Talk:The Bible and humor

GO GO GO!!!
Pinging and. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible leads
Here's links to two works that might be useful:

https://books.google.com/books?id=xwhMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA280&dq=biblical+humor&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiGgObr7pPZAhWqq1kKHZLMAYAQ6AEIWTAJ#v=onepage&q=biblical%20humor&f=false

[quote] I think the operative phrase for Carrol is "as we know it today." I will concede this point: humor as we know it today is probably not part of the Bible any more than love (and marriage, etc.) as we know it today is a feature of the Bible. But this is a minor point, maybe even trivial and pedantic. Contemporary British humor and American humor are not "the same" and often does not carry well from one side of the Atlantic to the other, yet, even as an "American," I would be hard pressed to say that the concept of a humorous Brit is an oxymoron. The ancient Hebrews loved and married — and joked — no doubt, in a different idiom than "we" do, but they still engaged in such activities and we can speak about those activities without being anachronistic or solipsistic. The points of contact are as important as the differences, and both can be taken into account without losing sight of either. [ / quote]

https://books.google.com/books?id=AUe_ZgGqweEC&pg=PA134&dq=biblical+humor&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiLu8zi8JPZAhVws1kKHamSDkg4HhDoAQgtMAE#v=onepage&q=biblical%20humor&f=false

Some at. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

That´s a good quote, BTW. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Since you liked it I added it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Humor/Humour
As the creator of this article, I choose the "humor" spelling (except in quotes etc of course) per WP:ENGVAR, no strong national ties to any particular variant of english (debate at length if you like, but not here). I almost didn´t because Alephb dissed the Queen's english, but I think it's the simpler solution in the long run. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was kind of surprised to see you give in so easily on that one. I was really messing around more than anything else. If there's ever an actual debate on the question, I'll sit it out. Alephb (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Aleph he's just yanking your chain--tell him you have prepared a treatise, or gotten up a petition and already have hundreds of signatures, tell him you are preparing for formal debate and have rented a Hall--but don't tell him ahead of time you quit! Just because he's being reasonable doesn't mean you shouldn't yank his chain right back!  He is a jokester par excellénce and in an article on humor it's only right and just that he be joked with!  I am all over this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Whedbee1998
Both appeared to point to the same page, so I merged them. If they intended to point to different pages, I suggest adding the page parameter to each. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 19:01, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , how to add p29 to the second one? For me, the links gave different pages on googlebooks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, then. I added 29 to the second one (and PA29 in the URL).  Alternatively, but it's not very useful for two pages, harv could be used with sfn...  — Paleo  Neonate  – 19:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible idea: satire
Just a thought. Maybe I'll find time to follow up on, maybe someone else will. Perhaps when running searches for material, include the word "satire" or "satirical" rather than "humor." I bet there's a lot of material on satirical passages in the prophets, for example, that isn't humor in the comedy club sense, but in a more bitter and disappointed sense. Alephb (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. And use both spellings of humor. Marion D. Shutter speaks of "wit". And then there's sarcasm, "Has anything good ever come from Nazareth?" and "Do I have so few madmen you have to bring me more?" etc. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Original research
, thanks for adding to the article. I agree that humor is probably intended. I reverted you anyway because per WP:No original research we should not pick our own favorites straight from the Bible, milennia-old humor is not that obvious. There is plenty of scholarly material on the topic, and I wouldn´t be surprised if this example is mentioned in a decent secondary source we can use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I so appreciate that you always offer a helpful and non-judgmental explanation of why when you revert something. Thank you.  This isn't even mine and I am still grateful! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * , it's back in the article, courtesy of Jenhawk. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

More? Nobody ever asked for more!
I have added material for a couple of days now and have more to go--have not even touched New Testament yet--PLEASE CHECK IT!!!!! If you like how it is panning out and want MORE, tell me--I have pages of notes yet to go!! If you hate it--please tell me! And what you think should be changed--which you are always so good about doing. Consider yourself Arbela'd! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading... I'll be back (for the perplexed onlooker, to arbela an article is to treat it in this manner:, i.e. to dramatically expand in a non-sucky way. This verb came into existence three days ago). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, time for opinions (my turn to be a little hard to please). Shutter is obviously a practical source, but I think he should be used with more care (less), basically WP:AGE MATTERS. There are many long quotes/quotes without context, like in Genesis section. I think in, general, there needs to be more "who says this?" in the text, it's an opinion-y subject. Wording like "everyone is thankful this giant brain never became leader" sounds weird in WP:s voice. I have no idea what structure the article should have, but the the basically chronological one you started seems reasonable. There was something else... Oh yes: THANKS for working on the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you! This is helpful.  See--this is why we need to draft space articles before publishing!  Be as hard to please as you see fit--it helps me to be a better writer.  You are practical, reasonable and never mean or slighting.  You don't blame.  There is a difference between correction and criticism in my view.  You correct, you never criticize.  Hopefully you will never ever catch me complaining of good quality correction.  I am not perfectly Wiki enough yet not to need it!  :-)  As if I will ever get there!  It makes me feel more confident to work on something with someone else that I know will look over my work and catch what I have missed--don't ever apologize for doing what I depend on you to do!  It's awesome to me that you are willing to do it.


 * Shutter, in my view, is the best source I have found. Personally, I don't think his critique is affected by age; his conclusions are the same as those in the other sources, but his examples and explanations are way better. A lot of literary commentary hasn't changed in generations, so the nature of these characters is established, but if it seems like I am over-using one source, I suppose I can trim him a little. My method may be what's at fault here. I look over and read and make notes from multiple sources so I know what the consensus is, and that usually produces an awareness that one source is markedly superior to the others.  When I write, then, I tend to begin with that one as my core of information, then go back and add or switch, embellish and amend from other authors. I especially look for opposite views at that point.  If I think sources are of equal merit, I will have a paragraph from one, then a paragraph from the next, etc.  Is this a bad method for Wiki?  This is not just how I write--this is how I research--so please comment!  I will go back through and see if I can quote someone else on some of these instead for now. I really like his comparisons to other literary characters though.


 * I agree to change the lack of "Joe Shmo said". Sorry.  I keep falling back into--it reads better--but that is not what Wiki is first and foremost about.  Thank you for catching that.  Eventually someday maybe I won't have to be told the same thing over and over...  :-)  Or maybe not.  I'll remove the giant brain--(made me think of Jethro on the Beverly Hillbillies) for failure to be Wiki.  Be gone!  I will make it so.


 * Some of what's left that I was going to add is from Shutter--should I cease and desist? (Please let me keep him--please please please--puppy is not above begging!! He's awesome.) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Yeah, "Nabal is similar to a character named Squire Western in the classic comedy Tom Jones" should really start with something like "Shutter compares" on WP. Otherwise, BOLD and trust that others will as well. Hopefully, others will find this an interesting topic too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As for Shutter, this isn't exactly medical research, so he may have aged with grace. In general though, articles should avoid relying too much on too few sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I don't know why I ever argue--I always end up agreeing with you.  That apparently is my pattern so far on Wiki:  you correct, I argue, you ignore me and wait, I concede.  I begin from "change is bad"  and then move on to figuring out what's actually good and dang if it doesn't involve doing what you said in the first place!  Sorry for being a pain.


 * I have made those changes and am surprised what a difference they make in the sense of neutrality--even though so far I haven't really been neutral. I will find more negativity!  It turns out there are the same number of references to Macy and Shutter and only one less to Walker, but right now I only have seven references so I agree (without wasting time arguing) that I need more references.  For now I will use the online one's more and will look for others as well.  Thank you for your input.  Thank you for allowing me to edit myself.  Thank you for your patience.  Please keep being patient with me.  I would buy you a beer and watch Star Trek reruns with you if I could.  :-)  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It's better but not done yet. Keep on correcting! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Love the changes. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Added two more sources today. Will start on New Testament maybe Monday.  Hope you are having a great weekend!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Same to you and yes, very restful, saw I, Tonya. Just for fun, I've nominated this article (Humor, not Tonya) to appear on the WP frontpage (so called WP:DYK). Never done this before, so likely I've messed something up, but it fulfilled the criteria "Expanded at least fivefold within the past seven days" so I thought I'd go for it. Unless thrown out because whatever, it will be processed at Template_talk:Did_you_know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I went to the view history and saw all the clean-up you did and all I can say is thank you Jesus! I note that when I am off Wikipedia for a long period like a couple months, that I revert to former writing styles--magazine style is like essay writing--but I haven't put anything out there in a long time, so it's just habit!  Funny how that kicks in after all this time!  Anyway, training puppies in new tricks is time consuming.  I am very grateful.  If I write enough here, perhaps I will develop new habits.  One can hope.  You did a great job.  I compose--but I have always counted on good editors.  You are one.  Thanx.


 * WP frontpage huh? Awesome! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've caught myself using "consensus" in everyday conversation... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion
Just saw this article at DYK. Thought I'd chip in. My favourite story from the new testament is the woman taken in adultery: 'he straightened up and said to them, "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." And once again he bent down and wrote on the ground. When they heard it, they went away, one by one...and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus straightened up and said to her, "Woman, where are they?"' I've always believed that Jesus (or John, or both) was playing that for laughs. Scolaire (talk) 21:00, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Put like that, it's pretty funny. There's a bit in Exodus where pharaoh asks two midwives why they haven't killed all newborn hebrew boys like he told them. They answer that hebrew women give birth so quickly they never get there in time, to which he apparently replies "Oh, ok." I think the author is making fun of egyptians here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello and welcome! I love that!  Please find a source and add it in.  I am moving on to the New Testament today and that would be a wonderful addition. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No, sorry, the only source is personal thoughts. I only offered it as a suggestion in case one of you was able to find a source somewhere. Scolaire (talk) 16:57, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If only I could quote you. :-( Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

A Funny Thing Happened on my way Through the Bible
This book appear to be selfpublished, don't use it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * YIKES!! How can you tell?  This is the second time this has happened to me.  How can I do better at catching these?Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Well for some reason I looked it up on g-books, saw "0 reviews", which can be a bad sign, and checked the publisher on WP. WP has articles on a surprising amount of publishers, and if it says "self-published" I tend to believe it. Lulu.com is a fairly common one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank goodness you caught it! I will try to remember to check reviews. How often do people run across these? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Can't say, but from experience, when I google-book something, it's not uncommon, and is easy to miss. According to WP, FriesenPress "...2013 published about 200 books per month.", it adds up. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:05, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

I am using consensus
That was such a funny thing to say I had to repeat it... :-)  I have added two short paragraphs on the New Testament and one new reference.  I checked and he is legit.  :-)  There were lots and lots more things that could have been added--and maybe others will come along and do so--but for me, a sampling of what could be considered humor seems sufficient and I think I am probably done with my contributions. That leaves room for others if they get interested, while making sure the article is substantive enough to be worth the read.

Please check these recent additions. If you hate them feel free to revert. I have enjoyed working with you. You are a good editor and I need to work with someone like you, so if you get more ideas, let me know and I will come running. Thanx again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Question: since there are only ten books of the OT covered and only two of the characters in the new, should the heading be changed from Humor in the books of the Bible to A Sampling of ...??  It's more awkward but more accurate.  You decide!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I changed it to Hebrew Bible, is that ok? Thanks for all your work. While the article can be improved, I'd say it makes its point now. I also think we've done a better job than Conservapedia. It would be fun if we could source some "deniers", but how likely is there to be any good sources on that? The WP:LEAD needs work, obviously, some stuff should be moved downwards, somehow. Possible additions are sections on theological responses to humor (the book-eating in The Name of the Rose comes to mind), and the bible in humor, but either is not necessarily on topic. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Pretty much anything you do is okay as far as I am concerned. As far as Hebrew Bible goes, there is a lot of discussion among theologians about what term to use. Using Hebrew Bible is not less "offensive" to many of the Jewish scholars anymore than Old T is to others--it is not less offensive because that is not what they would ever call their sacred writings, it's just us being politically correct--but we can't call it the Tanakh that would be inaccurate because it's part of our Bible, so most Jews are fine with OT, but there really is no right thing--no consensus. :-) I think Wiki generally uses Hebrew Bible so that would be more consistent for the environment here.  Hebrew Bible is not commonly used in the academic fields that study the Bible; they use OT and NT, so it has to be changed to be translated into Wiki and sometimes I forget.  I am glad you Wikified it.


 * But that's not really why I am writing. I got that message that they didn't like our lead so let's fix that.  Plus I think your suggestion to include some theological responses is brilliant.  I may hang around a bit and do that if that's okay with you.  Also, one of the sources had written a book I didn't use that was all about humor itself and the history of the Bible in humor so that is a possibility.  It was Hyers.  There probably wouldn't be a lot of source material there but there is one!  I think both those ideas are good ones.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I have no personal preference on OT/HB, just following the WP-stream. The PC aspect on this is slightly lost on a Swede, or maybe just me. Did you mean this message? I wrote a reply, join in if you feel like it. If you check the DYK area on the mainpage you may get an inkling on what they're after, I have no problem with changing that. Getting rid of all the antiques, though... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And of course that is ok with me. Should I change my mind on that I will tell you, and you should ignore it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Politically correct is an effort to address people's real concerns with superficial change instead of substantive change. We relabel something and act like we've actually made a difference.  If you didn't recognize that, it was humor in the form of ridicule.  :-)  I ridicule because political correctness is more about the person doing it feeling good about themselves than it is about meeting real needs of the people they claim to be doing it for.  Anyway, changing it for here was appropriate because that's what is used here. I wasn't accusing you--just the people that started this.


 * I went and looked at the front page and the DYK section. I am struggling to find something like that for us.  Here is where my inexperience on Wiki is really a handicap. I can come up with all kinds of hooks and lead lines but I don't think they would be a good Wiki lead. I don't understand what you mean by getting rid of all the antiques--do you mean Shutter?  Why would we do that? We don't make the references conform to us though--do we?  I am missing something here...


 * I see that you have already attempted some change to the lead sentence but I still have a problem with having the statement about why people don't see H in B there in the lead. There are three reasons the references discuss about why it is difficult to identify humor in the Bible.  The age of the text may be a fourth but either the others should be added here or that one should be moved to a discussion of them all together I think. It would make a nice short paragraph in the intro. What would you think of some form of Greenspoon's quote as an opener?  "biblical humor is certainly not stand-up comedy nor is it especially cerebral either. Rather, it is participatory and fully in keeping with the overall themes and emphases of the Hebrew Bible."  Paraphrase that, maybe, then discuss why people fail to see it, then the rest of the intro mostly the same. Whaddya' think?  Whaddya' think?  Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * When you wrote "I got that message that they didn't like our lead so let's fix that." I thought you maybe meant you were pinged here: Template:Did you know nominations/The Bible and humor. This doesn't speak of the WP:LEAD, just the infamous "hook." If you meant another message, you've lost me there. My "The WP:LEAD needs work, obviously" had nothing to do with the DYK-thing, it's personal opinion.


 * "Getting rid of all the antiques" refers to that Onceinawhile apparently sees th 19:th century sources as problematic at the DYK-discussion (but he hasn't replied there yet).


 * As for the lead of this article, it should summarize the body. Ideally no quotes at all, those are for the body, and the body has to get into the 3-4 reasons so we have something to summarize. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the ping--I just used the wrong Wiki-word. I am not fully fluent in wiki-talk.  I didn't realize Wiki ever used hooks.  I thought those first sentences were the lead.  I think you might have misunderstood Onceinawhile's complaint.  It isn't the sources that is the problem.  I asked and got an answer:  []  I thought I remembered Wiki had a no quotes thing at the beginning so that's why I said paraphrase. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I probably did it wrong and violated some foundational Wiki-code that every other editor on Wiki knows but me and I will now be drummed out of Wiki-world with shame and condemnation and unceremoniously dumped out into the ether to weep in silence--alone... But I did something. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I think I finally got what Onceinawhile/you meant. You right, me wrong. I read it as if he saw two problems, but he was commenting on the same problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)


 * No problemo dude. :-)  Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

dif
Please reconsider leaving this one in. It is in the reference and it is applicable. Rephrase it if you like, but please consider leaving it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I shall read and consider. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Ok. The reason I removed it was that it sounds tongue-in-cheek to me, and IMO more concerns the general topic of humor. I've now read On Humour and the Comic in the Hebrew Bible p13-19 minus p14-15 which gbooks wouldn't let me read, and I found no support for it there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I hate it when they hide pages! But it doesn't matter. It's fine without it and less is more, right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Another source
Humor in the Gospels: A Sourcebook for the Study of Humor in the New Testament, 1863–2014 by Terri Bednarz. The foreword lends some support to the "Humor-in-the-Bible-is-mostly-a-new-idea" hyphothesis. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Page name
Hi, I was just wondering why you didn't call this page Humor in the Bible? Yoninah (talk) 23:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)


 * At the time, I was following the form of The Bible and violence. Articles under "Interpretation" in the "Bible sidebar" use both variations. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. But I think The Bible and violence does not sound like it's talking about Violence in the Bible at all. Yoninah (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Yoninah I agree with you. I tried to get the Bible and violence title reversed and got nowhere.  To me the Bible and violence should be an article that discusses--purely--all the ways throughout history and society the Bible has been used to support and oppose violence.  What it actually covers is incidents of violence in the Bible--period.  It should be labeled violence in the Bible because of that, but I could get no traction for the idea.  Of course, I had trouble getting traction for pretty much anything in that one.  If you want to go suggest that change there--let me know and I will go support an idea I do agree with.


 * Following the same pattern, we wrote this one backwards as well--trying to establish some consistancy for Wiki's sake. Consistently backwards is not a good thing though is it? If you want us to change it, we can and will be happy to do so--or you can just go ahead and do it--you have my vote and support. Go for it!  Graebergs and I are big supporters of Be Bold! Or we can wait and see what he says.  He'll agree though.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * what do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think for most readers, most of the time, the variations are pretty interchangeable. Humor/Violence/Whatever first seems to slightly indicate a narrower topic, but it doesn't seem that important. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think that it should show for readers searching for "Bible", more than for "Humor", so is good as it is, but other possible names as redirects, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What other redirects would you recommend? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Biblical humor, Bible and humor, - you find more. Do we need "humour" variants or will search be good enough to find ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Well there you go--no consensus for change. It seems as though once something is named it takes a bill before Congress--maybe a few bribes--to change it--and I'm broke. C'est la vie.  I agree it stays as it is.  Sigh... Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello! In your obviously knowledgable and brilliant thinking--(since you like our article)--do you think this might qualify as a good article or does it need more?Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I think I responded already at the other end ;) - GA is unpredictable, - you have one reviewer, and deal with that one reviewer. I never do GA reviews, because I - being German - don't trust my ability to judge English prose. - Be bold, nominate, and be patient, sometimes it takes months until a reviewer shows up. Then you will be given 7 days to respond, which is fair. Nothing to loose, - if it fails, you can always try harder and nominate again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)