say the same thing; it was Astruc's view. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * OK. The "since the 17th century" wording implies that it is still a prevalent opinion. The important point—the one that has remained consistent since Astruc—is that the Pentateuch is viewed as the product of multiple anonymous authors, so I think it best to cut out "while also allowing the possibility that Moses first assembled the separate sources".
 * I'm going to give the article a final once-over and decide whether there's any good place to put pseudepigrapha, or whether it should be left in place for now. I hope to do it tomorrow, but it's going to be a very hot day where I live, and I'm not sure how well my brain will be working. I will get to it very soon. A. Parrot (talk) 04:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, it's gone. I'll bet I win the "hot" contest - I live on along the Gulf of Mexico. It was 104 today. And I don't have a pool at this house. Groan...  !!!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Some comments:
 * "According to the March 2007 edition of Time, the Bible "has done more to shape literature, history, entertainment, and culture than any book ever written. Its influence on world history is unparalleled, and shows no signs of abating." I agree the Bible has been a very influential book, but such a strong statement should not be sourced to a non-scholarly pop source like the TIME magazine, but instead we should find a scholar of Bible studies to make that statement.
 * We actually already have one there. The first sentence of that paragraph is from John Barton: The Time article was just included because it was already in the lead, and when I was consolidating and reorganizing, I moved it from there to be here with the matching claim made by a scholar. It seems to me I remember reading that when a weak source is also supported by a strong one, that it's copacetic to use it, but I don't care. I can remove it if A. Parrot says to do so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * In general I'm finding that the "Influence" section is making broad generalizations that deserve to be covered in more than one sentence. For example, "Biblical texts have been the catalyst for political concepts like democracy, religious toleration and religious freedom". This statement is merited but it requires two things: explanation as to why Bible has been interpreted as an inspiration for democracy and whether there are any contrarian views (and btw, this should be in the interpretation section, not influence).VR talk 23:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OOPS! We had that and already took it out. You can read it here: You will have to make that argument with A. Parrot. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Broad generalizations are out of necessity. This topic is so large, and the influence of the Bible so wide, over such an extended period, it could not only fill an article of its own, but several books - oh wait - it has!
 * I cannot agree that any of this belongs in Interpretation. Much of the influence of the Bible is not found in direct Bible verses that were interpreted by anyone, but in the indirect ideas people developed from beliefs derived from the Bible. Democracy for example. The Puritans believed in covenant - from the Bible - and out of those beliefs they wrote the Mayflower Compact- which is not rooted in or an interpretation of any Bible verses per sé - which is seen by most scholars as being as important as the Declaration and the Constitution to the democracy of America. That's influence, not interpretation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

VR talk 23:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Another issue I have is this: the article talks about what the Bible is and then immediately jumps to the great influence the Bible has had in world history. But it misses a crucial link: the Bible played a central role in Christianity, and it those Christians that then applied those teachings to better humanity. In fact, I think a section on "Religious significance" of the Bible is crucial, given it is primarily a religious book. What role does the Bible play in Christianity's various branches? What role does it play in liturgy, public worship etc? See for example Quran, Bhagavad Gita, Torah.
 * VR I have removed my previous comment for snarkiness. Sorry. The Hulk appeared for a moment. As to your suggestion: That is about religion. This article is about the Bible itself. That would be off topic. We can't say everything possible. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We have several sentences on Bible inspiring hospitals, medicine, anti-apartheid movement (I agree its important) but very little on the use of the Bible in Christian liturgy or how it is viewed by other religions. The Bible is primarily known for being a religious book so it makes little sense to focus more on its political components than its religious ones.VR talk 15:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As the one who started the review, I have the final say here, but on such a sprawling topic, I'd be foolish to dismiss the input of other reviewers. I asked that the passage about democracy be shorted because it seemed disproportionate to spend much space on such an indirect (and probably controversial) result of the Bible's influence. VR has a point that the religious impact of the Bible is more direct and easily traceable. A. Parrot (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, and now that VR has both asked for more on politics and complained about how much there is on politics, you will have to decide. I thought your reasoning on that passage was fair and didn't argue with removing it accordingly. VR offers no new reasons to think you were in error that I can see. Here is my input that I hope will help.
 * The religious impact of the Bible on religions founded on the Bible, who also created the Bible, is kind of circular; it is also inherent in everything said here. The Bible and the religions grew together. I can add that, I suppose. I'm sure I can find a source if you tell me where you would like it, but why is it necessary? There is already lengthy discussion of how these texts were produced, by believers, in more than one place. I think the 'Influence' section already pretty well covers its extended impact, but it's also in 'Versions and translations', BC, and other places as well. Would all of that be taken out of those various sections and put in a section of its own? What religious impact that is direct and traceable are either of you referring to? I need something more specific if you want me to do anything with this. I am not averse to either of you adding it yourself if you know what you want. Please feel free. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, Jews read weekly Torah portions as part of their services, while Christians have lectionaries, often build sermons around particular biblical passages, and write hymns based on psalms. Not all denominations do all these things, but they're pretty widespread practices.
 * On another note, when I did my read-through, the four sentences starting with "A Pew Center study about religion and education around the world in 2016…" stood out to me. The study supports the higher literacy rate among Jews and Christians, and it mentions the historical significance of the Bible as a motivation for increasing literacy among Jews and Christians just as it mentions motivations for literacy among Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists. But it does not say the literacy gap is because of the Bible per se, and it mentions possible socioeconomic reasons for the literacy gap in Africa. I'm concerned that these four sentences imply that the higher literacy rate is because of the Bible, which would be synthesis. A. Parrot (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A. Parrot Yeah, I just added those sentences today. I thought I'd put it out there, and see if it would fly, but I do not mind at all taking them right back out again.
 * And yes, of course, the Bible is used in worship - does that really need spelling out? I guess we could add a sentence to that effect, but it seems more about religious practice than the Bible per sé. I'm sorry if I am not quite catching up to speed on what needs to be communicated about this, but I am a little bit thrown by this.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Part of Wikipedia's job is spelling out what may seem obvious. If you were looking for information of a sacred text from a culture you're not familiar with, wouldn't it be relevant to know that it was used in worship, and how it was used? A. Parrot (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A. Parrot I am willing to see that I might be blind to what you guys are seeing - but I also might be justified in my fears that this will open the door to adding all kinds of stuff on religion and religious views that has no place in this article. Let me ping the other people who have contributed and cared about this article and see if we can reach a consensus of some kind. Is that okay with you? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, I've done it. It's on the talk page. If this doesn't reach a consensus, we may have to do an RFC. Let's see what the other editors who contributed to this article have to say. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * A. Parrot ✅ I have now removed PEW.
 * I will of course attempt to cooperate in adding whatever you feel is relevant. My field of study is world religion. I assume any text designated sacred to any religion is going to be an aspect of that religion's worship. If I was reading an article on their text, I would not expect to find religious practices in it. I would expect links, and I would probably go there if I was unfamiliar with what those might be. So no, I personally would not expect to find "uses" in an article on the text, but perhaps I am not a good example. I can do it if you think it should be here. Personal use, congregational use, denominational use - the Bible is used for counseling, for seminars, for training and teaching, in worship and singing and more - Catholic, Protestant, Jewish - it will all have to be included, spelled out and divvied up, and it won't be short. I am afraid of getting off into the weeds on this. Where will religious uses/practices end? We've already added a lot to this already long article, and I do think that should be considered. Those things that are not limited to the Bible itself but are instead about things connected to it, like religion, should, perhaps, be considered as outside the purview of this article. I will do it if you decide to - but I probably won't be happy about it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * VR, I'm sorry. I am not seeing what you see. The opening line of the lead begins with the Bible being ; 'Etymology' defines it as the of two religions; 'Development and history' say it is ; and so on with, I believe, a mention of it as a revered religious text in every section of this article. There is simply no validity to the claim this article focuses  Politics has two sentences; and if hospitals and medicine is now too big, I am surprised, since you are the one who tagged it and wanted more on that connection to the Bible.
 * Since many denominations do not follow a liturgy at all, any discussion of Christian liturgy or use of the Bible would have to vary by denomination - how many are there? 200 in the US alone? Plus the different approaches of the different kinds of Judaism?
 * How it is viewed by various Christians and other religions are both already mentioned in the 'interpretation and inspiration' section and also in 'biblical criticism'. Imo, spending more than a paragraph or two on this would blow up this article all out of proportion.
 * Think how long it would become. We would end up being required to split it - just to find out these are already existing sub-articles. If you click on the link at the top of the article: Outline of Bible-related topics you can see how many Bible topics there are on WP. We simply cannot include all of what could be included here. I believe it would be prohibitive to do as you suggest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree about the influence section. It says the bible inspired democracy and justice... but doesn't really spend nearly as much time on the other side. The Crusades, the Holy Roman Empire, the Spanish Inquisition, etc. The Bible certainly inspired tyranny, suppression, torture, war, etc., as well as democracy and justice, etc.
 * @A. Parrot: I have some V/NPOV concerns I'd like to raise before this is closed (unresolved issues that were previously discussed in the talk apge archives), but I don't want to "get in the way" of your review, so please let me know whether/when/how to raise them. Levivich[block] 14:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say you can raise them now—this review has gone on a long time already, partly because of my slowness, and I'd rather not drag it out any longer. My only suggestion is to add a new section for your concerns here on the GAN page, as this section is rather convoluted already. A. Parrot (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Levivich A. Parrot has established that there needs to be a direct step between the Bible and what it inspired, or no more than a couple steps at best, that can be shown in more than one valid source, in order for it to be in the influence section in this article. We have only listed majority views and have removed anything considered controversial.
 * With democracy, those on the Mayflower used their belief in the biblical doctrine of covenant to write the Mayflower Compact, which was as important as the Declaration of Independence to establishing American democracy. That connection has been well sourced for ages, and it's just one example. It's a well established, well sourced, connection.
 * On the other hand, the causes of the crusades were multiple, largely circumstantial, and in opposition to biblical doctrines like 'turn the other cheek'. That too is well established. Christianity can be blamed, cultural motives can be, but not the Bible as such. The Spanish Inquisition was primarily the result of one man's ruthless ambition, so also not the Bible. Even the Pope at the time opposed that one, and certainly no one has ever claimed the Bible as justification for torture. The whole reason for the Reformation was because some thought the church had drifted far, far away from biblical standards. That too is well-established and thoroughly sourced. At any rate, without sources that say 'it has been established through xx sources that these people used the Bible to practice whatever' it can't be included:
 * I don't know what is being claimed about the HRE, but if you can source a biblical connection, we can add it in as an example of politics.
 * Please, do go ahead and raise any issues you still have, and be specific.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If I can source a biblical connection to the Holy Roman Empire? Huh? The word "Holy" is in "Holy Roman Empire" because it was the empire of the Roman Catholic Church, which has an obvious biblical connection. The Bible was the law in like all of Europe (and other places) for something like a millennia: from the fall of the Roman Empire, to, say, the Reformation. Many wars and abuses, including the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, were done in the name of the Bible. Similarly, the modern-day Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, in very large part, due to biblical influences: at least some of the people in that conflict are fighting because the Hebrew Bible tells them that this is their land. The Bible has been the cause of centuries upon centuries of conflicts; I don't think it can meet GACR 2 or 4 if it doesn't tell the reader about the negative influences of the Bible, not just the positive influences. Most of the influence section is spent on positive influences, and states those influences in wikivoice. Negative influences are presented as accusations. The Bible wasn't just accused of advocating for slavery, it was used by millions of people as the justification for slavery for centuries. Similarly with women's rights: 1 Timothy 2:12 is an example of the Bible's influence on the subjugation of women. But our article Bible, right now, says . I mean, where's the other side of that? Where does it talk about the Bible's influence on the subjugation of women?
 * Anyway, I just wanted to respond to that bit about influence. I will post more within 24 hours in separate sections per Parrot's request. Levivich[block] 18:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * OK I'm going to blab a little bit more about influence. Two more points about influence:
 * The Roman Catholic Church ruled the Western world for like 1,000 years. This is the single biggest influence of the Bible on history. But "Roman Catholic" and "Catholic" appear nowhere in the influence section; "Holy Roman Empire" appears nowhere in the entire article; this article doesn't tell the reader that the Bible was basically the law of the Western world for like 1,000 years. That's a significant omission when we're talking about the influence of the Bible.
 * There is one universally-accepted truth, accepted both by scholars and laypeople alike, about the Bible, and it's this: the Bible can be, and has been, used to justify just about everything and its opposite. There are Bible verses on can cite in favor of women's rights and against women's rights; in favor of gay marriage and against it; in favor of the death penalty and against it; in favor of X and against X, for just about any X. The Bible is something that everyone has used to justify everything, at some point. It's like a Rorschach test, everyone looking at it sees something different. Another major part of the influence of the bible (and this is also important for the "Interpretation and inspiration" section) is that it's influence everything, both good and bad, and it's interpreted to mean anything and everything. Anyway, this point seems missing from the Bible. In fact, my reading of it is that it kind of suggests the opposite: that the article implies that interpretation differences are all religious--like different interpretations by different sects of Christianity--but it doesn't talk about how biblical interpretation has had a profound affect on politics for the entire post-Roman history of the Western world. Levivich[block] 18:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "The Roman Catholic Church ruled the Western world for like 1,000 years." I sincerely doubt we can talk about the Catholic Church prior to the Gregorian Reform in the 1050s. Pope Gregory VII essentially reinvented the Church, with a creed unique to him: "that the pope, in his role as head of the Church, is the vice-regent of God on earth, so that disobedience to him implies disobedience to God: or, in other words, a defection from Christianity." The secular authority of the Pope was previously rather weak, even within the Papal States. And the various incarnations of the Christian Church have teen typically administrated according to canon law, not biblical law. Dimadick (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you change "1000 years" to "500 years" does it really change my point at all? :-) OK, you're right, it wasn't RCC for 1,000 years, but it was the Church for 1,000 years. Canon law is still an example of Biblical influence. The Byzantine Empire was also a Christian empire. My point is: the rulers who ruled the world used the Bible to justify their rule, for centuries, if not more than a millennia. This isn't in Bible, and it should be. Levivich[block] 20:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No, changing to 500 doesn't change anything because both are both wrong. Dimadick is completely correct. Christianity up to the 11th and 12th centuries was not uniform - certainly not enough to be described as ruling anything - not even itself very well. Canon law is not an example of biblical influence. It's an example of religious influence. is a sweeping claim that simply cannot be universally applied. Surely there was someone who did, here and there, but mostly they justified their power through other means like appealing to Rome. The Catholic church of the middle ages simply did not revere the Bible in the way of modern Protestants. You need to let go of the idea that everything they did was guided by it. They didn't need to do so. They had a higher source of power right there in their midst: the Pope whom they declared had primacy - above the Bible - because of his perfection. The Catholic church did not declare the Bible perfect or see it as equal in authority. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Pseudepigrapha
Have you determined what you want to do with this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it can stay where it is for now. A. Parrot (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Significance
A. Parrot I have now added the requested section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Levivich
Let's see if I can number and list the problems here.

1 First, please provide sources for all claims. I am past tired of you presenting your opinions as facts. Next, please recognize that everything religious is not necessarily connected to the Bible.

2 3 4 5 Similarly, the modern-day Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, in very large part, due to biblical influences: at least some of the people in that conflict are fighting because the Hebrew Bible tells them that this is their land. 6 7
 * The HRE was a political entity (Germany) not a religious one. It was a monarchy. You can argue whether Charlemagne or Otto I founded it, but the leaders believed they inherited their power from the ancient emperors of Rome - not the church or the Bible.
 * Canon law (church law) was that universal law, though of course there was also civil law. Church law was generally based on natural law principles, and it derived its authority from the Pope, (or sometimes from a lesser legislator), not the Bible. The history of canon law is divided into 4 periods. The first period might redefine the rules of the early church, that are in the Bible, as comparable to later canons of the church, but most non-catholics would not agree.
 * The Crusades had multiple causes but they were all cultural. Problems started over pilgrimage. Crusade was never referred to as the "way of the Bible", it was called "the way of the cross". It was the idea of sacrifice, rooted in an increased desire for demonstrative piety in society, (which did not necessarily include or have anything to do with the Bible itself), that was the motivating ideal of crusade. The Spanish inquisition was the brainchild of King Ferdinand. In the WP article it says It lists 9 theories for the creation of the Spanish Inquisition, there is one listed under "Purely religious reasons" and it is unsourced. It was a state institution that used religion for political purposes and for power.
 * Whether you believe in Abraham or not, it has been demonstrated through sociological and genetic research that Jews first emerged in the Levantine region and have lived on that land continuously for 4000 years.  The thing to remember? Jews and Arabs share DNA.
 * The Bible never actually advocates for slavery. It never says, 'this is a good thing, do this'. I had a whole thing on slavery in the Bible here, but I deleted it because that is the only point that matters for this discussion. The sentence that includes slavery can be expanded to include that the Bible has been used to support and oppose slavery because it does not condemn it or advocate for it, but then other details of this extremely controversial subject might  have to be included in the name of NPOV, and I don't think this article is the place for that.
 * Do you have a source for a connection between that verse and subjugation? I will certainly add it if you do, however, the whole idea of patriarchy is now in question. Allow me to quote from Women in the Bible:

8 (your #1) 9 10
 * Because none of that is historically accurate.
 * While this is a popular myth, it is neither universally accepted or true.
 * Ah, something I can finally agree with. The article mentions it, but doesn't go into any in depth explanation. It should stay that way. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

A. Parrot The one thing I would like you to take away from all of this wall of text is that not a single claim of Levivich's is sourced. It's all personal opinion, and it is almost entirely wrong. All my responses have sources of good quality that reflect the majority views. Please don't let this short circuit the GAN. There is no controversy here just personal resentment.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@A. Parrot: Sorry about this. Nevermind what I said above; I will post my concerns to the article talk page in the next 24hrs or so, rather than raise them here on this GA page. I don't want to deal with stuff like what's written in this section, and I doubt you or anyone else does either. I regret commenting here and will not involve myself in this GAN further. Levivich[block] 22:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter where you raise them, they still represent controversy and can therefore short circuit the GAN if A. Parrot decides to pay any attention to any of this disinformation. In all good will, therefore, you must address my responses with sourced responses, or drop this altogether. Refusing to respond demonstrates an obstructive edit pattern. Prove what you have claimed with quality sources or go away. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * While I see the point of most of your arguments (and I certainly agree that talking about the papacy or the HRE would be going way too far afield here), I'm not convinced on the subject of justifications for violence. Many Christians through history have used the biblical conquest of Canaan and the slaughter of the Amalekites as justifications for their treatment of enemies. The Bible and violence, an article you yourself have edited extensively, mentions that topic. This article does mention the topic in the second paragraph of "Influence", but it doesn't describe the connections between historical events and biblical passages the way it does in cases where the Bible's influence has been more positive. A. Parrot (talk) 00:32, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I can expand that with some specifics. I can only include what I can find sufficient support for. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Levivich Come on, respond, bring me some sources. You're right that more of a negative view needs to be included. I didn't do enough. These claims are bogus as they are stated here, but some of it can be more accurately restated. I have now added some on violence and genocide and feel the need to add more. Bring me something on women - a source that actually says the Bible has been used to justify oppression of women. It might very well be true of the NT though not so much the HB. Bring me anything you have and I will. look too. In those rare times when we cooperated we did good things for this article. Let's try again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Um, in response to my raising some content concerns here, you started a section with my name on it and made multiple personal attacks and such against me. I am not going to engage with you because you wrote things like "I am past tired of you presenting your opinions as facts" and "There is no controversy here just personal resentment." And that's not even the worst of it, you've written worse about me in the past on the article talk page, I remember. I had forgotten actually, but your recent attacks reminded me of why I stopped participating at the article talk page months ago. I'm not sure why you think you can write stuff like that about me, and the next day ask me to cooperate with you. Of course not. I will discuss the article on the article talk page with other editors, but not here just with you. We are not engaged in a two-party negotiation here. It is not about you and I personally coming to some agreement. This GA is up to Parrot, and the article is up to the community. Neither you nor I have any special say here.
 * I am also not going to provide general sources about Misogyny or Women in the Bible, they are easily found, this is Wikipedia, after all. The Riches quote already in Bible, though not mentioning sexism explicitly, basically says what I said here ("human savagery, self-interest, and narrow-mindedness ... the ideological fuel for societies which have enslaved their fellow human beings and reduced them to abject poverty ... fuelled ethnic, racial, and international tension and conflict"), and I've just posted on the article talk page my expanded thoughts about the Influence section (about the same time you posted your expansion). Levivich[block] 19:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You have my deepest apologies. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Closing
Given the multiple problems raised in this review and on the talk page, and on Levivich's talk page here, I feel I have to fail the article. In particular, the citation-verification problems that Levivich has raised would take too long to address on the timescale of a GAN, especially one that has gone on this long. I encourage the participants here to keep working to improve the article; although I haven't been involved in this article before, I expect to watch the talk page and may occasionally participate in future discussions. A. Parrot (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2022 (UTC)