Talk:Colin Humphreys

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Colin Humphreys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100828110110/http://www.sciencecampaign.org.uk:80/about/who/advisory.htm to http://www.sciencecampaign.org.uk/about/who/advisory.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colin Humphreys. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110223853/http://www-hrem.msm.cam.ac.uk/people/humphreys/ to http://www-hrem.msm.cam.ac.uk/people/humphreys/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sciencecampaign.org.uk/about/who/advisory.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:40, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Not very NPOV
I find this article very far from NPOV. To be NPOV IMO it should simply inform us of the claims he makes in his two books on Biblical subjects with a fairly brief reference to the critical review cited. I see no point in trying to change it and expect even this comment to be deleted. 94.174.96.26 (talk) 20:43, 21 April 2019 (UTC)


 * No reason to remove this. You're just misinterpreting NPOV. Read WP:FRINGE. Doug Weller  talk 11:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

In my view many senior editors use Fringe to override NPOV, they are backed up by administrators. It's why I gave up editing and think that the resulting articles put many people off Wikipedia. 86.145.80.118 (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Message for Doug Weller
Hi Doug. I realise from your editing history that you hold strong views on religion, but nevertheless I have now read Telford's critique and believe your sentence He also notes that Humphreys uses some very dubious sources followed by In doing so is a non-sequitur and should be omitted as a first step. As a second step, if you wish, you should implement Telford's main criticism, namely that Telford believed the 6-day narrative of Jesus' last days to be ahistoric, according to Telford's own publication, which should then be cited.

In detail, the problem that your text has, and which confused me, us that you have created a non-sequitur (my italics, and my square parentheses):


 * Theologian William R Telford points out that the non-astronomical parts of his [Humphreys'] argument are based on the assumption that the chronologies described in the New Testament are historical and based on eyewitness testimony, accepting statements such as the "three different Passovers in John" and Matthew's statement that Jesus died at the ninth hour. He [Telford] also notes that Humphreys uses some very dubious sources. In doing so, Telford says, Humphreys has built an argument upon unsound premises which "does violence to the nature of the biblical texts, whose mixture of fact and fiction, tradition and redaction, history and myth etc.

The two non-bold sentences belong together, and the bold sentence should not immediately precede the conclusion starting "in doing so", because in fact Telford's "In-doing-so" conclusion refers to accepting the Biblical narrative of Jesus last six days. That is your non-sequitur.

If you read Telford's critique and especially his concluding paragraph, you will see that Telford (rightly) claims that Humphreys' reconstruction is based on the assumed historicity of the 6-day narrative of Jesus' last days. The Report of Pilate and the writings of the fifth-century Bishop Cyril of Alexandria (both of which Humphreys classifies as unreliable, see Humphreys page 85ff) is only a side-issue relating to the lunar eclipse on 3 April 33, and does not form the basis of Telford's conclusion which refers to Telford's perceived ahistoricity of the New Testament account, especially concerning Jesus' last six days. 86.161.82.245 (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you may be confusing my views on religion with my views on applying our policies and guidelines to religious texts. In any case, here's what I actually wrote, I take no responsibility for any changes.
 * "In a review of Humphreys' book William R Telford points out that the non-astronomical parts of his argument are based on the assumption that the chronologies described in the New Testament are historical and based on eyewitness testimony, accepting unquestioned statements such as the "three different Passovers in John" and Matthew's statement that Jesus died at the ninth hour. He also notes that Humphreys uses some very dubious sources such as Pilate's alleged letter to Tiberius Caesar. In doing so, Telford says, Humphreys has built an argument upon unsound premises which "does violence to the nature of the biblical texts, whose mixture of fact and fiction, tradition and redaction, history and myth all make the rigid application of the scientific tool of astronomy to their putative data a misconstrued enterprise."

Before your edits, this read:


 * "In a review of Humphreys' book, theologian William R Telford points out that the non-astronomical parts of his argument are based on the assumption that the chronologies described in the New Testament are historical and based on eyewitness testimony, accepting unquestioned statements such as the "three different Passovers in John" and Matthew's statement that Jesus died at the ninth hour. He also notes that Humphreys uses some very dubious sources. In doing so, Telford says, Humphreys has built an argument upon unsound premises which "does violence to the nature of the biblical texts, whose mixture of fact and fiction, tradition and redaction, history and myth all make the rigid application of the scientific tool of astronomy to their putative data a misconstrued enterprise."

"


 * The review says, as you know:
 * "In common with many conservatives, Humphreys claims, despite their manifest discrepancies, that eyewitness testimony lies behind the Gospels (e.g. pp. 29, 39), that the Evangelists would have pieced together their information from reliable sources, and that Luke in particular may well have consulted Joseph of Arimathea for material on the trial(s) of Jesus (p. 170). Early traditions, too, are taken at face value, such as the second-century one that Paul’s conversion occurred 18 months after the crucifixion (p. 66). Very dubious sources are claimed in support of some arguments, such as the apocryphal ‘Report of Pilate’ and the writings of the fifth-century Bishop Cyril of Alexandria for the alleged facticity of Peter’s reference (Acts 2:20) to a lunar eclipse on the evening of the crucifixion (p. 86—the moon, that evening, Humphreys notes, rose precisely at 6:20 p.m!, p. 92).
 * "In common with many conservatives, Humphreys claims, despite their manifest discrepancies, that eyewitness testimony lies behind the Gospels (e.g. pp. 29, 39), that the Evangelists would have pieced together their information from reliable sources, and that Luke in particular may well have consulted Joseph of Arimathea for material on the trial(s) of Jesus (p. 170). Early traditions, too, are taken at face value, such as the second-century one that Paul’s conversion occurred 18 months after the crucifixion (p. 66). Very dubious sources are claimed in support of some arguments, such as the apocryphal ‘Report of Pilate’ and the writings of the fifth-century Bishop Cyril of Alexandria for the alleged facticity of Peter’s reference (Acts 2:20) to a lunar eclipse on the evening of the crucifixion (p. 86—the moon, that evening, Humphreys notes, rose precisely at 6:20 p.m!, p. 92). The gospel texts are the product of edited tradition, the outcome of progressive interpretation, the product of religious imagination, and, in some cases, indeed, of sheer invention, hence all their discrepancies and disagreements. Humphreys shows a sovereign disregard, however, for the problems created by theology for historicity."
 * "his argument does violence to the nature of the biblical texts, whose mixture of fact and fiction, tradition and redaction, history and myth all make the rigid application of the scientific tool of astronomy to their putative data a misconstrued enterprise."
 * I'm just putting this here for future editors. Your version looks better than mine. Doug Weller  talk 10:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)