Talk:New Testament/Archive 2

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on New Testament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141111072211/http://www.ctsfw.edu:80/library/files/pb/577 to http://www.ctsfw.edu/library/files/pb/577
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080910084904/http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/42/42-4/42-4-pp645-671_JETS.pdf to http://www.etsjets.org/jets/journal/42/42-4/42-4-pp645-671_JETS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Improved source needed
A single theologian's blog was used to support a claim that "a few theologians" believe Paul wrote Hebrews. The blog entry isn't about authorship of Hebrews, but instead only makes the statement in passing. Additionally, the previous wording redundantly stated twice that most scholars don't hold that view. I have removed the unreliable source (per Wikipedia's criteria in regard to blogs) and also removed the repeated statement about the broader view. The retained wording that it is the general view that Paul did not write Hebrews, which still allows for the fact that it is not the view of all theologians.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * it's meant as an EXAMPLE of the "few", so instead of removing whole statements, why not find other sources to bolster up (per WP recommendation) instead of total removal? To make it "few". (Sproul source is more than just a blog, but ref for sample...) So instead of the constant uncivil BAD FAITH accusations, with "weasel" this and that, why not follow WP rules on Civility and Assuming Good Faith? But again, the point here is to find other sources to support the "few" word, instead of removing everything because you don't like the statement, and feel the need to hide or obscure facts that you don't think are important?   Yes, the first statement of "general view" gives the notion that it's not the total view, but elaboration is not necessarily to be removed, and a valid source that makes the point.   Gabby Merger (talk) 01:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No. Find a better source. Sproul's statement in passing in a blog entry that isn't about authorship of Hebrews is not a suitable source. And stop restoring the other redundant statement as well.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * While I don't deny that there theoretically could be A) a better more solid source in general for the point (perhaps), and would be better to have B) multiple sources, to make it even more solid and referenced, my point is why not do that also yourself, instead of wholesale removal?  Because of "redundancy"?     Yes, the first statement of "general view" gives the notion that it's not the total view, but elaboration is not necessarily to be removed, and a valid source that makes the point.    Sproul is considered (not by me but by others) to be a very reputable Protestant scholar, philosopher, and theologian, and Biblicist.   And the source is not just some rinky-dink "blog" per se.    Though in general terms all of it is "web log" in a sense.   But it's a source (albeit saying the point in "passing") that at least proves and makes the point.     Yeah, it would be nice if we could find a source that has Sproul talking about the Book of Hebrews as the main topic.   These things are not always easy to find though.   As far as the "following", well watchlist, but it seemed a bit coincidental.   Anyway, yes it's a minority view as is clearly stated in paragraph (as you note), but the issue was to show some ref (though not the best) to show that it's a "general consensus" and not an absolute one. I won't revert anymore unless (and until) I find better (and more) sources.  Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The primary issue of redundancy ("Most scholars reject or doubt Pauline authorship for the epistle to the Hebrews. ... contemporary scholars generally reject Pauline authorship.") is a separate issue (although there is some redundancy in the fact that generally allows for other views).
 * Even if Sproul's blog should be treated with greater latitude, it should be still about the subject of Hebrews' authorship, with his reasons for that belief. A statement in passing in a blog entry about a subject that isn't directly related is not sufficient to support the statement.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * ,  While I am sympathetic with Gabby Merger's position, I concur with Jeffro77 that an offending unsourced statement—and a blog-sourced comment is just that, an unsourced statement—can, per WP:VERIFY, be removed (and should be, to maintain the integrity of the article). When poor sourcing begins, it serves as an example to others, and should not remain. If GM has better sources, then the statement can quickly be returned with the authoritative—journal article, or scholarly book (not popular tome)—source accompanying. I also changed the section title, because it is nothing about genus Mustela of the family Mustelidae, or the Wikipedia equivalent, and is in any case inaccurate in the plural. Cheers. LeProf_7272  50.179.252.14 (talk) 15:28, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits of this date
I began a review of the sources here, and so added the following tags, which should remain in place until the issues are addressed:
 * Bare URLs in use as sources,
 * Books appearing with no page numbers, or far too broad page numbers, and
 * A dizzying array of different source format styles, indicating a lack of scholarly consensus on how to write this article.

I chose as a standard, the "cite book" presentation, and along with it, the most commonly appearing short citation style (which appeared to be "Authorfirstname Authorlastname (Year), pg. no." or similar), and I began at the top of the article to make the citation styles consistent. 'This arduous task of establishing a single, consistent citation format is about 20% complete. and so an in-markup note was added at the start of the article, indicating what was being done.'

Besides the attention to the sources, I note two significant issues:


 * The significant Table Notes section is almost entirely a tome of stated editorial opinion without a single source. Its sentences are, as such, marked, so they can be supported with verifiable sources—one or more, one recurring source is fine—or, alternatively, removed.
 * There is a tendency to make single-sourced emphatic statements, that is, to say "it is so" or "most scholars concur," but then to cite a single source. This is wholly unacceptable encyclopedic scholarship. If there is consensus on a matter, a variety of sources can be stated, and need to be, especially in such a hot button area as NT theological scholarship (in which there will seemingly always be at least two camps). To make emphatic statements regarding settled opinion when more than a single opinion exists, however much we might agree with one, is not the place of Wikipedia editors. As such, when overly ambitions statements were made and attributed to a single source, I toned down language, and/or called for further citation. (Note, quoting an emphatic author is fine; we simply cannot take on his emphasis without widely citing the literature, and only then if the literature unequivocally supports the emphasis.)

Once again, the focus is on getting the sources in order, and this has revealed poor citation formats, loose citing of books, and a little bit of apparent POV-pushing through overstatement or selective citation, or both. On most of the matters being argued, I have no strong opinion, and so felt free to call attention to the overstatements.

Finally, and critically: While this is not my area, I am able to recognize the difference between scholarly books, and popular ones. This is an encyclopedia, and popular book citations in theological articles must be limited to statements like "And Bruce has taken this same scholarly case into popular publications.[citation]" That is, we cannot cite popular works as our principal sources for important article conclusions.

This is true, regardless of which side of the biblical spectrum one might lean in their predilections. As such, I propose that a number of sources will need replacing, including the popular works of F.F. Bruce (IVP books), Bart Ehrman (HarperCollins books), etc. (etc.)—just the popular ones, not the scholarly predecessors—and that all solely popular writers, such as Lee Strobel, likewise be removed. (The exception being when these are given as examples of scholarly arguments being brought to the general public, as noted above.)

If there is argument on this last point, I would like to hear it in Talk, here. As much as one might enjoy Mr Strobel's, Bruce's, Ehrman's, etc. writings for popular audiences, they are not the sources for main points on an article about the New Testament (except to support the migration of scholarly opinion into popular venues). This logic is the same as not using popular science books to make science points in Wikipedia science articles, but instead relying on monographs, reviews, and text books instead.

Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I also failed to mention, that in doing the citation checking, I cam across a footnote, no. 51 as of this timestamp, that was essentially a list of partial sources. If some of these cited books appear elsewhere in the article, with all bibliographic details, the inline tag can be removed for that source. But a source cannot simply be given, in such a shorthand as appears in that footnote, without the full details appearing somewhere in the article. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Why is it that every time a Conservative Bible Believing Christian adds something it is removed
There are many, MANY Bible scholars that still believe the Bible is the WORD OF GOD yet none of theses scholars are ever allowed to be added to any of the Wikipedia sites. Here is an example - Where you have this one sided liberal crapfest

" Four are thought by most modern scholars to be pseudepigraphic," I added the word liberal because your statement is a lie. Yet the word liberal was removed. It is not Most scholars but most LIBERAL scholars. All of the scholars at 1000's of Christian Universities still believe the Bible yet their views are forbidden on your Christian-hating bigoted site. Why is this. Why can't you be fair and balanced????? Why is it only the liberal views that are allowed just because you hate the Bible and it's God? Is it any wonder teachers will not allow Wikipedia as a legitimate source. OK now you can ban me and delete this post once again because I refuse to bend over and take your liberal Christaphobic bigot hate.--69.14.97.53 (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * "Liberal" and "Conservative" have political connotations which have nothing to do with this article. And I would argue that "Bible-believing" and "scholar" is mutually contradictory. If they believe in this collection of texts, they are not impartial to begin with. We can't use biased pseudo-scholars to cite articles.
 * "Fair and balanced" does not mean that everyone's opinions are deemed equal. Fringe opinions like Biblical inerrancy can not dominate the article, though (if sourced) their arguments should also be addressed.
 * Last I checked, Misotheism is not the dominant view in either academia or Wikipedia, but don't expect what you deem "liberal views" to be seriously challenged. They are the current consensus in the field.
 * Banning users or visitors is usually reserved for vandals and seriously disruptive accounts. If this is not the case with you, there is no obvious reason for a ban. Dimadick (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * , please provide a source in support of your statement, "'Bible-believing' and 'scholar' is mutually contradictory." I would not have believed appearing Talk claims of bias until I saw this inconceivable utterance. Please justify it. There is no gainsaying that historic scholarship associated with the texts and archaeology relevant to the Hebrew and Christian portions of the text commonly known as the bible have been performed by scholars at institutions of research higher and higher education that would, over the centuries, have been properly (if not self-) described as bible-believing. Please, justify this statement, or retract it as unhelpful bias. 50.179.252.14 (talk) 15:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The scholarly position requires an unbiased examination of evidence. Scholars are those who study the Bible in fields such as Biblical criticism, know that it has been written by human writers and who try to determine their identities, historical era and situation, and motives (religious and political) for writing and editing the texts. Uncritical views of the Bible, belief in the texts themselves as true or divinely inspired, Biblical literalism, and Biblical inerrancy are by their very nature biased positions not befitting of scholars.

In matters such as the Authorship of the Pauline epistles, it is a fact that some of the epistles differ considerably in style, vocabulary, and theology. Suggesting a different author than Paul of Tarsus. And this is far from a new position. The authorship of the Epistle to the Ephesians has been in doubt since the 18th century. The Second Epistle to the Thessalonians is widely believed to be a forgery or an imitation of Paul's style by a different author. The Pastoral epistles have been argued to be 2nd-century works since the early 19th century. They speak of an organized Christian Church that already has bishops, elders, and deacons. Which is thought improbable to be the case while the original Apostles still lived. Dimadick (talk) 08:37, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on New Testament. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20131021185255/http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/home/skypage.php?keyid=172&parentkeyid=166 to http://www.goodnewsforadventists.com/home/skypage.php?keyid=172&parentkeyid=166

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 12:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on New Testament. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.http://wayback.archive.org/web/20100419071230/http://www.bibelcenter.de/bibel/lu1545/ to http://www.bibelcenter.de/bibel/lu1545/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on New Testament. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bible.org/docs/soapbox/hebotl.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.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverting original research
The phrase "although the writer of the Gospel of John claims to be an eyewitness in John 21:24." is original research since the Bible is a primary religious source and therefore not a reliable source. You may want to actually read what Ehrman wrote about John 21:24, he addressed this point and he was not persuaded by it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:19, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"For the circumstances which led to the formation of the tradition, and the reasons why the majority of modern scholars reject it, see Lindars, Edwards and Court, "The Johannine Literature" (2000), pages 41-42. For arguments in support of the tradition, see Craig Blomberg, "Jesus and the Gospels" (2009), pages 197-198."

- Gospel of John

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Another source:. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications,11 and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century."

- From a source recently removed in order to WP:CENSOR the encyclopedia

I object to the removal of this source. It is an WP:UNDUE violation and I have started a WP:NPOVN topic about it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Hello, tgeorgescu. Perhaps you can help me.  I believe it would be biased and academically dishonest to leave out what Bart Ehrman has called the "traditional view" of John 21:24. This is especially true since it is very plain from a reading of this passage that the author is referring to himself. You claim that the Bible is not a reliable source, and although that is obviously a very debate able topic,  can we at least agree that it is at least reasonably reliable in regards to questions as to what the actual content of the passages say? John 21:24 clearly shows that the author is claiming to be an eyewitness.  The statement was made that none of the authors of the gospels claim to be an eyewitness.  This is directly contradicted by the actual text.  What more reliable source can there be about the contents of a work than the ACTUAL CONTENTS OF THE WORK (capitalization added for emphasis)? In light of all this, can we come to a compromise in which we both believe that both points of view are represented? Thank you! Orange2016.


 * I have restored your addition and put it in its WP:DUE scholarly context.

"Why does Matthew not write about himself in the story? The book of John does not speak of himself - why? At the end of John (21:24), he writes, "This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true." Note how the author differentiates between his source of information, "the disciple who testifies," and himself: "we know that his testimony is true." He/we: this author is not the disciple. He claims to have gotten some of his information from the disciple. We must conclude that none of the authors were disciples and only reported what they heard."

- Grant Steves


 * Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe the edit you made is an acceptable compromise.

Orange2016 Orange2016 (talk) 02:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Academic consensus
The majority view in the academia should not be watered down as the view of "many", since many could still be a minority. See WP:RS/AC. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I changed a portion of the sentence to say "most" and another to say "many (if not most)" because the sources given do not explicitly say that "most" believe that the authors were not eyewitnesses. They state that most believe that the authors do not explicitly claim to be eyewitnesses and that the authors were not Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but were probably unknown Greek-writing Christians in the later half of the first century. However, the author does not say to whom they were "unknown." Context indicates they were unknown to the majority of early Christians, but this does not automatically mean they were not eyewitnesses to some,  if not all, of the events recorded in the gospels. Therefore, since the source does not explicitly make the claim that most scholars believe that the authors were not eyewitnesses, I changed it to "many (if not most)." If there are other sources which claim this, this edit may be reverted with the addition of the other sources. Orange2016 (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I again revised the sentence and reasserted that many (if not most scholars) believe the statements because the idea that "most" believe these statements are not explicitly mentironed in the sources given. Orange2016 (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Minority and fringe views
Conservative evangelical scholars (read: fundamentalists) are a minority in the Bible scholarship taught at the main US universities. The idea that the critical text would be bad or heretical is WP:FRINGE. I have restored WP:RS/AC claims and reverted WP:UNDUE violations, for the reasons mentioned. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The term "liberal", as was used in the article, is a misnomer for non-fundamentalist. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

I mean: whoever did not subscribe to biblical inerrancy got smeared as "liberal". Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Throw the article away?
People, I happened to come by and saw this article, which is stuffed full of weaselling and amateur opinion.

For instance there's "most scholars say..." all over the place. Who says so? The editor, who is an amateur?! Or is this from some reliable source? If the latter, who, precisely, and can we have a reference containing his exact words?

Then there's "traditional". None of us received any "tradition". The views expressed are either in some book -- which? with reference -- or they are not, in which case they shouldn't be there. It also carries a value-loading of "wrong" in some people's eyes. "Modern" when used as a term of approval, rather than a calendar indicator opposed to some older scholarly opinion, is also POV.

The article is terribly unencyclopedic, and probably needs to be torn up and rewritten, with every sentence justified by a footnote quoting a reliable source or sources that say exactly what the text says.

I haven't troubled to read the article to see what opinions it espouses -- no doubt it does push some position. But as an example of Wikipedia it is dreadful. Wikipedia should express no opinion. It should merely describe, with references.

We could start by simply deleting all the sentences that have no reference for them, all the weasel-wording. Start with something like Metzger's Text of the NT, and write brief, non-loaded, descriptive text. Roger Pearse (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Or we could start by throwing away POV and explaining the POV of the editors. There has been a back-and-forth between conservative and liberal interpretations. There are no POV statements. It's fairly neutral now, but the statements do need citations. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the article is riddled with with the problems you mention, Roger Pearse. I gave up trying to make it more accurate and based upon historically verifiable information yielded by critical scholarship months ago because of strong opposition to such accuracy and regular alterations of my edits. Part of the problem has to do with the nature of Wikipedia (where anyone can edit anything they like - whether they know anything about the topic or not), the other with the peculiar idea among some here that academic historians do not employ a form of the scientific method, but are driven by either "liberalism" or "conservatism" (whatever those are supposed to mean). As long as users try to equitably balance unverifiable pontifications (even if they appear in published books) with the cogent findings of historians, this article will remain unencyclopedic. It's sad really. The topic is important, and although this is a prime example of the unreliability of the source, a lot of people will nevertheless turn to Wikipedia to learn about the New Testament or early Christian literature or history. At present, perhaps all we can do is warn people to steer clear of these articles on Wikipedia.134.2.246.245 (talk) 14:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * What you call "accuracy" I call "liberal scholarship". The problem with such "scholarship" is that it takes the stance that God does not exist and so Jesus was not God and miracles attributed to him were simply added to make this man appear more important. Its bias is no better than the pure faith and miracle bias of conservative scholarship. That makes it inaccurate since it approaches the text with an agenda. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem "Walter" is that there is no such thing as "liberal scholarship" or "conservative scholarship". There is, however, such a thing as "good scholarship": namely, the efforts of individuals who believe that we can understand the world around us, and our history and ourselves by careful observation and critical assessment of the data using a tried and true method that is accessible to all people of any persuasion, anywhere and at all times. It is--by definition--not biased and its sole agenda is to gain an understanding of reality that is universally verifiable. There is also "bad scholarship": i.e., mere pronouncements by ideologues who aim to apologetically undergird belief in something irrespective of any basis it may have in reality. The first sort ("good scholarship") belongs in an encyclopedia, and that is presumably what Wikipedia aspires to be. I'm not sure that "bad scholarship" belongs anywhere, but it certainly doesn't belong here. All of this, of course, has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with whether there is a God or gods, etc.134.2.162.119 (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. There is such a thing as liberal, conservative and other types of scholarship. When one approaches the text with preconceived notions of whether you're studying scripture or myth, whether there is or isn't a God (which affects questions about the plausibility of miracles, the deity of Christ, the existence of the Holy Spirit and a myriad of other issues in the text), and the accuracy of what the text describes, it makes a difference as the outcome of scholarship. Liberal scholarship is no better than conservative scholarship, and your attempts to undermine the latter as "bad" is a hollow effort from a straw man. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whatever perspective it may be attempting to support or undermine, ideologically driven writing is not scholarship. Which is why, to the degree that anyone attempts to do "liberal" or "conservative" scholarship, they're simply doing bad scholarship. Again, this has no place here.134.2.162.119 (talk) 16:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Exactly, so your your liberal "scholarship", isn't. Q.E.D. Thanks for making my point. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This attitude is exactly why the page is in the state it's in. The point that 'liberal' and 'conservative scholars' aren't true scholars is a fair assessment. Anyone who is writing with an agenda other than to present facts isn't a scholar, they're a propagandist.


 * I'm sure that at least some of the positions stated in this article are accepted by most serious scholars, but, the way this article is written, it's hard to tell which ones they are.-Jcvamp (talk) 08:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Those are merely labels: if one does buy the infallibility/inerrancy story, he/she is labelled as a conservative scholar; if one does not buy it, he/she is labelled as a liberal scholar. In fact, liberal Christians love critical-historical scholarship, even if the critical scholars themselves may be quite conservative, theologically seen. The post-Enlightenment historical method has banned the supernatural in the mythical realm, so all historians now work with methodological naturalism, WP:FRINGE/PS and apologists excepted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Entire Bible Jesus - Old Testament Nazareth - Judas Jesus Thomas - New Testament —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.228.89 (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Testament. 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/20151127195443/http://www.graftedin.com/essential-statement-of-faith/ to http://www.graftedin.com/essential-statement-of-faith/

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) 09:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

What?
Hi. I'm an ignorant amateur who's become interested in the history of the bible. I like Wikipedia. I like christian values, and lots of others. Am I to understand that all / most of the fuss going on on this page is a matter of christian fundamentalists getting angry that they are prevented from implying that the bible is the litteral word of god (and making this sound like a general failure of wiki's?) If so, why is the article still tagged as "in need of revision"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.163.32.13 (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Were all of the NT writers Jewish-Christians?
The present lead reads, in part:
 * The New Testament is an anthology, a collection of Christian works written in the common Greek language of the first century, at different times by various writers, who were early Jewish disciples of Jesus.

...implying that every one of the writers was necessarily Jewish. Is this scholarly consensus? Bacchiad (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC) It is widely believed that Saint Luke was a Gentile, making Saint Luke the only one of the authors of New Testament books who was not Jewish.Vorbee (talk) 19:11, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Book by Moody
Moody is a WP:FRINGE publisher. Therefore such book is not a reliable source. Also stating that NT got written before 100 AD contradicts the strongly sourced information that it got written before 150 AD. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I give you 30 minutes to post a WP:PAG-compliant reasoning why a book by Moody Publishers would be a reliable source for Wikipedia. Afterwards, I will revert your change. You have been warned about engaging in edit warring. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Moody Publishers is, as states, not a WP:RS, being an explicitly evangelical Christian religious publisher and not an "academic source" as claimed.  They are associated with Moody Bible Institute so the sources cannot be used to justify any claims about the "Majority of historians" unless it is qualified, such as "majority of religious historians" or some such. I have reverted. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:39, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

These books are standard Textual Criticism science books used world-wide. We'll see what the Sr admin says.

From God To Us Revised and Expanded: How We Got Our Bible Moody Publishers; Revised, Expanded ed. edition (August 1, 2012) p.159 978-0802428820 A General Introduction to the Bible. Moody Publishers; Revised, Expanded ed. edition (August 8, 1986) p. 420 978-0802429162 The 27 books of the New Testament is widely accepted to have been completed before AD 100. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker Reference Library) 2nd Edition Baker Academic; 2 edition (May 1, 2001) Walter A. Elwell 978-0801020759 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark0880 (talk • contribs) 15:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * See the information already provided in our article:
 * All the works that eventually became incorporated into the New Testament are believed to have been written no later than around 150 AD, and a small minority of scholars would date them to no later than 70 AD.
 * In case of having any doubts about it, Goodspeed, Kümmel, Duling and Perrin, Koester, Conzelmann and Lindemann, Brown, and Ehrman are the best academic sources thereupon. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I have expanded the above information with Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * And: dates Jude and 2 Peter to 130-50 AD. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Copyright
A bible does it have copyright? Dwaynemoony (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The original text of the Bible was produced centuries before copyright law existed. Any claim of copyright on it has long since expired. However; various versions and translations that have ben produced in recent times may still be under copyright, unless this has been waived. Likewise Bibles that include things like annotations and commentary can be under copyright for those parts as well. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Erroneous text
All of the New Testament writings were written between the 1950s AD is an error. Likewise, having a bishop in BC (BCE) is also erroneous. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:38, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Modern Bibles
Modern, good Bible translations do not include the end of Mark, Pericopae Adulterae and Comma Johanneum as scripture. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions for editing
Next to Johannine works, I would like to put the following sentence.

Date of establishment of Gospels, etc. and author
・ ・ ・ ・ Omitted. Tokinokawa (talk) 23:54, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

ok 105.112.96.4 (talk) 19:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Conservative Scholars
Paragraph four describes John A.T. Robinson as a "conservative scholar". The page on Robinson says he "was considered a major force in shaping liberal Christian theology", and that he was a universalist. I think the wording of this article might mislead the reader. I'm not sure what the best solution would be. Perhaps something along the lines of "conservative estimates by scholars such as...". Meuller 95 (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, there a difference between being liberal theologically and being conservative as a Bible scholar. Martin Noth and Lothar Perlitt were conservative theologically, but wrote higher criticism embraced by liberal Christians. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:13, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu: Maurice Casey also held for an early date for Mark even though he was an atheist. Do you think he was a conservative Bible scholar too? Potatín5 (talk) 14:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is biased against WP:UNDUE POVs, be them atheists or not. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

That's a fair point, but I still think some kind of clarification in the article should be included. Conservative and liberal are very loaded terms to many people, and that could create a severe misunderstanding here. Meuller 95 (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed this, as unsourced and dubious. StAnselm (talk) 15:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @StAnselm: I think we should include this recent monograph among the number of scholars who support an early date for New Testament writings. It's probably the most detailed case for decades. What do you think about? Potatín5 (talk) 17:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * That book it's now being discussed at WP:FTN. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * @Tgeorgescu: I know, that's why I have already written you a message there. Potatín5 (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's clearly not fringe, whatever Tgeorgescu might say. Whether we include it or not is a different matter. StAnselm (talk) 21:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

"Other scholars concur."
"Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina has argued for a scholarly consensus that many New Testament books were not written by the individuals whose names are attached to them. He further argues that names were not ascribed to the gospels until around 185 AD. Other scholars concur." Concur with what, though? Not with the 185 date - Nickle says the names were fixed by the mid 2nd century. Generally, this section relies too heavily on Ehrman. StAnselm (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I have gone ahead and removed it, along with the fringe Ehrman view. StAnselm (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2022 (UTC)