Talk:Journal of Higher Criticism

Defunct
Though notable, and the website is still intact (dated 2007), the 'back issues' online only appear as recently as 2002.


 * The website is run through webulite, a free webhosting site. That's really concerning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes and no. Robert Price (Editor in Chief's) personal site is out of webulite. He is an early user and supporter of the site.  All this really means is that this journal is young and sort of a personal project of its editor in chief.  That's not uncommon with low end academic journals.  jbolden1517Talk  13:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This journal ceased publication in 2003 as noted on both the journal's homepage and in Ulrich's Periodical Index. If the editor is continuing to publish a periodical under this title, he should make note of that on his Lulu book page, including an ISSN.  Since this information is lacking, I marked the article defunct, added appropriate metadata, and changed the text to past-tense. Clifflandis (talk) 02:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Some articles published in the journal or connected to it or the Institute for Higher Critical Studies
What in the world does this mean and why is it here anyway? We don't select articles and put them in a list normally, and I certainly can't see any justification for 'connected to' or 'the Institute', this article is about a specific journal, and no evidence is given that any of these were published in the journal. Contributors, fine, this, no. Dougweller (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Why not show examples of articles, so that the readers can see which kind of subjects are dealt with in the publication? I don't see the problem./Giendone (talk) 13:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Any selection by an editor is going to be cherry-picking, possibly to show a pov but certainly OR. The link to the journal is an unbiased way of showing what sort of articles the journal publishes. Note that we also now have "Paul as Herodian" with a link to Herodian although Eisenman is actually writing about Herodian prince Saulus. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I still do not see the problem with showing some of the subjects covered in the journal, and I certainly do not understand your internal wiki abbriviations. I have corrected the Herodian link, which wasn't too hard.../Giendone (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the first abbreviation is one to avoid, 'wiki'. But before you edit very much more, you should read WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RELIABLE. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Instead of picking and choosing articles, you should be able to find third-parties that discuss either the journal or some of those articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point. That should definitely be done. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Notable Contributors
"Amongst the notable contributers the following can be mentioned (except the ones referred to above): Richard Carrier Ph.D., Barbara Thiering Ph.D., Earl Doherty, Robert Eisenman Ph.D., Jacob Neusner Ph.D., and George Albert Wells, Professor Emeritus."

Other than Eisenmen and Neusner are any of them really notable? --Ari89 (talk) 07:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes they virtually all have their own articles here. jbolden1517Talk  02:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not talking about internet notability but notability amongst Biblical scholars. --Ari89 (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Biblical scholarship is essentially lower criticism today. So that's a biased standard. They aren't notable among chemists either. jbolden1517Talk 13:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Lower criticism" is the 19th c. name for Textual Criticism and that is a tiny minority of bible scholarship. "Higher criticism" is the 19th c. name for the historical-critical method. There is a variety of different approaches in biblical studies today including work comparable to "higher criticism" like the work of Old Testament minimalists. It is safe to say that the figures noted above are not "notable" in the field unless you're viewing the field through the lens of internet atheist forums.87.112.68.20 (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe Price, Eisenman and Neusner count as notable. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Current state...
Should we make a distinction between the current state of the Journal vs what it used to be?

And for the infobox - who publishes it now? Or is it simply just an online page including 2nd year BA essays? --Ari89 (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Price remains in control. It seems to be continuing to publish the same sorts of materials.  Not sure what has substantially changed.  jbolden1517Talk  13:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The fact that it is no longer print published, affiliated with a university (?), etc. And within the past few days they have moved the articles to who knows where - and the journal page is now just a short biography of Price. Does anyone know where it has gone? --Ari89 (talk) 07:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Alleged journal homepage goes to product page on self publishing site
It appears that the alleged journal homepage at http://www.highercriticism.org points directly to a product page at the self publishing site lulu.com

If the journal used to have a proper web site but doesn't anymore, we should perhaps remove the link or rephrase it. Are self-published books even considered notable?


 * That is the issue I was raising above. It was once a scholarly journal with academic input, now it is a Lulu published magazine incorporating articles by undergraduates. I hope they finally edited the print version as the online version was absolutely terrible. --Ari89 (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bogus journal
Was this "journal" ever a "peer-reviewed academic journal" at all? No evidence for this appears in the article, and the claim that it was "sponsored" by the "theological department at Drew" is unreferenced. As I recall, it was a gang of people, most of them not academics, and the rest a handful of adjuncts, who tried to create a fake journal to peddle theories not accepted by any tenured scholar at any university in the world. I fear this article may be itself part myth-making...


 * After looking, I find that it is held by several research libraries, so it was treated as an academic journal by them, and so I have changed the text back. I doubt it was really peer reviewed, tho.  As for the Drew reference, I suspect it only means that the associate editor, Darrell Doughty, taught at Drew.  The Journal's last issue was before his retirement.