User:Alephb/QuestionableSources

''This is a personal user page of User:Alephb, not a Wikipedia article or a policy page. It reflects sources that shouldn't be used, or which should only be used under special circumstances, because they fail to meet WP:RS standards. The reason is explained below.''

In articles related to the Bible, a number of "bad sources" keep being referenced. By "bad sources", I mean sources that are not suitable to be used on Wikipedia for making statements about the Bible. I don't mean the people who wrote them are bad, or that they're bad to read in your free time. I've learned a bit from some of them myself.

In some cases, text is even copied wholesale out of these unreliable sources into the text of the Wikipedia article in a way that could confuse readers. In order to keep people from having to research the same unreliable sources over and over again, I'm drawing up a list of at least a handful of these sources here. Maybe some other editors will find it useful.

You'll see a lot of references below to Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. The Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch is a fringe view in the scholarly world, although still beloved in some circles. It's an easy litmus test to find out if a source is clearly working outside the scholarly mainstream. Similar checks include looking for creationism, the ages of the antediluvians, the historicity of Abraham/Isaac/Jacob/the twelve sons, and the historicity of the Exodus.

Amplified Bible
The Amplified Bible is a specialty inerrantist Protestant translation of the Bible. It is produced by the Lockman Foundation, and Zondervan has some sort of involvement with it as well. It does not come out of the world of academic biblical studies, and it is generally ignored within academic biblical studies.

ArtScroll
ArtScroll is an Orthodox Jewish publishing house. They produce many fine publications from within an Orthodox Jewish perspective, and they are a useful source of knowledge if you want to understand the viewpoint of portions of the Orthodox world. However, while ArtScroll may give an Orthodox Jewish view of the Bible, and may be useful in some cases for illustrating a traditional Orthodox view, ArtScroll isn't a mainstream scholarly source on the Bible in the WP:RS sense. If you want a scholarly look at what ArtScroll is and its place in the broader scheme of things, you could try starting by reading Jeremy Stolow's Orthodox by Design, published by the University of California Press.

Barnes, Albert.
Notes on the Whole Bible. The New Testament portion of this commentary was published in 1832, the rest throughout various years in the 1800's. He holds views now characterized as fringe, such as arguing in his commentary for the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, and explaining Genesis passages in terms of creationist flood geology.

On Mosaic authorship, see here:. For Barnes' creationist flood geology, see here:.

BlueLetterBible.org
"BBB" is a handy website, and I have recommended it as a study aid to a few people. However, it does not constitute a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. It contains some handy search functions for learning about specific Hebrew words, but at the end of the day it is just a website some people put on the internet, filled with a wide variety of sorts of information from sources reliable and unreliable. In particular, Wikipedia has a lot of citations to its "Lexicon" function, which (for Hebrew words) crams together a pretty good but dated lexicon (Gesenius) with a variety of other stuff, without a clear explanation of where the information all comes from. So if you've found something in the Gesenius Lexicon via BBB, cite it to Gesenius. He was a recognized authority on Hebrew words. But please don't just cite to "BlueLetterBible," or you'll fall afoul of wp:selfpublish.

Clarke, Adam
Adam Clarke wrote a large commentary on the entire Bible, published in or around 1831. This is, of course, so far back that it is bound to be outdated in terms of biblical scholarship, which has entirely left him behind. Just the tone is enough to tip off the reader that we're dealing with something other than biblical scholarship in the modern sense.

In his introduction to Genesis, he states, "Every believer in Divine revelation finds himself amply justified in taking for granted that the Pentateuch is the work of Moses. For more than 3000 years this has been the invariable opinion of those who were best qualified to form a correct judgment on this subject."

On Genesis: "is the most ancient history in the world; and, from the great variety of its singular details and most interesting accounts, is as far superior in its value and importance to all others, as it is in its antiquity. This book contains an account of the creation of the world, and its first inhabitants; the original innocence and fall of man; the rise of religion; the invention of arts; the general corruption and degeneracy of mankind; the universal deluge; the repeopling and division of the earth; the origin of nations and kingdoms; and a particular history of the patriarchs from Adam down to the death of Joseph; including a space, at the lowest computation, of 2369 years."

So we're not dealing with someone here who has anything like Wikipedia's conception of history.

Davis, Dictionary of the Bible
J. D. Davis produced a dictionary of the Bible, in four editions: 1898, 1903, 1911, 1924, by the Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work. All four editions were the work of its author, J. D. Davis. After this, reprints were made in 1925, 1927, 1929, 1934, 1936, 1939, 1940, and later by Baker Book House in January 1954, April 1954, March 1955, August 1955, February 1956, October 1956, June 1957, April 1958, September 1958, January 1960, August 1960, April 1961, November 1962, January 1965. If you see a citation of it anywhere which gives only a date post-1924, please edit to indicate that it is a reprint of a 1924 book.

From the preface to the January 1954 reprint: "Its author had implicit faith in the infallibility of the Scriptures, and this dictionary reflects that quality consistently and without compromise." The "Creation" article attempts to blend science and Genesis in a way which contradicts the facts of modern history. For example, "Yet, truly, vegetation of some form probably existed on the earth before the planet mercury at least was flung from the whirling, contracting mass, and the sun, as man knows it, was formed." But Mercury was formed 4.6 billion years ago, about the same time as the sun, while the first plants appeared a little more than four billion years later.

The Chronology article, while not friendly to Young-Earth-Creationism, nevertheless makes a number of dubious claims. The calculation of years from Adam to the death of Terah gives a totally untenable method of calculating 11,527 years, which makes a hash of both science and the Bible. It treats the 430 years of oppression in Egypt, and the Exodus, as historical events, with Merneptah as the Pharaoh of the Exodus -- this approach has since been almost entirely abandoned. The "Adam" article treats Adam as a historical figure who lived 930 years, and the "Noah" article raises doubts about chronology but treats Noah's flood as historical.

The "Flood" article waffles on whether the Flood was global, but affirms that it destroyed all human beings. "It is further observable to the attentive reader that the Hebrew account not only as a whole, but in minute particulars, is credible, and reflects the conditions of a primitive age, which cannot be said of the Assyrians and Babylonians." It also (mistakenly) claims that a particular king, Ammizaduga, can be identified with Amraphel.

The article "Moses" treats him as a genuine historical figure, and "Pentateuch" contains an extended defense of the WP:FRINGE view that the Pentateuch was written in its entirely by Moses.

Dead Sea Scrolls Bible Translations
There's a web-based self-published source known as "DSS Translations." It's perfectly fine that the guy behind these decided to self-publish information about the Dead Sea Scrolls online. However, as a self-published source, his work shouldn't be cited on Wikipedia.

Easton's Bible Dictionary
Published in 1893, well after Wellhausen, this reference work nevertheless resisted the advances of biblical scholarship, and held on to views that are now WP:FRINGE. For example, here's Easton on the authorship of Genesis (from Easton's entry "Genesis").


 * The author of this book was Moses. Under divine guidance he may indeed have been led to make use of materials already existing in primeval documents, or even of traditions in a trustworthy form that had come down to his time, purifying them from all that was unworthy; but the hand of Moses is clearly seen throughout in its composition.

Likewise, there are fringe views on the Flood, as can be seen in the entry titled "Deluge".


 * It began in the year 2516 B.C., and continued twelve lunar months and ten days, or exactly one solar year. . . . The historical truth of the narrative of the Flood is established by the references made to it by our Lord ( Matthew 24:37 ; Compare Luke 17:26 ). Peter speaks of it also ( 1 Peter 3:20 ; 2 Pet 2:5 ). In Isaiah 54:9 the Flood is referred to as "the waters of Noah." The Biblical narrative clearly shows that so far as the human race was concerned the Deluge was universal; that it swept away all men living except Noah and his family, who were preserved in the ark; and that the present human race is descended from those who were thus preserved.

Ellicott's Commentary
Genesis 5:32 -- "Japheth, the widener, but according to others the fair, though the youngest son, was the ancestor of most of the races of Europe, as well as of some of the chief nations of Asia." 6:4 -- "Nothing is more probable than that, at a time when men lived for centuries, human vigour should also show itself in producing not merely individuals, but a race of more than ordinary height. They were apparently of the Cainite stock, and the text carefully distinguishes them from the offspring of the mixed marriages." 5:16 -- "It is not necessary to suppose that Noah and his three sons built this vast vessel with their own hands. He was probably a powerful chieftain, and many of the Sethites may have given him aid. Implements of iron had been invented by the Cainites, and on the intermarriage of the two lines would be brought into general use. It is difficult, however, to understand now four men could feed, clean, and give water to a very large collection of animals for so many months. Without scrupulous attention to such matters, a murrain would have broken out, and as only two of many species were taken into the ark, the loss of any one of these animals would have been equivalent to the destruction of the race. The narrative, however, implies that the health of man and beast throughout the twelve months was perfect; and probably the number of the animals received into the ark was less than is commonly supposed."

That should be enough.

Halley's Bible Handbook.
Though published in 1967, this book advocates views, such as Mosaic authorship and the accuracy of biblical chronologies, that are fringe in the world of scholarship.

On Mosaic authorship, see.

Holman's Illustrated Bible Handbook
This is a thoroughly WP:FRINGE source which places traditional religious beliefs above the consensus of modern historical scholarship. For example, at the beginning of its "Exodus" section, it reads:


 * Author and Date of Writing


 * Moses, Perhaps Around 1445 BC


 * The book is anonymous. Because Moses is the central character, however, everything in the book is compatible with the traditional belief that he was its author. The book refers to Moses as physically writing down some of God's commands (24:4; see also 34:28). Scholars who accept the testimony of Scripture at face value continue to affirm that Moses wrote Exodus. Assuming an early date for the exodus and that Moses wrote while Israel camped at Mount Sinai, this book was written in the middle of the fifteenth century BC.

It's essay, "The Origin, Transmission, and Canonization of the Old Testament Books Claims" that Moses probably wrote the five books of Moses "between 1440 and 1400 BC." That "Genesis narratives about Abraham and other historical figures read like straightforward accounts that have been handed down in the usual way: through oral and written records, with the oral records presumably originating soon after the events occurred. In this case, we would add that God superintended the transmission of the early oral and written accounts so that Moses received reliable histories worthy of inclusion in Genesis." . . . "Some of the greatest modern archaeological digs have uncovered ancient nonbiblical texts that resemble the biblical accounts of Noah's flood and the Tower of Babel. . . . and in broad strokes they corroborate Genesis. Their points of departure from Genesis may reflect corruptions that slipped in as cultures pulled farther and farther away from knowledge of God." Likewise claims the Joseph cycle is historical fact, that the idea that Moses and Abraham never existed is "extreme" and that "Skepticism is itself a faith of sorts. . . this radical theory is firmly against the evidence." Etc. Etc. "We have solid reasons for believing that the OT books include only true history and that they were written by men who were appointed by God to deliver Spirit-inspired writings to humanity." 

Gill, John
John Gill doesn't constitute a reliable source in Wikipedia's sense of the term. There is no evidence to suggest that mainstream biblical scholars today regard John Gill as a reliable source. In terms of WP:RS AGE, John Gill published his Exposition in the mid-1700's, a century before modern biblical studies began to emerge (with Gesenius, Wellhausen, etc.). Material from John Gill should not be simply copy-pasted into any Wikipedia article.

On Mosaic, authorship, see

Henry, Matthew
Matthew Henry wrote his complete commentary on the Bible in 1708 or 1710, at least a century before modern biblical scholarship began to emerge in anything much like its current form. For that reason alone, he doesn't qualify as a reliable source. While Matthew Henry's work is well-written and remains popular in some circles, biblical scholars don't rely on it for facts -- he has been left behind by biblical scholarship. The work is pre-critical throughout, and holds to views that are now WP:FRINGE in biblical scholarship. For example, he attributes the book of Genesis, among others, to the authorship of Moses, which is now denied in modern scholarship.

You can find his statement on Moses here, where he says, "We have before us the first and longest of those five books, which we call Genesis, written, some think, when Moses was in Midian, for the instruction and comfort of his suffering brethren in Egypt: I rather think he wrote it in the wilderness, after he had been in the mount with God, where, probably, he received full and particular instructions for the writing of it."

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
See Deluge, Moses , Chronology , Antediluvians are ice age men! .

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown
An old commentary on the whole Bible, arguing for things like Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. 

Lockman Foundation
The Lockman Foundation is not an academic publisher by any means. It is dedicated to keeping a handful of biblical translations in print, which translate the Bible from a conservative Protestant, inerrantist perspective (see their doctrinal statement). It presents itself as the non-profit project of a successful citrus farmer who wished to promote Christianity. Though it may be appropriate to reference it when, for example, discussing the history of evangelical translations or the like, there is no reason to treat it as a reliable source on biblical matters per se.

NAS Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon
This is a fake lexicon. There's no other way to put it. Someone put this thing up on the internet (here's an entry) with the absolutely false (and nonsensical) note on the bottom of each entry:
 * <>

Of course, there is no "Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius Lexicon." There's Brown-Driver-Briggs, and there's Gesenius, and this is neither. As far as I can tell, it was never published in any way beyond just being uploaded to the internets.

Moody Press
Special care should be taken with anything that comes from Moody Press. Moody Press is a publisher of various fringe works, including on creationism.

Nelson Study Bible
The Nelson Study Bible, in one of its forms known as the NKJV Study Bible, Second Edition (that's what I'm using here) is a staple in portions of the evangelical world, and is produced by Thomas Nelson, a publisher whose level of critical scholarship may be perhaps illustrated by their best-selling Heaven is for Real: A Little Boy's Astounding Story of His Trip to Heaven and Back which provides readers with a tour of what heaven is like, courtesy of the visionary experience of a three-year-old child.

But the book's publisher -- a publisher with zero credibility in the scholarly world -- is not the only problem. The Nelson Study Bible itself contains materials at odds with the scholarly consensus on a range of questions. The following quotes are from the Kindle edition, so I can't give page numbers, but I'll give enough information to easily find what I'm talking about. In its "Timeline" in the introductory section, it provides dates for Abraham's birth ("c. 2167 B.C."), call to Canaan ("2091"), birth of Isaac ("2066"), etc, even though scholarship has dismissed the idea of the patriarch's as historically datable persons. In "Author and Background" to Genesis, we find, "The Book of Genesis was written and compiled by Moses in the Wilderness of Sinai. Biblical and extrabiblical evidence points to this fact." This idea has been dismissed in modern scholarship as groundless. The note on Genesis 1:2 introduces a "gap theory" with is dismissed in modern scholarship. The note on Genesis 2:14 claims that the "Flood" (of Noah, of course) "obliterated earlier river courses." On incest in Genesis 5:23, "The problems associated with incest, addressed in Lev. 18, would not have occurred when the genetic pool was pure and unpolluted."

Peake's Commentary on the Bible
Peake's Commentary on the Bible is another one of the perennial bad sources that keeps showing up in obscure Wikipedia Bible articles. All one has to do is scroll to the beginning of the commentary on Genesis to see that it begins by endorsing the fringe view of Mosaic authorship. "Under the direction of the Holy Spirit of God Moses wrote everything down. ... Moses lived around 1500-1400 BC. ... The tradition that Moses is the author of the first five books of the Bible originates from the Word of God itself. ... The Lord Jesus confirms that Moses is the author ...". This is to be expected in a religiously-oriented Protestant commentary that is one hundred years old.

Pulpit Commentary, The
The Pulpit Commentary is from the 19th century and argues for the fringe view that the Pentateuch was authored by Moses.

Scofield Study Bible.
There's a famous Study Bible, used widely in the US, by C. I. Scofield. Because it has been reprinted with minor revisions by Oxford University Press, this one could confuse some people into thinking it represents mainstream scholarly views, or that it is recent (because the most recent edition is from 2003, even though the original was published in 1909). Don't be fooled, though. It isn't a product of the scholars at Oxford, and it argues for fringe views (WP:FRINGE) such as the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch.

Smith's Bible Dictionary
Smith's, depending on which edition one uses, was published between 1863 and 1893. It holds various views that are strongly at odds with modern scholarship. It's article on Noah, for example, gives a whole fanciful scenario in which Noah is treated as a genuine historical character and his flood is too. It's language makes clear that it is a product of theological beliefs, not of academic biblical studies: "The literal truth of the narrative obliges us to believe that the whole human race, except eight persons, perished by the flood."

Strong's Concordance
Strong's Concordance is terrible. It's used by people who never studied Hebrew who are trying to look up Hebrew words online. The sad thing is that there's a whole bunch of perfectly decent (if somewhat dated) Hebrew dictionaries online like Brown-Driver-Briggs, or Gesenius. But, for people who haven't learned the Hebrew alphabet yet, Brown-Driver-Briggs and Gesenius are hard to use, so people default to Strongs. If someone promised me an extra ten years of life, I would gladly produce a version of Brown-Driver-Briggs using only transliterations so people wouldn't have any excuse for using Strong.

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
This work is a product of Moody Press, which also sells the creationist Science and the Bible, by Henry Morris. And this is not merely a matter of guilt by association. You can find views now out on the fringes in TWOT itself, as defenses of not only the Exodus (p. 473) but even the story of the Egyptian princess finding the babe Moses amongst the bullrushes (p. 530). This pursuit of historicity leads even as far as Joseph in Genesis (p. 877). There is a passage which defends even the creation narratives of Genesis against "liberal" interpretations that treat them as mythological (p. 1188). The authors frequently bemoan "liberal" (or what Wikipedia would call "mainstream") biblical scholarship (pp. 431, 459, 836) and "negative criticism" (pp. 472, 862, TWOT # 2130).

The introduction to the book gives a very clear statement to the reader that all the opinions in the book are not simply the result of, say, neutrally applied linguistic and historical research, but are instead specifically run through a particular set of theological litmus tests. "The editors and Moody Press are of the conviction that essential to the right understanding of the theological terms of the Old Testament is a belief in the Bible's truth. Spiritual things are 'spiritually discerned' (I Cor 2:14). Therefore, about thirteen years ago, they enlisted the help of some forty evangelical scholars ... the contributors held the same high view of the truthfulness of the Bible and the reliability of its text."

The authors are, of course, perfectly entitled to their own religious views, but the historicity of Genesis, for example, has been left far behind by mainstream scholarship. Using TWOT as an authority on the meaning of biblical issues per se is like using Henry Morris as an authority on geology. The bottom line is this. For any claim made in TWOT, either that claim is found in mainstream biblical sources -- in which case we can just cite the mainstream sources themselves -- or else the claim is not found in mainstream biblical sources, in which case we must use appropriate caveats in the text to tip the reader off about what kind of thing they're reading.

Thomas Nelson
Unlike other entries here, this is an entry for an entire publisher, not a single work. But publishers matter. From WP:IRS,

"The word 'source' when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

"The piece of work itself (the article, book)

"The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)

"The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."

Thomas Nelson is not an academic publisher or even a publisher which generally tries to stay in the ballpark of academic consensus. It is a niche publisher catering to conservative Protestants, and in many cases it works in opposite to the academic world. See, for example, the entry for "Nelson Study Bible." It is true that sometimes works from Thomas Nelson will include facts that can also be found in reliable sources. But that doesn't mean we can cite Thomas Nelson as a source. If the information is found in other sources, use those sources. If it isn't, then it's not reliable.

Way to Yahuweh, The.
A self-published website called The Way to Yahuweh. See WP:SELFPUBLISH.

Wesley's Explanatory Notes
You can find these here.

Here's a bit from the introduction to Genesis: "This part of the Old Testament we call the Pentateuch, or five books of Moses. These books were, probably, the first that ever were written; for we have no mention of any writing in all the book of Genesis, nor 'till God bid Moses write, and set him his copy in the writing of the ten commandments upon the tables of stone. However, we are sure these books are the most ancient writings now extant. The first of these, which we call Genesis, Moses probably wrote in the wilderness, after he had been in the mount with God."

Here's a bit on Genesis 5: "This chapter is the only authentic history extant of the first age of the world from the creation to the flood, containing (according to the Hebrew text) 1656 years."

We shouldn't be too hard on Wesley here. He was, after all, writing in the mid-1700's, before the Origin of Species (1859) and even before Lyell's Geology (1830-1833).