Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Biblical criticism/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 22:41, 29 October 2018.

Biblical criticism

 * Nominator(s): Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the critical reason-based study of the Bible, its history, its major methods, controversies, and achievements, and its contemporary evolution. I believe this is an important topic in the area of religion, philosophy and history. This should be a 'flagship' article for Wikiproject: Biblical criticism, as well as being important to other Wikipedia projects, and since this is a controversial area that is often researched by the public, it needs to be among the best Wikipedia has to offer. That's a very high standard, I know, but I am committed to doing whatever I need to do to get this article to measure up to Wikipedia's best. I am cooperative and willing to work hard and will deeply appreciate anyone who cares about making this article great. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:42, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This article was taken through a thorough Good article review, which it obtained, then it went through the FA mentoring program where it was capably corrected and polished by one of the wonderful volunteers there, 'then' it went through a peer review where great people had great ideas, and finally, it was nominated here. This article owes many people, and is an exemplar of Wikipedia working together doing what it does best. This is a complex, detailed, analytical topic, but hopefully, anyone can follow what is said in this article. It is as non-technical a technical discussion as possible. Please don't feel "unqualified" to review it. Anyone should be able to do so. If not, we need to know that too. Thank you for any and all efforts! Jenhawk777 21:37, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments and support by Katolophyromai
Hello! I just noticed this article was up for "Featured Article" nomination and was disheartened to see that no one had commented on it already. I think this is an exceptional, well-written article that covers the subject quite thoroughly. I do have a few comments, though:


 * 1) In the 1970s, the New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders did work on Judaism that has pervasively influenced Pauline studies. I think it would be a good idea to link and briefly explain the New Perspective on Paul here, which represents a major shift in scholarly understanding of Paul's epistles, as well as Paul's relationship with Judaism. I think something should also be mentioned about the fact the E. P. Sanders is credited with having greatly advanced the analysis of the historical Jesus within the context of first-century Galilean Judaism. One or two sentences total ought to be sufficient. I have several sources I can provide to support the statement about him advancing understanding of Jesus as a first-century Galilean Jew. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is a really good idea! I would love those sources--and is that one or two sentences on the new perspective and one or two more on the historical Jesus or one or two in total?  Do you think Sander's contribution to the historical Jesus should be down in that section or stay in history?Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I have added note of Sanders's work on the historical Jesus to the section, along with a citation to a reliable source, and inserted a link to the article New Perspective on Paul in the preceding sentence. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sound reasoning and I agree with it. And thank you again. (If I say thank you too much and get to irritating you with it, please just understand I am too truly grateful for both the input and the help not to say something.) Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I like it. In one of my earlier versions I had used "paradigm shift" to describe Sander's impact, but one of the reviewers hated that, saying how can you know that?  But we do know that!  I didn't argue, I just took it out, very sad to see it go. I am over the moon that someone else who recognizes paradigm shift has indeed occurred is now reading this and wanted to put it back!  I am trying not to crow--but I am very happy about it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:29, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) "The New Testament synoptic problem" section includes only a diagram illustrating the four document hypothesis. While the four-source hypothesis includes the two-source hypothesis, the two-source hypothesis is independently more widely accepted, a fact which even the text of this section itself seems to indicate. I think it would be better to have diagrams illustrating both the two-source hypothesis on its own and the four-source hypothesis which incorporates it in order to avoid lending undue emphasis on the four-source hypothesis. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I actually did have a diagram of two-source theory, but I had a peer review before putting this up for FA and one of the reviewers said images should not interfere with the headings below them, so I took it out. There was no way to prevent that interference with two diagrams next to text that is smaller than the space required for the diagrams. I tried everything. So I picked the diagram less discussed in the text and made it slightly larger. How do you feel about images interfering with headings? I am happy to put a diagram of two-source theory back in if it is not a problem for you that it disarranges things a little. Alternatively, I can make them fit if I remove the text beneath them. How do you feel about images with no captions?  Or very limited captions? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It does not look like you tried using the "multiple image" parameter, which allows you to display two images side-by-side so that neither of them interfere with the next section. I have instated it with this edit. It now displays perfectly on my screen, but every screen is different, so it may look different on yours. If that does not work, feel free to revert my edit. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This is totally and completely wonderful of you! Thank you!  I am an image novice and had not even heard of this before and was trying to figure it out from Nikkimaria's comment below when it showed up that you had gone ahead and fixed it for me. I am so grateful. Thank you. I really like including the diagrams as an alternative to more pictures. If you are happy with the look, then I am happy too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I am truly grateful that you have put so much time and effort into improving this very important and article. This is definitely a subject for which our quality needs to be up to Featured Article standards. I am glad to say that, as far as I can tell, this article meets those standards. --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello! I am so grateful and glad to see you here! I will do my best to address each of your concerns.  They are all good and reasonable comments and I will do something about each one I promise. Thank you so much!Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I noticed a few more things I thought I would give suggestions on:
 * 1) You sometimes spell out the name of the century and sometimes write it using numbers. You should either always write out the name of the century in words or always write it using numbers. Regardless of which way you choose to designate the century, it is important that you use that form consistently. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have a little book of grammar called the Brief English Handbook--awesome book. It tells me I should "use a combination of figures and words when such a combination will keep your writing clear." It says I should spell out the number when it begins a sentence--regardless of how it is used elsewhere.  I figured that also applies to headings.  Otherwise I should use figures. Of course, rules of grammar change constantly and mine is an old book. I looked for a Wikipedia policy on this and couldn't find one.  I will go through and create consistency if you wish--just so you know it could impact clarity, and be problematic down the road for other reviewers. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That is really weird... I have never heard a rule like that. It sounds silly to me. My English teachers always said to write out numbers with less than three digits using words, but to use numerals for all numbers that have three digits or more. The sole exceptions to this rule are years (ie. "1 AD," not "one AD") and days of the month ("5 May," not "fifth May"). Wikipedia does not seem to share that rule, though. I do know that MOS:YEAR states that all years should always be written in numerals on Wikipedia as a matter of policy ("2001," not "two thousand and one"). MOS:CENTURY states that it is acceptable to write out names of centuries longhand or to use numerals. I personally prefer to write out names of centuries using words. I do maintain that it is important to pick a style and use it consistently. --Katolophyromai (talk) 22:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It is "The Brief English Handbook" by Edward A. Dornan and Charles W. Dawe, second edition, isbn 0-316-19018-7, page 39. Yeah, my husband and I are always having arguments over commas! He is older than I am and was taught differently than I was--so I am always pulling out my handy dandy little book--which usually just makes him leave the room.  :-)  I don't personally feel strongly about it one way or the other, and so I will attempt to cooperate because you do. I don't have the ability to find and replace, so I will be doing it manually--so it will take a while.  I have company this weekend--and people have this weird idea that if they come to see you, you should talk to them. :-) I will start tomorrow evening. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Pressing Ctrl F opens up a search tool you can use to search for terms. I did not know about this until another editor told me, but it has saved me so much time trying to find words and phrases in articles. You probably already know about it, but I thought I would tell you just in case you did not. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't get it to work on my Apple! I have tried and tried--it sounds like a wonderful option! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * On an Apple, you'll want to press the "command button", and while you're holding it down press "F". Then a little search bar will appear near the top right of your browser window. Alephb (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed but this has been changed so the numbers are all written consistently now. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I am glad to hear that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * 1) Scholars such as Bruno Bauer (1809–1882), Arthur Drews (1865–1935), and G. A. Wells (1926–2017) have long argued that the gospels are fictional in nature, and, therefore, the historical existence of Jesus is impossible to verify. Bauer and Drews both died over eighty years ago and their ideas are not accepted today. G. A. Wells was a professor of German language, not of Biblical studies or even ancient history, and he actually later repudiated his Mythicist views, accepting that there was a historical Jesus, but still insisting that we know very little about him, a position basically similar to Bultmann. In fact, both of the sources that are cited to support the mention of Bauer, Drews, and Wells are sources which explicitly reject their position as unfounded and extreme. It hardly, then, makes any sense to list them here alongside figures such as Bultmann, Mack, Crossan, Meier, Wright, and Boyd, all of whom still have strong currency within the field of New Testament scholarship. I think it would be better to move the mentions of Bauer, Drews, and Wells to the "Twentieth century" section, since their position is really just a historical one that lacks present-day following. It is certainly misleading to mention them at the very beginning of the "New Testament authenticity and the historical Jesus," which almost makes it sound as though their position is the most prominent among present-day Biblical scholars. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) The third "quest for the historical Jesus" was taken up by the Jesus Seminar. The Jesus Seminar was undoubtedly an important event which needs to be mentioned here, but it is also regarded by the vast majority of New Testament scholars as an embarrassment and a mistake. Most of the supposed "experts" who attended the Seminar had highly questionable credentials and many of them lacked any kind of measurable expertise in the area of New Testament studies whatsoever. (Paul Verhoeven, a movie director with no background whatsoever in the New Testament, is just one of the more questionable "experts" who attended the Seminar.) Furthermore, the Seminar rejected or accepted material from the gospels based on whether or not it suited their preconceived view of him as a Hellenistic Cynic philosopher. Most Biblical scholars, however, view Jesus as a Galilean Jewish apocalyptic prophet whose message was primarily concerned with the immanent coming of the Kingdom of God, an image which far better matches our surviving sources than the (frankly ridiculous) notion of him as a wandering Cynic. I think at least something ought to be mentioned about the Seminar's overwhelming methodological problems. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I am aware and in total in agreement on all you say here in #2 and #3. First, on #2. They are dead, and what they said has been repudiated, yes, but that actually applies to almost everything discussed in this article including Wellhausen and most of form criticism. So that is not a disqualifier by itself. Most of this is historical since biblical criticism as practiced by these critics ended in the late twentieth century. So that's not a disqualifier either.  Most of the people discussed in this article are dead too. None of that matters though. Mythicists make me crazy too--I did consider putting a qualifier that this is a fringe view, but I was trying hard to stay neutral and since I didn't evaluate the other views, it seemed wrong to only evaluate the one I disagreed with. But you are mistaken in saying they lack a present-day following.  They have a large present-day following, and those folks would have a just complaint about NPOV at their view not being listed here if I remove it.  I can reverse the order if you think putting them first makes it look like they are pre-eminent, and I would be happy to do that, but I can't agree to removing them completely since that would make this section--which is doomed to be controversial--less NPOV and even more controversial.
 * You should also know I desperately wanted to include an evaluation of these views. I looked and looked for a source that indicated what the majority view is, and what percentage of scholars hold which views just so I could use one of the many, many sources that say mythicists are fringe.  I spent a couple days looking and could not find it.  If you can come up with a way to source that, I will include it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I had to mention the Jesus Seminar as an aspect of NPOV. I make no claims about their conclusions or methods or membership or anything else, and I did that on purpose. I would love to have an article on nothing but N.T.Wright's acerbic, shredding evaluation of them--but it would have been off topic here in this article. This isn't an article about the Seminar, or their methods, or the quality of their work, or anything else about them specifically. They are only significant here if their input into Biblical criticism is significant--and since they made no significant contributions of any kind--a mere mention in history is sufficient.  I had to mention them--but I didn't have to say more! Because I think that's all they will get as history goes by--a mention. Please don't be too upset, but your response indicates I did a good job of presenting both sides of this difficult subject in enough of a neutral manner, it actually bothered someone whose POV I share.


 * I have found a resource that may allow me to rewrite the introductory section to the historical Jesus. It doesn't have numbers of how many scholars think what, but it does discuss --some-- consensus.  I might be able to do something with that and still remain neutral.  I will try.Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * However, I did go and remove the bit you added about the Jesus seminar. There are supporters out there, and neutrality would require including that as well, and that would be too much on that topic imho. If I say anything about the Seminar, I will have to say they made a positive contribution to Jesus' studies by focusing on Jesus' Jewishness--(that is on page 48 of "The Historical Jesus: Five Views")--as well as saying the negative stuff. I don't think that would improve the article. If you think it's important enough to include in an article about criticism--since they made no contributions to criticism--that you agree the positive and the negative needs to be there no matter what, I will do my best to accommodate the strength of your conviction--even if I disagree. But I can't put one side in without including the other. You tell me how important you think that is, and I will adapt. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I apologize for my late response. I was writing a response and then you responded and I had to change it and then I ran out of time and had to go do something. I was going to argue that something needs to be said about Jesus Seminar and Christ Myth theory running counter to accepted scholarship in order to prevent WP:FALSEBALANCE, but, you know what, just forget I said anything about numbers two and three. I looked back at the article and those parts are probably fine the way they are. I do not want to mess them up. --Katolophyromai (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, now I am all 'het up' over it too! I did have the same thought--that it creates the impression they are equal, and I want to fix that--but I need a source!!  My kingdom for a source!!  At times like this I always misquote Shakespeare. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Everyone went to bed and I stayed up and did something on the section in historical Jesus that you didn't like. If you don't think it's an actual improvement--and still neutral--just revert it back to what it was. I am going to bed too--big day tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That turned out really good. I think that is much better than it was before. Thank you for working on that. --Katolophyromai (talk) 12:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well...I thought you were right. I'm glad you like it. I think it's more accurate as well.  And see?  I have stopped misquoting Shakespeare... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I went to strike through my comments that were no longer pertinent and for some reason at the bottom, it struck your two comments as well. I don't know why. I have tried moving the prompts, but it didn't work, so I have removed them completely in hopes that will work. Sorry. It was unintentional. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I fixed it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Image review
Images are appropriately licensed; full review moved to talk. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Jenhawk777 16:44, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Outriggr
 Oppose [comments were addressed—no further review] on areas of prose. First, I'd like to say that this article has plenty of excellent passages, and that researching and bringing a topic of this breadth to FAC is a very impressive feat. I believe it could become a featured article. There are a number of spots where I found that the writing was of less than professional quality, re FAC criterion 1a. I am going to jumble various examples into one paragraph...

From the first sentence there is "uses multiple different methods", an ungainly, redundant, and vague construction; "concerning how the Jesus of the Bible and how the Jesus of history are or are not the same" can be streamlined considerably; "already in use investigating Greek and Roman texts"—avoid these -ing words, in general, by easier-to-read constructions like "already used to investigate Greek and Roman texts"; the second "for" doesn't seem idiomatic in "Camerarius advocated for knowledge of context for interpreting Bible texts"; "Lessing made a contribution to the field" -> "contributed to" (concision; occurs again later); "The late nineteenth century saw the second 'quest for the historical Jesus.'"—an odd use of quotes, or scare quotes, in a topic sentence, and without attribution, if it is a quote!; "Nineteen eighty-five", a year spelled out?; "multiple new perspectives from different ethnicities..."—again with the "multiple" and "different"; "Near Eastern studies, globalization and other academic fields" calls globalization an academic field (the study of it is, as with everything); two sentences of "This [verb]ed" in a row, beginning with "This created an awareness..."; why not "many" instead of "variety of different"; is "data" the best word for textual records in "in terms of the sheer amount of data it addresses"; "most influential work, Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Prologue to the History of Israel, 1878) that sought..." needs ", which sought"; "represented by Rudof Bultmann its most influential proponent" needs a comma or an "as"?. I am not mentioning the very easily fixed deviations from the style guide ("'50s", "--", etc.)

Sidebar: The writing consistently fails to use "that" as a conjunction/complementizer, meaning [+that] phrases such as "This has revealed [+that] the Gospels are both products" are very confusing, as "the Gospels" can be initially read as the object of "revealed", when it isn't. In simpler cases this English dilemma seems to be a matter of taste, or dialect, or formality, or something :-D – but in formal writing I do find it very awkward, to the point of objective complaint, in cases like "Parry and Lord in 1978 demonstrated [+that] oral tradition does not develop...". The more complex the construction, and the more commonly the verb might taken an object, the more of a problem it is. The same happens in this article with the verbs "said", "argued", "asserted", "agree[d]", "believed", "demonstrated". (As an aside, the repeated use of "said" is kind of informal if what the person did was "write", IMO.) It also happens in a slightly different form, e.g. "such as those indicating [+that] Hebrew is older than previously believed". The article itself proves my point when it writes "theologian Schmidt observed that Mark's Gospel is composed of short units" rather than "theologian Schmidt observed Mark's Gospel is composed of short units", and "scholar Paul R. House says that the discipline of linguistics..."—a-ha!

I don't know if I am allowed to criticize citation style (I think I'm not allowed), but a footnote like "[86]:42–72[87]:13[88][89]:1-15[90]:278[81]:242,247" inline after text makes reading harder.

Thank you for taking these comments in good... faith. Outriggr (talk) 03:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now made as many of these changes as possible; each is addressed individually below. All the changes, but two, have been done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It is now all the changes but one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I do absolutely take them in good faith as intended to make the article better, which is what I want, so I am grateful. Thank you--not just for reading and commenting--but for genuinely thinking about what would improve this article. (In the meantime I get help becoming a better writer.)  So definitely thank you.  I will attempt to incorporate all your comments. I have no problem with most of them. So please understand that, when I do question some of this, I am not being uncooperative.  I am just trying to understand those comments that, seem to me, to go against my education.


 * First, I agree multiple methods is a slightly awkward phrase. This is problematic, however, because I was extremely careful to get a definition from multiple sources. I needed to be able to put what the sources said into common English--with no theological or philosophical jargon--and I had to break it down into parts. Biblical criticism is an umbrella phrase. It really does incorporate multiple methodologies, yet it also has two basic ontological premises that provide a similar focus to all the different methods. If you could help me think of a better way to phrase that complex idea in a simple yet less awkward manner, I would be deeply and genuinely grateful.  I struggled with it repeatedly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I tried redoing that first sentence--for the umpteenth time now--see if you think it's any better. Biblical criticism is an umbrella term for studying the Bible that embraces multiple methodologies which all have two distinctive philosophical approaches in common. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now redone that beginning sentence yet again. I took out the word philosophical and I think that actually helped. Also, I wanted to say, I agree the way my citations have the page numbers outside does clutter things up. Some time ago, I went on Teahouse and asked what I should do about different page numbers for references used multiple times, because it was freaking out at me going red, saying - error - reference referred to twice with different info. This method is how they told me to deal with that.  If you can tell me a different, neater, less obtrusive way to use a reference more than once with different page numbers, I am volunteering to go through the entire article and change every one--all 170 of them.  It would make it a lot neater and much, much easier to read. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Next, streamlining the sentence about the historic Jesus without effecting neutrality will be difficult, but I will take a stab at it.
 * I was unable to 'streamline' this without completely occluding all meaning--so I went for clearer instead. See if you like this better: The Enlightenment age and its skepticism of biblical and ecclesiastical authority ignited questions concerning the historical basis for the man Jesus separately from traditional theological views concerning him. This 'quest' for the Jesus of history began in biblical criticism's earliest stages, reappearing in the nineteenth century and again in the twentieth. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Substituting used to investigate for my phrase in use investigating shifts that sentence from active to passive voice. I was taught passive voice is the number one sin of poor writing. This one goes against all my instruction. I don't understand the comment about -ing verbs either. I've never heard of such a thing. Active voice--often involving -ing verbs--is almost always better than the passive voiced-"to do" anything.
 * Don't think I can legitimately do this one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "for" can go, "contributed to" is better, you're right. I will change those
 * removed 'for'--then it seemed awkward, so did this: Camerarius advocated for using context to interpret Bible texts. See if you like it better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Lessing contributed to the field is now changed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * the quotes around the "quest for the historical Jesus" are there because they turn up as copied text on the copyvio. It is the appropriate "Title phrase" found in the sources--everywhere--hence the reason the copyvio detector detects it--repeatedly. I thought including the phrase in quotes would give an indication it was not my phrase, while not actually being a quote as such. I can remove them if you think it's best.
 * There were only two uses of this (the third use is a chapter title in a book) and I rephrased them both to eliminate the phrase turning up on copyvio and eliminate the quotation marks. See if it reads okay to you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Nineteen eighty five is spelled out because numbers at the beginnings of sentences must be spelled out. (The Brief English Handbook, by Edward A. Dornan and Charles W. Dawe, Boston: Little, Brown and Co. isbn 0-316-19018-7, page 198, section 39e)
 * This one's correct. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * That "rule" seems to be completely specific to that one grammar handbook. I have never heard of such a rule and it is directly contrary to everything I was ever taught in school. Furthermore, WP:YEAR, which is part of the official Wikipedia Manual of Style, specifically lists writing out the year in words as an unacceptable practice and states "Years and days of the month are not normally written in words." For our purposes here on Wikipedia, Wikipedia policy always trumps external grammar guides, especially ones that recommend obscure (and frankly rather bizarre) practices that do not seem to be known or advocated for anywhere else. Nonetheless, I think that this is a minor issue that should be very easy to fix. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay then. I will make the change--but I wish there was some support for it beyond "Wikipedia says so." I suppose it's that "normally" that's bothering me. The beginning of a sentence is an exception to the other rules for writing numbers, so it doesn't fit the "normally" criteria. It is not just my grammar book that says this. This is a requirement of the Chicago Manual of Style, AP, MLA, and all other citation guides out there. There is no reference--other than Wikipedia apparently--that says otherwise. Check online--every site says the same thing:  says "Rule 1. Spell out all numbers beginning a sentence." This one  says "You cannot begin a sentence with a numeral."  has a list of "numbers that are spelled out" and second on that list is "Numbers at the Beginning of a Sentence." here is the CMS:  with "Numbers at the beginning of a sentence listed at 9.5. You have to sign up to access it, but it says the same thing all the rest of these say. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Rather than having to pick between ignoring your concerns and breaking one of the rules of grammar--which does not look professional--I rewrote the sentence with the year inside the sentence where it can be appropriately numerical. It now says "The third period of focused study on the historical Jesus began in 1985 with the Jesus Seminar." If this is acceptable to both of you, it is okay with me as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * All four of these are in one paragraph I have now rewritten.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * multiple new perspectives from different ethnicities The source for this phrase takes two entire pages to say what this sentence says, and that source is already a synopsis of what's out there. (Handbook of Biblical Criticism, by Richard and Kendall Soulen, Third Edition, isbn 978-0-664-22314-4. page 21-22) It is a watered down statement, absolutely, I agree, but this whole article is an exercise in taking complex ideas and watering them down into simple English without using any of the jargon from the field. The only way to avoid "multiple different" is to list them separately.
 * "Variety of different" communicates something slightly "different" than the word "many" communicates. It's about the change more than the number. Biblical criticism was an almost exclusively white, male, Protestant enterprise for almost 200 years--then it wasn't. The "different" is what matters.
 * "This [verb]ed" in a row, beginning with "This created an awareness..." This isn't verbed, it's a pronoun in this case that references what came before in order to avoid repetition. I could use a semi-colon between the sentences if it would make that clearer.
 * globalization should be separated from "other academic studies" you're right.
 * Okay, I took a stab at these which are all the same paragraph; see if you think it's improved. It now reads:  By the late twentieth and early twenty-first century, new perspectives from different ethnicities, feminist theology, Catholicism and Judaism revealed an "untapped world" previously overlooked by the majority of white male Protestants who had dominated biblical criticism from its beginnings. Globalization, and other academic fields such as Near Eastern studies, became active in biblical criticism. These changes created awareness the Bible can be rationally interpreted from many different perspectives. In turn, this awareness then changed biblical criticism's central concept from the criteria of neutral judgment to that of beginning from a recognition of the various biases the reader brings to the study of the texts. By 1990, biblical criticism was no longer primarily a historical discipline but was instead a field of disciplines with often conflicting interests. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The "other" used in front of academic disciplines is still appropriate since biblical criticism is the academic discipline the others were added to. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:09, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * data--would you prefer information?
 * Changed it to informationJenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * that should be which, you're right, I will fix it.
 * That's done.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The Bultmann phrase can go either way with the comma thing, but if you want one, I will put one there.
 * I added a comma.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I will fix my numbers to follow the style guide--
 * I believe this is done now, and the use of "twentieth century" is consistent throughout, and "50s" now says the 1950's as it always should have. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Now, my response to the Sidebar and the use of "that." It is, as you say, personal taste to some degree, but there are some rules that do apply to the use of "that," and I want to point out that I do generally follow them. "That" is sometimes a conjunction, you're right, but it's also sometimes a definite article, and sometimes a pronoun, an adverb, or an adjective, and it tends to be overused in all its forms. "Thats" are occasionally necessary, say, when attaching a dependent and an independent clause. For example, "theologian Schmidt observed that Mark's Gospel is composed of short units". "That" was necessary. But it is a general rule that it's best to leave "that" out if the sentence is intelligible without it. For example, "such as those indicating [+that] Hebrew is older than previously believed". The meaning of the sentence is not affected by the absence of "that" nor is its meaning made any clearer with its addition. So no "that" is the preferred default.  This one too: "This has revealed [+that] the Gospels are both products" are very confusing, as "the Gospels" can be initially read as the object of "revealed", when it isn't.  But it is. The "Gospels" are the object of revealed. You got exactly what the sentence meant. That indicates the sentence is intelligible without "that" in it. So no "that" is the better more professional writing style.  If "that" follows "say" or "says" (Richard Soulen says that...), I was taught, it is not good writing. "That" should also be omitted if it precedes a simple relative clause.  I often catch myself falling into lazy habits, adding "thats" where they are not needed, so I usually go back and take them out--but I occasionally overlook one here and there. You caught one. "scholar Paul R. House says that is a mistake on my part. I will fix it. And though you don't like my writing style, and you are certainly allowed your personal taste, it is incorrect to say it is unprofessional.


 * Last but not least, I don't know if I am allowed to criticize citation style (I think I'm not allowed), but a footnote like "[86]:42–72[87]:13[88][89]:1-15[90]:278[81]:242,247" inline after text makes reading harder. As far as I am concerned, you have the right to criticize whatever you like.  I just ask that, in fairness,  you take into consideration some facts on the ground.  This is a highly controversial topic.  Some aspects of this will be even more controversial than others.  Being sure that anyone who ever accesses this article has the ability to find multiple reliable sources seems to require including those multiple sources where needed. It does clutter up the reading, you're right about that, but sourcing seemed like a more important issue. I hope that when you have had time to consider, you will agree.


 * I will go and redo everything I possibly can to accommodate all of your comments the best I can. Tomorrow. Again, thank you, and I genuinely mean that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have now done as many of these as possible--only two weren't doable--and I do think the other changes you commented on have improved the article. However, I was unable to make every change.  Please understand changes that violate rules of English (Nineteen eighty five) or principles of good writing (that) can't legitimately be made simply for personal preference. Please see my response to the Sidebar and the use of "that," and "Last but not least" above for my reasoning. I hope after reading, you will agree.


 * If there are any more objections to the prose, I am grateful to be given the opportunity to fix them, so please don't hesitate to tell me every and any problem you find. I want this article to be the best it can be. Your comments are helping me do that.  Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I have now changed the sentence that began with Nineteen eighty-five so the number is inside the sentence in numerical form. I have done everything else--except add in 'that' where the sentence is intelligible without it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk777... In most of the examples I offered where I thought the writing could be improved, it now has been, even if I wasn't clear enough about the problem. (In one case, what I wanted to say was that two sentences in a row started with "This"—always a sign that the flow could be better—and they are better now.) Also, I was only referring to the citation style, not the need for citation, because the superscripts include page numbers and if there are a bunch of them in a row, it doesn't look good. But I believe that I am not allowed to criticize citation style at FAC, as long as it is consistent, so we can let that go. On the talk page where you pinged me, you included some links about the use of "that", and I felt that the first one supported my position. Using "that" in complex formal writing lifts a burden for the reader, in cases especially where the verb could take a simple object. Looking at the verb 'demonstrate' in the article, we have:
 * Comparing what is common to Matthew and Luke, yet absent in Mark, the critical scholar Heinrich Julius Holtzmann demonstrated (in 1863) the probable existence of Q—perfect
 * linguists Milman Parry and Albert Bates Lord in 1978 demonstrated oral tradition does not develop in the same manner as written texts—no! This is different. They did not demonstrate oral tradition, full stop. This is a complex construction that needs syntax clarification through the use of "that", in formal writing. If "that" were in the sentence, my "grammatical module" would not have to go back and establish that the words that follow the verb are not simple objects of the verb. (P.S. You wrote For example, ""theologian Schmidt observed that Mark's Gospel is composed of short units"". "That" was necessary--no, you are comparing exactly parallel constructions here and saying that one needs "that" and one doesn't. In your preferred writing style, what you want here is "theologian Schmidt observed Mark's Gospel is composed of short units". Exactly the same as the "demonstrated" example I'm criticizing. You aren't on consistent ground when you say that the green sentence needs "that" but the others don't.)

I don't want to belabor certain things, as I said above, but I will say in good faith that I personally can't support an article with sentences like the one above. (I don't claim that I want every possible "that" inserted, such as "said that". The external link gives examples of verbs much in line with the ones I mentioned in my first comment, and says to err on the side of caution. There are probably five or ten that I would want to "fix" in this article.) You will have to believe me that my brain interprets these shortcut sentences as "slang" because they imply a familiarity with the reader's ability to parse the speaker's voice that cannot be assumed in this medium. OK, I'm done with this topic!
 * My concern about the sentence Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, believed these critics were wrong about Mosaic authorship, so he borrowed methods of textual criticism already in use investigating Greek and Roman texts and applied them to the Bible. I devoted a bunch of text to this but it's not worth it. You were worried about the passive in "used to investigate" but "investigating" is already passive because it belongs to no actor in the sentence. The reader can only parse "investigating" with assurance after the whole sentence is read. It's not hard to imagine a poorly constructed sentence missing a comma that says something quite different: Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, believed these critics were wrong about Mosaic authorship, so he borrowed methods of textual criticism already in use, investigating Greek and Roman texts ...[now it's Astruc investigating] The reader is on shaky ground with respect to the meaning of "investigating" in the original until he arrives at "and applied them". Anyway...
 * In summary... thank you for addressing most of the items I pointed out. I will take a look at the article again in due course with the hope of striking the oppose. Until then! Outriggr (talk) 23:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is awesome, and I won't argue about "that." Double-meaning intended.  I think you have proven your point sufficiently that I now think I am in the wrong here.  I got sloppy.  I have no excuse for those errors.  You have my apologies and will have my humble compliance.  If you can point me in the general direction of those sentences I will fix every one. I also apologize for pinging you unintentionally from J.'s talk page.  I did not realize--I still do things like that on Wikipedia--things I don't fully understand that I am doing.  I know--as my friends here will tell you--I have mostly learned here by falling on my face and deciding to figure out how not to do it again.  It makes life entertaining.  You're being really nice about all of this, and I am still grateful for your comments.  Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome! (Pinging is ok, as it lets third parties know they're being mentioned somewhere they don't know about.) I was actually going to delete the last paragraph above as being way too fussy, but you got here first. I'll talk to you later, or perhaps leave room for others to review first... Outriggr (talk) 03:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reworked what was mentioned here--whether or not it's improved--I will leave to you to decide. The Jean Astruc sentence has been a burr under my saddle from the beginning. I have not felt 100% about it, ever, so I decided to take a different approach this time.  I hope it worked. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Before you go away, I don't suppose you could point me toward those sentences? Is it part of my restitution that I have to find them myself?  (humor)  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:48, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you mind please taking a look at the first sentence again? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I put in some thats... Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Comments and support from Gerda
I took part in the peer review, when many comments were take on board. Right now, I see a "in progress tag". For the moment, I'll look just at the sections I missed before.

Major methods of criticism

This paragraph is very compact and hard to read for someone without knowledge of the topic. I'll look again after reading what follows.
 * I eliminated two sentences, it should be more easily understood now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Theologian David R. Law writes that textual, source, form, and redaction criticism are employed together by biblical scholars.[56]:11-14 The Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament are distinct bodies of literature that raise their own problems of interpretation. Therefore, separating these methods, and addressing the Bible as a whole, is an artificial approach that is necessary only for the purpose of description.[6]:1-24 Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Textual
 * "For example, a scribe drops one or more letters" - how about past tense, - no scribes anymore— done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * " but especially for placing in question the entire concept of "original texts."" - perhaps just me who thinks that "placing in question" is a bit complicated.
 * It now reads For textual criticism, this has raised the question of whether or not there is such a thing that can be considered "original text."[6]:81-112Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "recension and emendation" - the terms are explained, but are there links?
 * For one and not the other; now linked.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

More to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you Gerda, bless you! I think I fixed these. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Bit more:

synoptic problem
 * "no primitive source" - is there a link for the meaning of "primitive" here?
 * Dropped it rather than go into long explanation


 * "The theologian Donald Guthrie says" - says when? said when? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just dropped him too--didn't really dd anything significant that people can't figure out for themselves Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, again a few minutes:

Life of Jesus
 * "Patristics"?
 * linked now Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * " that this area of biblical criticism" - which? Better repeat the header, or explain how research gets criticism. Or begin with the second sentence, "The scholarly ..."?
 * "originaly" has a a typo, but I could also imagine the sentence without it.
 * Link Enlightenment, even if you had it before. A reader may just get here from the TOC. Not sure about the scholars, even they might profit from another link, if not as known as Schweitzer.
 * "interest revived"? ... was revived?
 * I'd drop the quotation marks around "quests", but if not, don't include the comma.
 * "Portraits of Jesus" vs. "portraits of Jesus"?
 * cynic please


 * much of this has now been moved to Historical Jesus per Jytdog's insistence. :-) The section is only three paragraphs now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Need to interrupt. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, the word "Cynic" in this passage is referring to a member of the specific school of ancient Greek philosophy known as "Cynicism" and, as such, it is supposed to be capitalized, just as we would capitalize "Stoic," "Platonist," "Epicurean," "Atomist," or "Peripatetic." If it were referring to just an ordinary "cynic," as in someone who is distrustful of others' motives, then it would be lower-cased. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:50, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd understand "Cynic" alone, but not "Cynic philosopher" where it looks like an adjective to me. Ready to learn, though.
 * I changed it--but it's gone now anyway. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "Jesus was only "authentic" where he was dissimilar from Judaism." - dissimilar in this context?
 * dissimilar using the criteria of dissimilarity


 * I would not begin a new sentence with "Whereas", but connect the two. Did this too
 * "limited contemporary consensus among historians" - what's a contemporary consensus? - "limited consensus among contemporary historians"? Fixed
 * If we seem to agree that "historical Jesus" is rather a term from a past, - to what extent do we use it?
 * can criteria be tools?
 * Yes that's exactly what they are--and the word can be both singular or plural--I will have to check context, but I think this is gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "the criteria was"? - "the criteria were"
 * confess that the following sentences remain Chinese to me
 * can criteria be a method?
 * "renaissance of Roman Catholic scholarship" is in quotation marks, why? why "Roman" if not a quote? (which would need a citation)


 * I fixed all of these—and now they're gone! But they look good in Historical Jesus! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Might as well just strike all of that--I'm sorry Gerda. You did unnecessary work there. The fight wasn't going to stop until I complied. And I've since decided he was probably right anyway. It did belong in Historical jesus. He moved all the criteria stuff there and then I moved the rest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Contemporary developments - Responses - not sure about the meaning of these headers
 * can you help me understand how to make them clearer by explaining what it is you don't get in a little more detail? Maybe? Contemporary means present day, modern, something not 200 years ago. It's the proper term for this--at least it's the term used in sources. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "... an example of an evangelical who believed historical criticism was a product of Christian theology going back to the Christian Reformation". - can evangelical (Evangelical?) be linked to Evangelicalism? - If no I use Protestant. Does Reformation mean Reformation? - If yes, why "Christian"?
 * linked now reads is an example of a nineteenth century evangelical who believed historical criticism was a product of Christian theology going back to the Protestant Reformation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "rabbinicist"? link?
 * godd idea--done Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * general: after reading the section, I think some chronology might help, and defining what contemporary means, which seems to be used in more than one meaning.
 * added some--hope it's clearer Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Contemporary methods
 * "evangelistic activities" are what?
 * removed Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "theology from Germany" is what?
 * Is this any better? One of its goals was to challenge, subvert, correct, and replace the liberal Protestant theology, imported by scholars from Germany, that had been established since the early 1900s. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Why give Freud the last word? ;)
 * Oh amen! What was I thinking?!? It reads now: It can be used in both a historical and a literary manner to examine the psychological dimensions of scripture through the use of the behavioral sciences.[157]:3 :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Take your time, I'll be away until Monday, all singing biblical texts in compact rehearsals. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * okay--I'll pretend I didn't do anything till you get back Monday. :-) I hope it all meets your satisfaction then--but not before then. There is new material in this section that has not been reviewed before, So I am doubly and triply grateful.  Please have a wonderful weekend thinking of nothing but beautiful music. Vielen dank, Gerda. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:30, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * All done! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment from Axl

 * From "History", subsection "Beginnings: the eighteenth century", paragraph 1: "Philosophers and theologians such as Thomas Hobbes, Benedict Spinoza, and Richard Simon studied Genesis and found contradictions, parallelisms, and inconsistencies that indicated to them a single author, such as Moses, was improbable." It is unclear to me that the presence of [antithetical] parallelisms should imply multiple authorship. Is this really what Hobbes, Spinoza and Simon say? (The statement is referenced to Muller, RN Soulen & RK Soulen.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:03, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for catching that Axl. This is a leftover from the original article that I did not even question. I am fixing it—carefully. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I fixed it. I shortened the statement and gave a more specific reference to Spinoza.  The real point here is Astruc, so I didn't bother to go into a bunch more detail on these three if that's okay with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:39, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It is now According to tradition, Moses was the author of the first five books of the Bible, including the book of Genesis. Philosophers and theologians such as Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679), Benedict Spinoza (1632–1677), and Richard Simon (1638–1712) questioned that. Spinoza records references to Moses in the third person, references to his death, and other inconsistencies and anomalies and concludes "it is clearer than the sun at noonday that Moses did not write the entire Pentateuch."[1]:24[2]:140,404 Jean Astruc (1684–1766), a French physician, believed these critics were wrong about Mosaic authorship.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * From "History", subsection "Beginnings: the eighteenth century", paragraph 4: "Semler engaged critically to effectively refute Reimarus' arguments." I am unsure of the significance of the word "effectively" here. Perhaps "Semler attempted to refute Reimarus' arguments" or "Semler refuted Reimarus' arguments"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I can go with refuted. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thank you for reading and participating here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 13:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * From "History", subsection "The nineteenth century", paragraph 3: "These men all made contributions to the study of Jesus in history, but none more than Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965)." I am unconvinced that this sentence is helpful. It could just be deleted. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:07, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I can see that, It is now gone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have added a link to "Albert Schweitzer". <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 19:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ooops! Cut it out when I cut the sentence didn't I? Thanx for catching that! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)


 * From "History", subsection "The nineteenth century", paragraph 3: "Yet it is "one of the ironies of the history of biblical criticism that Schweitzer's picture of Jesus as a religious fanatic who died disillusioned on a cross" merely became an additional witness to the dubious assumptions of the nineteenth century 'quest'." Three references are provided for this statement. Given that "Schweitzer's picture" is part of the quote, I guess that Schweitzer himself did not make this statement; it is unclear who is being quoted. In any case, I am not convinced that the quote itself is particularly helpful. Can this be paraphrased so that no quotation is required? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:58, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Added "lives of Jesus" to first sentence so it can be referred to here. The last sentences now read: Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965) revolutionized New Testament scholarship by proving to most of the scholarly world that Jesus' teachings and actions were determined by his eschatological outlook. He also critiqued the "lives of Jesus" as built on dubious assumptions reflecting more of the life of the author than Jesus.[19]:154[32]:257[33]:3–4 Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * From "History", subsection "The twentieth century", paragraph 1: "Bultmann's demythologizing said faith became possible at a point in history: the historical event of Jesus' death." Really? (I had some difficulty parsing the statement regarding the phrase "said faith", but I think I understand what it is supposed to mean.) Did Bultmann imply that faith was impossible before Jesus' death? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 13:11, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It now reads: Bultmann's demythologizing refers to the reinterpretation of the biblical myths (myth is defined as descriptions of the divine in human terms). It is not the elimination of myth but is, instead, its re-expression in terms of the existential philosophy of Martin Heidegger.[37]:627 Bultmann claimed myths are "true" anthropologically and existentially but not cosmologically.[7]:46Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. I added a wikilink to "demythologization". <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:31, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The last two sentences from "History", subsection "The twentieth century", contain two long quotes from "Handbook of Biblical Criticism". Could these be paraphrased instead? As a general comment, I think that the article has too many direct quotes. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 13:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * These two I just removed. They were added for DYK? and weren't used after all, so I just took them back out again. They didn't really add anything important. Are these better?  At least they are not quotes--right? :-) Thank you again for participating here.  I am genuinely grateful.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "Too many quotes" is a criticism I have heard before. I have a weakness for direct quotes.  It could be a character flaw... :-)  I like them for accuracy--too many people paraphrase and slightly alter meaning when they do so. These particular quotes all got added after the GA review was done--where he made me take out most of my quotes.  In response to other reviewers, I put some back, and I shouldn't have.  I have no good excuse except "I like them."  But you're right, of course, and I will see what I can do to deal with all three of these. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * All done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:48, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:32, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are most welcome, and again, thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods of criticism": "Therefore, separating these methods, and addressing the Bible as a whole, is an artificial approach that is necessary only for the purpose of description." "Separating the [critical] methods" and "addressing the Bible as a whole" seem to be completely opposite approaches (both valid). Surely all criticism is "artificial"? In what sense could criticism be considered "natural"? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The manner in which they are generally "naturally" used is treating the testaments separately but using all the types of criticism together. Theologian David R. Law writes that textual, source, form, and redaction criticism are employed together by biblical scholars. But it isn't really possible to describe them in an article like this in the way they are actually used--that would just be a jumble--but I did think how they are used should be mentioned. Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:05, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Artificial is used in the sense of "outside the norm," not the ordinary way of doing things, abnormal, contrived for a purpose, that kind of thing. I can change it if you don't like that word in particular. Theologian David R. Law writes that textual, source, form, and redaction criticism are employed together by biblical scholars. The Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament are distinct bodies of literature that raise their own problems of interpretation. Therefore, separating these methods, and addressing the Bible as a whole, is an artificial approach that is necessary only for the purpose of description.[6]:vii-ix

Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Textual criticism", paragraph 2: "Ehrman explains: "The errors tend to form 'families' of manuscripts: scribe 'A' will introduce mistakes which are not in the manuscript of scribe 'B', and over time the families of texts descended from 'A' and 'B' will diverge further, but will be identifiable as descended from one or the other. Textual criticism studies the differences between these families to piece together what the original looked like."" Surely this long quote isn't necessary? Can it be paraphrased? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:13, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That is a summary from Ehrman, a textual critic, and I doubt I could do a better job. Jenhawk777 (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How about this: "Each time a text is copied, new errors may be introduced, adding to those already present in the source. Thus "families" of texts arise, with each family containing similar errors. Scholars compare the differences between families in order to deduce the original text." <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:19, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, that's not quite what Ehrman is saying. Remember these texts were passed around in the community, so if you got a copy with an error in it, "A", you would have no way of knowing that, and you would copy it in good faith and pass it on, and those you passed it on to would do the same. So, even if all of you subsequently copied accurately, that error would still be there, and there would be a whole set of texts that followed from it with that same error. They could therefore be identified as having come from that one with the original error forming a "family" of texts descended from "A". This does assume what the error is--that when and where the original error occurred can be identified by those other texts that do not have the error, "B", if it can be shown both "A" and "B" came from the same time and place. Those copied from "B" would be another family of texts that went off in a different direction. Any additional errors that might follow in texts copied from "A" or "B" would not necessarily prevent the original texts from being identified, but they would not aid it either because additional errors would form families of their own. Identification of "which came first" can be extremely difficult as this was going on for hundreds of years.


 * Locating time and place is done by various methods--but often by the scribe himself. Some scribes were helpful to us and signed their work, but most are identified by handwriting and vocabulary, both of which changed over time, and style of composition on the page, like how many words they would fit into a certain sized space, and individual characteristics like that--what it's written on, the ink itself--so it is often possible to trace a set of manuscripts to a time and place, but those characteristics are, also, often quite general. Some styles of writing were used for long periods of time, etc.


 * Comparing the copy with the error, and the copy without the error, sometimes assumes what the "error" is. Which one is correct and which one is the "mistake" can be based on how many "B"s there are that don't have it written the way it's written in "A" --and other characteristics that lead to long arguments that are difficult to resolve. Sometimes errors are really obvious. I know of an instance where one scribe copied text that was originally in two columns, but he copied it going straight across the page--an artist who did not read perhaps?  Someone really sleepy?  But it isn't always obvious what constitutes an error, and some famous ones are still argued over today.  In John there's a text that translates differently based on one letter. And it's an important text doctrinally. They usually go with the text they think is the oldest, and any change is thereafter considered an error, but it is often very difficult to determine which that is.


 * It seems to me Ehrman's "A" and "B" clarify what can be very confusing. It didn't seem right to steal it without attributing, but I think that what's here is already a shortened version of what he says. I would have originally included ellipses where I removed words and another reviewer made me take them out for readability. I am reluctant to remove it entirely because of the likelihood of creating confusion without using his A and B, and I am reluctant to use his "A" and "B" without attributing. See--here--it took me a couple paragraphs to make it clear--if I even did! Ehrman is gifted at making complex concepts seem simple!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there is any contradiction between Ehrman's implication and the text that I suggested. Your detailed explanation is also compatible with my suggestion. Indeed my suggestion does seem to be a summary of Ehrman's position and your explanation. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 08:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Axl! Welcome back. What has been suggested here may read slightly differently to me than it does to you simply because you know what you meant! "Each time a text is copied, new errors may be introduced, adding to those already present in the source. Thus ... It's the "thus" that is hanging me up I think. It makes the development of families of texts dependent upon those "new errors" and that's incorrect. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay. How about: "Each time a text is copied, new errors may be introduced, adding to those already present in the source. "Families" of texts arise, with each family containing identical or similar errors. Scholars compare the differences between families in order to deduce the original text." <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 09:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This Each time a text is copied, new errors may be introduced, adding to those already present in the source. is a true statement and if you want it in the text, I can put it there, but honestly, it has nothing to do with identifying families of texts. Graeme Bird's article also has a definition and you might like it better than Ehrman's: "A major part of the initial process of recensio is the grouping into families of the extant manuscripts, an analysis also known as stemmatics, in order to discover how errors that arose early in the textual tradition have been passed down with repeated copying. In other words, manuscripts which contain such “shared errors” are most likely members of a “family,” and have passed on their errors from one “generation” of copying to the next, much as members of a human family pass on their various genes to their offspring."  This part isn't about new errors, it's about old ones and how they proliferated.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I have attempted to "tweak" that paragraph a bit since it clearly does not communicate well. I dropped the quote for a summary but I kept the A and B so I still cite Ehrman. I don't know if this is any better, but it is a summary and not a quote, which you requested.  It's longer.  Sigh.  If it's clearer, that's okay.  Please let me know if it's okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * It now reads like this: Copies of the copies having the same mistakes are referred to as "families" of texts. Ehrman explains: scribe 'A' will introduce mistakes which are not in the manuscript of scribe 'B'. Over time the texts descended from 'A' that share the error, and those from 'B' that do not share it, will diverge further, but later texts will still be identifiable as descended from one or the other because of the presence or absence of that original mistake. Textual criticism studies the differences between these families to piece together what the original looked like.[54][57]:206–212
 * I see that you have adjusted the text a little more. The current text is fine. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 09:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Praise God, hallelujah and amen! Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I have continued tweaking this in the ongoing effort to make it clearer! It contains a phrase "may diverge further" that includes your idea about further errors as well, but hopefully defines "family" in a clear and accurate manner. I'm trying. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Source criticism": "He discovered Genesis alternates use of two different names for God while the rest of the Pentateuch after Exodus 3 omits that alternation." Did Genesis really alternate between one name and the other name at every instance? Or was it simply that [two] different names were used in different places? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 08:54, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I can't say that I know what it "really" does. I don't really know how many times it went back and forth or if it alternated sequentially or any of the other details about it. This is all that was in the source.  What you ask may be the basis of one of the many criticisms of Wellhausen's theory. Good insight!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Three references are provided: Smend (From Astruc to Zimmerli), Tov (Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible), and Wenham (Source Criticism). What exactly do these references say about "alternation" in Genesis? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 09:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Smend (#66) opens page one with "Everyone knows that the foundation of the modern view of the Hexateuch was laid in 1757 by Astruc in his epoch-making discovery of the significance of the divine names Yahweh and Elohim as pointing unmistakably to different literary sources." That's the last he says about it. Tov and Wenham do not discuss the name alternaton but refer to the other aspects mentioned there.  Nothing more in those particular references. Soulen has a mention of the alternation under "Source criticism" on page 178--but it doesn't mention Astruc. I can keep looking if you want more. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Aha! So there was no alternation. How about this: "He discovered that Genesis used two different names for God (Yahweh and Elohim), whereas the rest of the Pentateuch after Exodus 3 used only a single name." <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 09:44, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * So I read this and became alarmed, realizing the source for alternation that discusses exactly what you are asking about is not here at all! That whole paragraph is missing its reference in the middle section--it only has the references at the end. I must have written it, intending to go retrieve the other reference—which is up in the first paragraph of beginnings—after writing, and got distracted and forgot--and I hadn't caught it and no reviewer before you caught it!  Thank goodness you did!  There was most definitely alternation, (the rest of the OT uses multiple names for God too--that is one of the criticisms of Astruc), and the reference is #4, on pages 166-168:  Nahkola, Aulikki (2007). "The memoires of Moses and the genesis of method in Biblical criticism: Astruc's contribution". In Jarick, John. Sacred Conjectures: The Context and Legacy of Robert Lowth and Jean Astruc. New York: T&T Clark. ISBN 978-0-567-02932-4.  Thank you thank you for catching this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What exactly does Nahkola say about "alternation"? I would like a verbatim quote please (here, not in the article). My main concern is the definition of the word "alternation". I am happy to accept that Genesis used two different names in different places. However I am skeptical that the name was changed at every instance. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You and all his critics! Skepticism is no doubt warranted.  However, alternation was the word the source used. On page 166 of Nahkola, at the top of the page it says Astruc provided four "proofs" including "(2)the alternation between God's names... (3)the lack of this alternation, seen on the whole in the rest of the Pentateuch, from Exodus 3 onwards, where Moses no longer depends on tradition but gives an eye-witness account..." then there is a quote from Astruc himself where he explains his method: "...putting together all the pieces (endroits) in which God is called Elohim...in a column I called A... Next to them in a column I called B, I placed all the other pieces in which God was only called Jehovah...  As I progressed, I became aware that I would have to assume the existence of further accounts... Since the name of God is not mentioned...there is therefore no reason to connect them with either of the first accounts..." !!!  It doesn't seem like a method that would pass muster these days, nor does it seem conducive to answering your question concerning the pattern of alternation. Was it one of each, back and forth, or were there two of one and one of the other?  Was it consistently patterned or somewhat random? I guess that would depend entirely upon how the fragments were arranged--which no source specifies that I can find. It must be in school textbooks somewhere, but I haven't found any on line. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay. Since Nahkola explicitly mentions "alternation", I accept that. Did Exodus 3 onwards use only a single name for God? The lack of alternation does not necessarily imply this. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * There are in fact multiple names for God throughout the Old Testament, and I and a lot of other people agree with you.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Can you find a suitable source that mentions multiple names for God throughout the rest of the Pentateuch? That would be very helpful. Sadly, Astruc began with the premise of Mosaic authorship and shoehorned his findings to fit with that prejudice. Ironically, the "alternation" of names in Genesis is (circumstantial) evidence against single-person authorship. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 09:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

No, but why would I need to? It has no place in the article, since this is about his contribution to BC, and that's historical. Yes, you're absolutely right, that is exactly what Astruc did. Right or wrong it started BC and that's how he did it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Why would I need to?" Because "the rest of the Pentateuch after Exodus 3 omits that alternation" is inadequately informative. This could mean that only a single name is used, or multiple names are used, or two different names are used but not alternately, or no name is used at all. When I read the statement in the article, I want to know what the rest of the Pentateuch actually says. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 09:28, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * When I read the statement in the article, I want to know what the rest of the Pentateuch actually says. That the article stimulated your interest is a lovely, wonderful, and rewarding thing for you to say, and I appreciate it, but the truth is, I simply cannot follow every line of interest this article might spawn for every person. If it is not directly about Biblical criticism itself, it has no place in the article. Staying on topic was one of the major challenges of writing this article--everything connected to and bearing on biblical criticism gets a mention--but nothing gets thoroughly or completely developed except BC itself because doing so would be off-topic. I can only talk about what is pertinent to Biblical criticism itself--where those lines of interest cross--and I can only talk about them in synopsis.


 * You have no way of knowing, but this is the single most consistent comment I have gotten on this article. One commenter wanted more on Schweitzer, another wanted more on source criticism, another wanted more on Sanders. There have been at least 5 of these--now 6 with yours--think of what this article would look like if I complied with each request. This is an overview of a complex and detailed subject with books and books written on each of these subtopics--and it's in one relatively short Wikipedia article. It is fair to say there is much much more unsaid than said here, and what's in the rest of the Pentateuch, and the names of God, would make a very interesting article--but not this article. If I said the necessary things about biblical criticism--and if it stimulates interest for more--then I have done the job of an Encyclopedia. I think that's the best there is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Could we have a reference for the last sentence of the paragraph in "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Source criticism" please? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 09:00, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * We certainly may. I thought doing so in the sections discussing them was sufficient, but I moved two of them up to that sentence.Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 09:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Source criticism", subsection "Wellhausen's documentary hypothesis", paragraph 2: "Once the idea of multiple sources for the Pentateuch was accepted, later scholarship determined more concerning the number and extent of those sources and their inter-relationship." More what was determined? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 09:36, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * How's this? Once the idea of multiple sources for the Pentateuch was accepted, later scholarship determined more concerning the number of those sources as well as their extent and inter-relationship Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How about this: "After the idea of multiple sources for the Pentateuch was accepted, later scholars inferred more sources, with increasing information about their extent and inter-relationship." <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 09:51, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You know what? I got to looking at these and I think I've decided they are a little awkward because that sentence doesn't really need an introductory phrase at all. What would you think of just dropping it?  Producing something along the lines of "Later scholars inferred more sources, with increasing information about their extent and inter-relationship." ?? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes! I also considered dropping the introductory phrase. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:57, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Great minds...! I'll go fix this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have changed the sentence. No further action is necessary. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 09:42, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Form criticism", contains long quotations by Richard Burridge and Anthony J. Campbell. Are these really necessary? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Well, in answer to your question I would ask you to observe our exchange above concerning "alternation." It wasn't resolved until I added the quotes using the term, and you accepted it purely on the basis that it was the actual word used in the source and not my personal interpretation. This stuff about form criticism is highly problematic. Form criticism was so dominant for so long—there's so much 'product' out there—people still quote its findings as though they are set in stone.  I run into people referencing "laws of development" here on Wp on a regular basis— I had to take it out of this article as a matter of fact—as though it is an established fact when in fact the opposite is true. Tearing down an icon requires lots of proof. Quotes carry more weight. There is no arguing that someone else put their own "spin" in their paraphrase of what they think someone else might have meant to say--if you know what I mean. Because this is controversial, and liable to cause a reaction of disbelief in some, quotes seemed like the best approach. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. Because you are convinced that the use of these quotations is the best approach, I accept that. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:02, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I appreciate that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think that "Redaction criticism" should be a subsection of "Form criticism". How about making "Redaction criticism" a subsection of "Major methods of criticism"? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 09:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Form criticism", subsection "Redaction criticism": "Redaction criticism developed after World War II in Germany and in the 1950s in England and North America, and can be seen as a correlative to form criticism." I don't think that "a correlative" is the right phrase here. Perhaps a better description might be "a counterpart"? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 09:49, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This is what the sources say:
 * Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies, ISBN 978-0-19-925425-5, from bottom of page 28 to top of page 29: "... After the second world war it (The form-critics history of traditions approach) led to redaction criticism..."
 * The Historical Critical Method, by Law, ISBN 978-0-567-57820-4, begins on page 181, find this on page 189: "Only when form-critical insights had become generally accepted was it possible for redaction criticism to build on the work of the form critics."
 * To Each its own..., ISBN 0-664-25784-4, second paragraph page 107: "Much of the work in redaction criticism, like that in form criticism on which it depends..."
 * Interpreting the New Testament, Harrington, ISBN 0-8146-5124-0, page 96, "Redaction criticism is obviously the child of source and form criticism..."
 * Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Soulen, ISBN 0-664-22314-1, page 159, "Redaction criticism is generally conceived as a logical and methodological correlative to form criticism." Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:14, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Form criticism", subsection "Redaction criticism", paragraph 2: "Followers of other theories concerning the Synoptic problem, such as those who support the Greisbach hypothesis which says Matthew was written first, Luke second, and Mark third, cannot accept redaction criticism as a method or its conclusions." I don't think that the last part of the sentence is required. How about: "Followers of other theories concerning the Synoptic problem, such as those who support the Greisbach hypothesis which says Matthew was written first, Luke second, and Mark third, do not accept redaction criticism." <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * You don't think accepting it as a method and accepting its conclusions are two connected but different things? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there any part of redaction criticism that is accepted by the Greisbach hypothesis? If not, then there is no point calling out its method or its conclusion as specific parts that are not accepted. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 18:09, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All right. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Done.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:43, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Form criticism", subsection "Redaction criticism", paragraph 2: " Its method in finding the final editor's theology is flawed, and it was often a kind of preaching and not just an academic tool." It is unclear to me if this is a general consensus, or if this opinion is specific to Greisbach hypothesis followers et al. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I flipped the order and removed that particular phrase so it should be clearer now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Is its method of finding the final editor's theology really flawed? Or is this just the opinion of the source's author? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, the method is actually flawed, so I added an explanation. See if that works a little better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:16, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods of criticism", subsection "Literary criticism", subsection "Types of literary criticism", paragraph 3: "Narrative criticism began studying the New Testament in the 1970s." I don't think that this is the correct phrase. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I added a reference there to Mark Powell, first full paragraph on that page traces narrative criticism's beginnings. In combination with the information from the other references it is a correct paraphrase. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, you missed my implication. "Narrative criticism" is a technique used by scholars to study the New Testament. Narrative criticism itself does not study anything. The grammatically correct phrase would be "Narrative critics began studying the New Testament in the 1970s." However that statement is somewhat clumsy. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I did miss it--sailed right past... :-) cahnged it to: Within narrative criticism, critics approach scripture as story. Is that cool? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:20, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Life of Jesus research", paragraph 1: "Bible scholar Gerd Theissen explains: "It was concerned with presenting a historically true life of Jesus that functioned theologically as a critical force over against [established Roman Catholic] Christology"." The phrase "a critical force over against" is grammatically incorrect. I realize that this is a direct quote from the reference [Theissen]. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that, and I understand it is not necessarily incorrect to correct it, but it is not incorrect to leave it either. I am one of those people who doesn't like changing quotes.  I will do so this time since you think it's a problem. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that editing the quotation in that way is the best approach. Two suitable approaches would be to either add "[sic]" to the quotation, or to paraphrase Theissen. Indeed I don't think that it is necessary to mention him in the article's text at all. Perhaps something like: "This research aims to describe the real life of Jesus, often contradicting Roman Catholic theology." <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I do like to quote and attribute don't I? Okay, so, it is a statement about history, so not attributing might be okay--I guess--maybe... So I paraphrased thusly: The study flourished in the nineteenth century, making its mark in the theology of the German Protestant liberals. They saw the purpose of a historically true life of Jesus as a critical force that functioned theologically against the high Christology established by Roman Catholicism centuries before
 * What do you think? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That's good. Thank you. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:26, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Life of Jesus research" includes an image of the painting "Jesus and Nicodemus" by Henry Ossawa Tanner. How is this painting relevant to life of Jesus research? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's more relevant than the picture that was there which was a picture of the Guttenburg Bible. It's a picture of Jesus during his life doing something Jesus is said to have done. It seemed appropriate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay. In that case, can you expand the caption to state that the historical Jesus really did meet Nicodemus? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hah! Are you asking if I can prove it is historically true? I am sure now that I am missing implications everywhere... Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Given that Jesus's mere existence is itself controversial, I don't think that you can prove that it is historically true. Rather, can you find a reference from a reliable scholar that asserts this meeting as a real event? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:01, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Jesus' existence is not controversial--not with scholars. The overwhelming majority of scholars agree he existed and they agree on about a half dozen things about him--such as his baptism by John, his crucifixion, etc. Check out the Historical Jesus--there's a short paragraph on the myth theory there that's good. And while it might be possible to find support for this event as historical, I can't see how or why it is necessary.  Including a picture about a story that is in the text is perfectly legitimate.  If this were an article on Anne of Green Gables, there would no doubt be multiple artistic renderings of Anne and her home and family to include. I understand--we've been conditioned to think historically--but thinking of the Bible as literature doesn't require historical verification for it to still be story. It's a picture of a story about Jesus.  No other claims are made. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * {{tq|Amy-Jill Levine has stated that "there is a consensus of sorts on the basic outline of Jesus' life. Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptised by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God’s will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (26–36 CE)."Amy-Jill Levine in The Historical Jesus in Context edited by Amy-Jill Levine et al. 2006 Princeton Univ Press {{ISBN|978-0-691-00992-6}} p. 4
 * The major point of contention about the historicity of Jesus is that the accounts about him were all written after his death (his "second" death?). The texts by Flavius Josephus and Tacitus were the earliest descriptions of Jesus. Why are there no contemporary accounts of Jesus? One inference is that "Jesus" was a myth that accumulated over decades. (More likely, Jesus was a real man to whom various "miracles" were ascribed over decades.) In any case, I accept that the existence of Jesus is agreed by historians.
 * Back on track: "If this were an article on Anne of Green Gables, there would no doubt be multiple artistic renderings of Anne and her home and family to include." This is not an article about Jesus. As far as I can tell, an 1899 painting of "Jesus and Nicodemus" has little to do with biblical criticism or life of Jesus research. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:07, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out the "myth theory". That is a very fair analysis. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There are almost no contemporary records of anyone from ancient times. Emperors, sure, the occasional governor or general might be mentioned here and there, especially if they were in the Emperor's circle, but a poor country preacher who wasn't really famous till after his death?  No way.  Compared to other poor persons there is actually more about Jesus than any other person in ancient history--and that's according to Ehrman the agnostic. Plus, there is evidence the belief in resurrection and other miracles did not take decades to develop but was immediate. That's under the "evidence" section in that same HJ article. Glad you liked it. I think it's a really balanced and well-done article. And you're right, this isn't an article about Jesus--but it is a section about studying Jesus.  What do you think would be a fair image to include? Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I should not digress from my review of the article.


 * Is there a consensus among historians about Jesus actually meeting Nicodemus? If so, then this could be stated in the caption, along with a reference.


 * I note that "Historical Jesus" states that his baptism and crucifixion were almost certainly real events. Perhaps a picture from "Crucifixion of Christ" might be suitable? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Good call, but it won't matter, as this is about to fail because I am incapable of getting all the references as they should be. Thank you for your participation and all your input. I'm sorry to let you down, but I just can't do reference Hell anymore. I've hit my limit.Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * *sigh* I feel like we are so close to reaching the FA standard. This particular FAC does seem to be unusually long and gruelling though. I sympathize with your feelings. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * {{u|Axl}} I can't tell you how much I appreciate the empathy--and your perseverance through this long and arduous article. We are close to FA. And it may be wussy of me to give up this close to the goal, but this article has been running my life since May.  The administrator here has been wonderful about it and has actually tried to help. He went through the history and discovered that someone else had come through with the citation bot and changed a bunch of references and actually caused some of the problems.  Notifying the person that did it meant they came back and undid that one reference and that fixed it, but now I am wondering if the bot messed up the others it did as well--and how can I tell which ones are screwed up?  I would have to go back through 150 references--yet again--which I have already done more than once.  I don't understand some of this--it's beyond my level of expertise here, and the idea of going back to reference Hell is more than I can cope with.  I will go switch out that image anyway.  Though I don't see how the administrator can approve this article knowing there are problems with the references. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the caption and added two references. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Life of Jesus research", paragraph 2: "After Albert Schweitzer's Von Reimarus zu Wrede was published as The Quest of the Historical Jesus in 1910, the phrase provided the label for the field of study for eighty years." Which phrase/label? "Life of Jesus research" or "historical Jesus"? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:34, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * changed phrase to "After..., its title provided the label..." Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Life of Jesus research", paragraph 2: "By the end of the twentieth century, scholar Tom Holmén writes that Enlightenment skepticism gave way to a more "trustful attitude toward the historical reliability of the sources. ... The conviction of Sanders, (we know quite a lot about Jesus) characterizes the majority of contemporary studies"." Bizarrely, this quote by Holmén about E.P. Sanders is sourced to a book written by Sanders himself. Is this correct? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:50, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I had the Holmen reference but when I went to pull it up for A.Parrot just below, I could not get it to access properly so I just deleted it rather than fight with it any more--I pulled a bunch of refs rather than fight with Google over them--and I just forgot to remove hime from the text accordingly. Done now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, all you seem to have done is remove the quotation marks. If this is the case, then we now have a close paraphrase. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Aargghh--I meant to remove the 'Tom Holmen says' and the quotes so what was left was a paraphrase of what Sanders says in his book instead of a quote from Holmen in his book. I'll go check it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Shew! Had me worried there for a minute! Holmen's gone! Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The current wording remains very close to the original quotation. Are you sure that this is not a close paraphrase? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:20, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right! I didn't change it enough. I have now paraphrased the whole page from Sanders in two new sentences. Please see if you agree! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have paraphrased the section. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanx for that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Life of Jesus research", paragraph 3: "Cross says that in the twenty-first century, investigation into the life of Jesus is continued by Christian, Jewish, independent Bible scholars, and secular and non-secular historians." Is there any meaningful difference between "Bible scholars" and "historians" in this context? Perhaps simply: "Cross says that in the twenty-first century, investigation into the life of Jesus is continued by Christian, Jewish and non-secular scholars." <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't think that is a controversial statement. Surely there is no need to mention Cross at all? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:14, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with deleting Cross. This is a sentence added by someone who said it was important to them to note that those doing historical Jesus research are no longer limited to white male Protestants as biblical criticism was for 200 years. And yes, you're right, in this context there is a distinct difference between historians and Bible scholars.  Not many Bible scholars have any real training in studying history and they tend to do "historical criticism" from a hermeneutical perspective using criteria that is not evenly applied or even considered dependable by all. Historians on the other hand, are not any more likely to know anything about the Bible than anyone else and are often atheists, agnostics and so on who are interested in an era or an area--or both.  I agreed this was a significant point--so there it is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, okay. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 20:27, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * {{u|Axl}} There was a problem accessing the reference so this is gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Contemporary developments", subsection "Responses", paragraph 3: "Hebrew Bible scholar Marvin A. Sweeney writes that some specifically Christian theological assumptions in what was claimed to be a non-sectarian pursuit led to anti-Jewish lines of reasoning from biblical criticism's beginning, causing most Jews to avoid it." The sentence is rather awkward. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That's easy for me to agree to--and I do--I didn't write it. :-) It's the same guy that I was telling you about up in the nineteenth century. I haven't changed it since I am concerned about his response--however--if you changed it--what could he do? Right?  Totally not my fault then!  If he shows up and reverts, I can tell him FAC did it.  Surely he'll leave it then! Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * How about this: "Hebrew bible scholar Marvin A. Sweeney argues that some Christian theological assumptions within biblical criticism have reached anti-semitic conclusions. This has discouraged Jews from engaging in biblical criticism." <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * As far as I am concerned, if you are the one doing it, you can do whatever you damn well please! :-) If he shows up and screams or reverts and sends an edit-war warning--his usual approach--then we'll deal with it. I have your back. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * What if--so as not to create unnecessary conflicts--we just split his sentence into two sentences--and added some commas? Hebrew Bible scholar Marvin A. Sweeney writes that some specifically Christian theological assumptions, in what was claimed to be a non-sectarian pursuit, led to anti-Jewish lines of reasoning from biblical criticism's beginning. This caused most Jews to avoid it. This anti-Jewish reasoning is actually mentioned up in the nineteenth century now, so that connects. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know which editor you are referring to. I am going to change the text to my own recommendation. Of course, if anyone disputes my edit, I shall be happy to discuss the matter further. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have changed it. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:39, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You rock Axl. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Contemporary developments", subsection "Responses", paragraph 4: "Full entry into Pentateuchal studies defined by the critical approach did not begin until the early twentieth century." What does this mean? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It differentiates between the trickle of a few things that could be construed as critical work that one or two people did before the early twentieth and the level of involvement that occurred in the early twentieth. There was a lot written that was called "criticism" but it was mostly written from a faith-based view and not a truly critical view and its purpose was to justify faith rather than examine it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * {{u|Axl}} So you haven't posted anything in awhile, is everything okay with you? Is there anything left you want to mention on the article? Anything left undone you are still uneasy about?  Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I have been busy. (It has been two days since I last posted on this page!)


 * I know! Two whole days without hearing from you! I started to worry you were sick or something had happened to you!  I'm glad you're back!Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The fact that I don't understand what the sentence means is an implication that the sentence needs to be re-written. Perhaps something like: "In the early twentieth century, historical criticism of the Pentateuch became mainstream among Jewish scholars." <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "Full entry" is the phrase the source used--but I like yours better. I will change it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Contemporary developments", subsection "Contemporary methods", paragraph 1: "Socio-scientific criticism uses the perspectives, theories, models, and research of the social sciences to determine what "social laws" influenced the growth of biblical tradition." Why is "social laws" in inverted commas? Is this a direct quote from the source (John Hall Elliott)? Or is it because there are no laws in sociology, and the phrase is an analogy to legal rulings? If the latter, then perhaps change the phrase to "social pressures" or "social norms"? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes--there are no social laws--but changing to norms makes sense. I'll go do that right now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. And I guess you are getting close to done here as well. You do realize after all this time that we've spent together, we are now legally obligated to stay friends and keep in touch on Wikipedia right?  It's an obscure new Wiki requirement. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * "we are now legally obligated to stay friends and keep in touch on Wikipedia." Haha, okay. :-)
 * Thank you for changing the phrase. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:06, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Contemporary developments", subsection "Contemporary methods", paragraph 1 has three of its five sentences start with the phrase "Socio-scientific criticism". Do you think that one of the sentences could be changed to reduce the number to two? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is repetitive isn't it? I will fix it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I have adjusted the text. It still doesn't seem quite right, but I suppose that it will do. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Contemporary developments", subsection "Contemporary methods", paragraph 2: "it [postmodernism] is against any philosophy that attempts to make rational descriptions of society." Is that really true? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is correct but the meaning may be a little obscure with that wording. I will go see what I can do with it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I switched out the quotes.  The second quote seemed a little clearer--maybe... Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:36, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Contemporary developments", subsection "Contemporary methods", paragraph 3: "In the 1980s, Phyllis Trible and Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza reframed "epistomological, hermeneutical, and methodological priorities and lent scholarly legitimacy to women and gender research in biblical studies"." This direct quotation misspells "epistomological" – it should be "epistemological". Is the misspelling in the original source? It may be better to paraphrase the statement to avoid the misspelling. Also, it is unclear to me why two different sources are provided for a single quotation. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:41, 22 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The spelling error was mine. I'm not really a very good typist. :-) I decided to change it to something a little more "accessible" for the average reader--no jargon.  I think it's clearer--see if you agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:48, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * From "Contemporary developments", subsection "Contemporary methods", paragraph 4: "It begins with an understanding that historical biblical criticism identified the meaning of biblical texts by their historical context eventually producing doubts about the text's veracity." The sentence is rather awkward. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay I will redo it. But then I'm done, please feel free to make any further changes you think this might need for yourself as, after this, I am going to quit Wikipedia. There is one guy who interferes and attacks everything I do here, and has for the entire year and a half I've been here, and I have decided I just don't need the grief. It's been nice working with you.  Take care. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * *sigh* I am very sad to read that someone is harassing you on Wikipedia. There are ways for other editors to help you. WP:HOUND mentions a couple of options. I can try to help you if I can, although I don't have any special privileges or expertise. You are a great editor and content creator. I would hate to see Wikipedia lose you, although of course your mental well-being is more important. So take a break and contact me if you would like to discuss further.


 * Thank you for changing the sentence. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:55, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Moral support. I have finished reviewing the article. Jenhawk777 has addressed all of my points. Of these, there are only two remaining where we disagree, but I am prepared to overlook those in favour of her opinion.


 * While I am happy with the text, I am aware that A. Parrot has ongoing concerns about the references. I am also aware that Alephb is/was checking references. Unfortunately I don't have access to the books in order to check them. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 13:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Source review and other comments from A. Parrot
This is a whale of a topic, and an essential one. Whatever the outcome of the FAC, I commend Jenhawk777 just for tackling it.


 * The sourcing looks excellent. Seemingly all sources are either from scholarly presses or from theological presses with an academic bent. Practically every biblical scholar whose name I know, aside from those who are more archaeological than textual, is cited here, so I think it's safe to assume this is an extensive and representative survey of the literature.


 * In terms of the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the text, the article looks solid, but my knowledge of most areas of this topic is superficial. In the one area where I have some detailed familiarity, there's a problem. Wellhausen's specific JEDP documentary hypothesis is of course outdated, but the article doesn't say that JEDP is simply a specific type of documentary hypothesis. It's important to clearly state that the hypotheses that replaced Wellhausen posit a more complex process of editing of multiple sources, especially because fundamentalists who defend the literal truth of the Bible like to crow that the documentary hypothesis is dead and don't realize the modern biblical scholarship undermines their position even more. Moreover, I know you link supplementary hypothesis farther down, but it seems like something about it, and about the fragmentary hypothesis, could go near the end of the section on Wellhausen.


 * Okay this one is done. I was right to be concerned about length--it added a whole paragraph--but I still think it was the right thing to do. I included a couple sentences in the other paragraphs to tie it together, but I think it's good.  I hope you agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The see also section in an FA should be minimal, but this one is very long. Many of these links look like they should be integrated into the article, while others, like parallelomania, really don't belong here.
 * The pertinent references have now been moved into the article, and the rest are gone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * The formatting of the citations is inconsistent. In some entries information that is usually included is missing; some entries for books aren't capitalized; individual studies are sometimes capitalized and sometimes not date formats are inconsistent; notable authors are not always linked. Especially weird is the entry for the Botha article, where the file name ("148148-390476-1-SM.pdf") is listed as if it were part of the bibliographical information. Correcting errors is made especially difficult because the full bibliographic entry isn't always found in the first citation of the book; sometimes it's the second or third. Normally I wouldn't make much of such a picayune problem, but I spent a lot of time cleaning up these small errors and know there's more to be done.


 * The location of the full reference reflects when the sections were written. It is particularly annoying when trying to go back and find them though! If you think it's important I will go move every one where that's a problem.  (Aaaarrgghh!)  I think the Botha citation was copy-pasted--I will check it. I'm sure it can be "Wikipedia-fied." :-)
 * I had some trouble with the ISBN converter. I was attempting to have all the isbns in the 13 digit format and in using the converter, inadvertently discovered it not giving the correct book! I worked at checking every one, but I may have missed one.
 * I am working on this! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, you might think I'm a total idiot, but I can't find the problems with capitalization you refer to. I think I looked at every one, and every book title looks correct to me. I am obviously missing something--chapter titles are not fully capitalized in the same manner--is that it maybe?  Or am I just blind? :-)
 * Also, the only missing information I can find is missing because it was unavailable. For instance, the copy of Spinoza had no isbn --it was an actual copy not a reprint, so the reasons for that are apparent. I could possibly find a reprint with an isbn if you think it is important to do so. Even when location information and other things weren't readily available, I took the time to hunt them down, so I don't think other references are missing info if it was findable. I could be wrong, but if so, I am missing it too.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I plan to spot-check citations later today. I may not get around to it then, but I will do it soon. A. Parrot (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Bless you! Thank you.  Thank you for showing up and for commenting.  Your suggestion on Wellhausen is a good one. I felt like I under-represented it, but since there is a good quality main article on it, I thought its origins under Source criticism were the main point for this article, and I was trying to keep it short. So much for my excuse! But I agree with you, I think an additional line or two won't add that much length and the content is notable--so I will fix that immediately.
 * The "see also" section is a leftover from the article before I began work on it and I left it as it was and should have cleaned it up and didn't. I forgot it! :-)  Thank you for reminding me about it.  I will do that as well.
 * I apologize for the inconsistencies in some of the references. I have just put off fixing it. I have no good excuse! But I will start working on it immediately.  I'll come back when these are completed. Thank you, thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:05, 16 September 2018 (UTC)


 * ISBNs are fixed. Haven't found the other problems yet. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your efforts. I may have found and fixed the capitalization errors already. I won't have time tonight, but tomorrow evening, barring something unexpected happening, I'll look over the references again and do the spot-checking. A. Parrot (talk) 03:14, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh good! That explains it then.  Thank you for that.  I am grateful for your efforts and will look forward to hearing from you again--keeping my fingers crossed you don't find anything--or at least much--wrong! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:26, 17 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I want to say an across the board thank you for all you have done on BC. There are too many to send thanx for each individual one but I still want you to know I am grateful. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I've spot-checked maybe 15 citations, and although several are perfectly fine, I've come across enough problems to be concerned.


 * A recurring problem is that some citations point to books without specifying page numbers. I don't know whether these are simple errors, where you forgot to include the specific pages, or attempts to cite an entire book. Citing whole books isn't totally prohibited, but I don't think it's necessary except under certain unusual circumstances—if you want, I can give an example based on the one instance in my wiki-career where I did something like this. Even if you're using the citation to discuss the thesis of the whole book (e.g., in the current citation 147), it's usually possible to cite that to a specific page in the book or to some other source (citation 148 is to a review of the same book, which presumably states what the book is about in a more compact way).


 * Reference number 147 is the MacDonald book. I included it because I used it as an example of someone who used socio-scientific criticism--but I didn't really reference it--as such. It would be a primary source and any reference I used would be a secondary source about it. I referenced the article which discusses it, #148--which didn't have page numbers. MacDonald's book does have a whole section of the book dedicated to her discussion of her method and how she constructed it, its limitations, yada yada, and I could go back and add those pages--but it would be one of those multiple page references--or I could take the whole reference out--or I could move it down to 'See also' if you think that's better--or whatever you suggest--because it's only there in case someone wants to see for themselves what she actually did.
 * There are a couple other places where I do the same kind of thing--discuss something or someone and then include it in the references in case anyone wants to read what they actually said--not because I actually referenced it. I didn't use the primary source material for the article but I included it for others who might want to check it out for themselves. Is this bad? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Citation 11 cites a range of 20 pages. I understand wanting to cast a broad net when citing something that the sources refuse to say concisely, but a range this wide can almost always be whittled down. Unfortunately, some parts of this range aren't available to me in Google Books, so I can't tell which pages would work.
 * About half of these books are referenced from Amazon not Googlebooks because of exactly that problem. #11 can be whittled down pretty easily--or removed as it's a secondary reference--but page 38 is sufficient for that one.  Again, I thought someone else might want to read more so I included it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "Theologian C. H. Dodd pioneered the biblical theology movement, which can be seen as a rejection of the liberal views of the historical critics who had come before him.": The first two citations don't mention Dodd on the specified pages, and while the third citation is to an entire book about Dodd, a search in the Google Books preview doesn't turn up the exact phrase "biblical theology" except in the title of a journal it cites.
 * The Penchansky (# 12) page number discussion starts on page 11, but the relevant statement is actually on page 12 (under c.) almost to the bottom, where it references the rejection of liberalism. As to the other, I have no explanation. I can't find the page on either google or amazon now. I clearly read it somewhere since I can find other sources for it, but as to the inaccessibility of the one I cite, I have no clue what happened. I think I will expand this discussion of the B.T.Movement though, so I will switch sources. I'm sorry for this. I will fix it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "There is also material unique to each gospel. This indicates additional separate sources for Matthew and for Luke. Biblical scholar B. H. Streeter used this insight to refine and expand two source theory into four-source theory in 1925": Page 48 of the cited source only partially supports the first sentence (it mentions a Proto-Matthew but not a Proto-Luke) and does not support the second sentence.
 * Aargh--that's a typo, it should be page 148, not page 48.
 * Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "…'laws of oral development' cannot be arrived at by studying written texts." As this statement is specifically sourced to Long and the phrase in quotation marks presumably comes from his paper, you may want to remove the two other citations. If you want to make it into a general statement in Wikipedia's voice, which I think may be the best choice because it seems to be the current consensus, the quotation marks should be removed.
 * Sounds reasonable. I will do that.
 * Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * "Other evangelical Protestant scholars such as Edwin M. Yamauchi, Paul R. House, and Daniel B. Wallace have continued the tradition of conservatives contributing to critical scholarship": There's no citation for this.
 * They are linked--and their bios say they are evangelicals--is that not good enough since they aren't really a reference? Do I have to have a secondary reference mentioning them and stating that they are evangelicals? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't doubt that any of these statements are correct, but the citations don't adequately support them. I'll check more tomorrow, but I worry that an extensive reexamination of the citations and where they point may be needed. A. Parrot (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am feeling insecure now--I would have sworn all my references were careful--I think I will start going over them tomorrow myself. It's 1 in the morning here and I have been up since 6 AM, so--tomorrow. I will do more tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am starting through all the references one by one. I explained ref#1's lack of an ISBN above.

the next reference is back to number 6, type in rationalism, page 42 and also type in exegesis to get Turretin (Turretini here) on page 252 (and some discussion from 39-42)
 * ref#2: type in Spinoza, it's on page 140
 * ref#3: type in Astruc, start on page 119, scroll to page 122
 * ref#4: type in Moses (will also find Hobbs here) pages 212-214
 * ref#5: it's in the introduction, so just scroll to it; pages 2 and 3 discuss the "historical consciousness", page 5 the university students,
 * ref#6: type in enlightenment, page 39 discusses "important philosophical developments" and page 55 "early decades of 19th century characterized by..."
 * ref#7: type in biblical criticism, page 19 discusses "the desire to break the hold of ecclesiastical authority" and the Reill reference, page 6 mentions pietism in that vein
 * ref#8: opens correctly--problem caused by citation bot is fixed now--Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * ref#9: type in deism, it's on pages 39-40
 * ref#10: these references are "Higher criticism" by Rogerson and "German Christian Thought" by Law, pages 298 and 261 respectively (ref #11)

I will continue on. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


 * the next ref is back to #6(e) type in natural religion, it's there on page 41
 * ref#12: can type in religion or just scroll to chapter 6, "Biblical criticism and religious belief" pages 117-136 discuss it with particular mention on page 138 Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

reference #13 has no page numbers because it wouldn't let me see anything from inside the book--so I used the information in the title and synopsis the next reference is back to 6 (f) type in Reimarus, it will get you pages 46-48; type in Reimarus and go to the bottom of page 45 and top of page 46 I have to leave for a bit, but I will keep on when I get back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ref#14: is about Semler's response and Lessing, type in Semler, and in the chapter on Biblical interpretation in the 18th and 19th centuries, it's on pages 348 and 349; it will also get you a mention of Lessing on page 266;
 * ref#15 type in Semler, the left hand column on page 356 mentions his "intellectual disputes" with Reimarus' writings
 * ref#16 type in Reimarus, remark on Lessing on page 102


 * I'll wait until you're finished to review further. Believe me, I know what it's like to have a nerve-racking FAC (they all are for me), and I know what it's like to think all the citations are correct and discover otherwise. A. Parrot (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! I appreciate both the understanding and the time! It is very slow going, often involving multiple looks at Google and then Amazon, and reading through those long sections for the pieces that got paraphrased together and so on. It's only right that I should be the one to do this for you instead of the other way around. So--getting on with it:


 * reference #17, type in Johann Michaelis and get the ref to his work on the intro to NT; (type in H.S.Reimarus and get good discussion of entire topic on pages 343-346; page 348 has the "Fragments Controversy"); this section is also referenced to #6(h)--type in Michaelis and look at page 45
 * ref #18, type in myth, get page 117 and Eichhorn's "hermeneutic of myth"; type in Eichhorn and get Gabler and Bauer as well, page 149 has the "new approach" and "mythical method", page 150 has Gabler, pages 188-191 have Bauer.
 * ref #19 is the Soulen quote, type in historical criticism, it's on page 79, second paragraph
 * ref#20 type in Bauer and read the footnote on page 99; type in Antioch, and the "sharp break" is on page 79; type in Paul and get more discussion on page 67+
 * ref#21 type in Bauer, under section on "work" on page 286 will get a mention of the name of the work that discussion the break between Paul and Peter and the statement that "Bauer's understanding of early Christianity became determinative for later scholarship."
 * ref #22 is an addition by another editor that I am in frequent and regular conflict with. I have read this article that he references and while it's a good article and Levinson is an excellent reference, I have not found this particular statement in it.  That early BC was anti-semitic is in many cases indisputable, so I am inclined to leave some form of this even though it is also in contemporary responses, but I cannot find this specific statement of "reading back in." It seems to be interpretation--but I dare not remove it because he will come after me for doing so.


 * Number 23 is now Gerdmar, and each of those page numbers is exactly correct--since I just did it, I am sure of it. There are three of them in a row.


 * ref#24 type in Holzmann and you will see the "unaccessible" page 82. I did the 'surprise me' function till I was able to see it!  But it is also available in connection with other references, so if this is a problem I can get more.


 * I have to leave again for awhile--real life keeps interfering! But I will do more later tonight, and I promise I will continue till it's done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)


 * reference #25, type in Biblical criticism, go to page 22
 * ref #26, type in Baur, it's on page 180
 * ref #27, type in Johannes Weiss, scroll backwards to page 222
 * ref #28, type in David Friedrich Strauss, go to page 365, second paragraph
 * ref #29, type in Theodor Zahn, get page 399 for a discussion of Von Harnack's conflicts
 * ref #30, type in William Wrede, he's on pages 1056-1059, the specific comment is under "significance."
 * ref #31 works properly
 * ref #32, type in Johannes Weiss, get 1026-1028, there is one part unde "Christian origins" and another under "Significance"
 * ref #33, type in Schweitzer, get numerous options, comments I used are on pages 31 and 257; there is also a reference on page 154 of reference #9
 * ref #34, just scroll to pages 3 and 4 Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I must have been an evil literary agent in a former life as I am now in referencing Hell...


 * reference #35, type in Barth, go to page 433, I think it's the third paragraph; this is also referenced to Soulen, type in Biblical Criticism, scroll to page 20, it's in right-hand column toward the bottom
 * ref #36, go to page 19, second paragraph
 * ref #37, no page number because I used the synopsis from the cover of the book
 * ref #38, type in Hans Jonas, go to page 627, second paragraph
 * ref #39, is Perrin, just scroll to it since it's on page vi
 * ref #40(a) type in redaction criticism, it's on page 443
 * ref #41--DSS--type in biblical studies and get page xxv and page 1 --type in impact and get more!
 * ref #40(b) type in Joachim Jeremias, pick page 495, scroll to page 498 and 499
 * ref # 42 has no page numbers because it is primary source material by J.J. and is only made available for those interested in pursuing what he actually said deleted here, moved to further reading instead
 * ref#43, type in biblical theology movement, go to page 82--I removed the other references muddying the waters here
 * next reference is 7(f) type in biblical criticism, get page 21, it's there
 * ref #44, type in New Criticism, go to pages 8-13 and page 200 changed this to #45 and just added page #s there
 * ref #45, type in New Historicism and go to page 60,


 * And that's it for today unless I can come back later tonight after everyone else has gone to bed--assuming I can stay awake for more punishment. :-)  Thank you for being patient about this!  I know it's slow, but I really am pedaling as fast as I can! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * ref #46, type in Structuralism, go to page 296, second column, second paragraph
 * ref #47, type in Paul, go to chapter 4, pages 69-92; type in Sanders and find those specific mentions within those same pages; on page 260, there are 'notes', referenced part is in (a);
 * Have to go, have to get up to attend a soccer match tomorrow morning and it's after midnight here. I'll be back with more! Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)


 * ref #48, just scroll since it's in intro, page xviii to xxi for full discussion)
 * ref #49, Peter Ochs, type in biblical, get page 13, center of page
 * ref number 50 is Frei's book -- primary source material on Frei, so just made it available, that's all moved this to further reading
 * ref#51 is Robert Miller, Jesus Seminar, used cover to say when it had begunJenhawk777 (talk) 20:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ref #7(g), type in Biblical criticism, go to page 21, right hand column, bottom of first paragraph
 * ref# 52, just scroll as it's page 1, look for "untapped world"; type in "white male Protestant, get page 15, it's there


 * Really busy day today, should be able to do more tomorrow afternoon. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This is a lot like doing the article all over again! I may have bitten off more than I can chew here but I am chewing anyway! :-) Please, please continue to be patient with me. My real life keeps interfering.  I have to teach this week and have to write a lesson, so my time here will be very limited this week, but I will do as much as I can and will come back with a bang the following week. I knew this would take a while, but it is taking even longer than I thought, so please don't give up on me!


 * next ref is 7(h), it's in the right hand column under conclusions; type in ideologies an d get 53 as well
 * ref#53, type in bias, get a good discussion of confirmation bias, pages 19-20

Major Methods, back to ref #6, David R. Law, type in biblical scholar, get vii in preface, go to #1 and #3 Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ref #54, type in textual criticism, get page 47, second paragraph on "lower" criticism
 * ref# 55, is an article by Bird, used aspects of the whole thing, no page #'s available

Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is where I added the new ref in Textual Criticism--that I stole from Biblical manuscripts--in an effort to resolve issues from below, so it is now

Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC) next ref is 55, Graeme again ref # 60, is Wegner, type in Alexandrian, get the list on page 213 under Griesbach next (3) refs are back to #6(j,h,k), type in Rabbinic Judaism--all the statements in that paragraph are there on page 82
 * ref #56, Seid
 * ref #57, type in variants get page 2, top of page
 * ref #58, type in variants, get the chart on page 30 showing distribution, scroll back to statement used in second paragraph on page 29
 * ref #59 is Ehrman. I cannot find a reference to this particular book online that includes the pages I used.  I own the book, so I can see all of it, but unless you also own it, you can't--so how much of a problem is that?  I referenced it 6 times!
 * Ref #61, is Wasserman, ref (a) is in Note 1, type in "clusters" get page 3 and 9

next reference is back to 59 Ehrman, pages 205 and 209, rescension Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:12, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

the next ref is to #55, Graeme's article, and #57, Stewart, just scroll to page 2, third paragraph the next ref is back 60, Wegner, type in Griesbach, get page 212 and 213, it's on 213 the next three are back to Ehrman, then #59, scroll to page 8 and #61, Wasserman,,just scroll to page 8 That's the end of textual criticism Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:38, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ref#62 is David Clines, type in 'plough with oxen', it's on page 29
 * ref #63 is Tarrant, type in contentious, it's on page 85
 * ref #64 is the web page lexicon; it's just there as proof there is such a thing

the next ref is back to #4, type in alternation get page 166--and others
 * ref#65, starting Source criticism with Simon; easiest just to scroll to page 35, it's halfway down the first full paragraph; there's also a full discussion beginning on page 915
 * ref#66, Smend, scroll to page 7, bottom paragraph
 * ref#67, Tov, type in parallel ancient story, get page 336
 * ref#68, Campbell, O'Brien, type in Wellhausen, go to page 5, second paragraph
 * ref#69, Guthrie, type in synoptic problem, scroll to 147

Up to Wellhausen next ref is back to #68, same section pages 1-18 again next ref is back to 68, same section, pages 1-18 again next ref is back to # 40, type in Wellhausen, on page 382 Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ref#70, Nicholson, scroll to page 3, first paragraph
 * ref#71, Baden, type in religion, page 247, second paragraph, it's numbered 3.
 * ref#72, Kaltner, type in Wellhausen, get page 57, scroll to top paragraph on 58
 * ref#73, Soulen, type in Graf-Wellhausen, get page 79 (be sure it's the 4th ed.)

I haven't quit and I will be back and finish, I'm just a little underwater this week--not going under for the third time--but going under every now and then! Next week will be better. I'm holding onto that.
 * ref #74. Viviano, easiest access is go to table of contents and click on source criticism, scroll to page 38, it's in top paragraph
 * ref # 75, Van Seters; type in documentary hypothesis, get page 53, scroll to 55, c. 'New Supplementary Model'

Sorry there's not more today. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:52, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Two other reviewers here asked for some additional information in the "Nineteenth century" section and in Textual criticism. This added three refernce citations in the first and one in the second--which has now thrown all the numbering here into the crapper. I want to weep. Instead I will attempt to go back and fix the numbers now. Pray for me. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I have now renumbered them--I hope correctly. I am checking on the rest now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Beginning at the next references after Van Seters, it goes back to 68, Campbell, type in problems, get page 4, right hand column, bottom paragraph

then #72, Kaltner again, type i n problems, get 50, under recent developments, second paragraph, bottom of page 58, and on page 59 "some version still held"


 * ref#76, Berman, type in "documentary hypothesis" get 209, bottom paragraph: "no scholar today"; page 214 has reference for "most celebrated study"; type in problems, get 205
 * ref#77, Wenham, type in Gospel criticism, get #6 on page 53

back to two more references to 69, type in synoptic problem, contains full discussion, comments are from first few pages, and scattered from then on in multiple pages then it's back to 69, type in synoptic problem, get table of contents, scroll to further reflections on page 1029 then two more 80's. same pages as above.
 * ref#78, Scroggie, type in Quell source of the gospels, get full page 342
 * ref#79, Marshall, type in Q, get page 148 it's in notes, #6
 * ref# 80, type in Streeter, get 124, scroll to page 127; type in "fundamental solution" or "Marcan priority" get Lachman fallacy and Streeter both
 * ref #81, type in Synoptic Seminar, it's in the footnotes, second paragraph
 * ref#82, it's on page 4 so just scroll to it


 * More later. Assuming I can stay out of trouble elsewhere. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

back to #83, Bauckham, type in form criticism, get page 247 back to ref#86, Eddy and Boyd, type in laws of oral transmission, get page 291, scroll to 296, top paragraph and third paragraph back to ref#84, Miller, type in for criticism, get page 10 back to #86, type in development of Synoptic tradition, get page 298, second and third paragraph then back to #93(c), Kelber, type in myopia, get page 278, first paragraph about halfway down the back to #89, Knierim, type in Sitz im Leben, go to page 69
 * ref#83, Bauckham, type in form criticism get page 242, scroll to page 243, first sentence
 * ref#84, Miller, type in form criticism, get page 242, second paragraph
 * ref#85, Mihelic, journal no page #'s
 * ref#86, Eddy and Boyd, type in Sitz im Leben, get page 271
 * ref#87, type in Sitz im Leben, get page 135
 * ref#88, type in literary forms, get pages 20, 21, 25--that I used stuff from
 * ref#89, Knierim, type in form criticism, get page 42, used some there, scroll to page 70, second paragraph also used
 * ref#90, Burridge, type in form criticism, get page 13, #1, the Critique
 * ref#91, Hoffman article, no page #s
 * ref#92, Sweeney, type in form criticism, used pages 6 and 8
 * ref#93, Kelber, type in form criticism, get page 277, top of page
 * ref#94, Sparks, type in form criticism, get page 113 "extensive re-evaluation"
 * ref#95, Meier, type in laws of oral development, page 141, #9
 * ref#96, Sanders, type in laws of oral development, get quote from pages 21, 22
 * ref#97 is in the group note, it's a journal article
 * ref#98 is Sanders in another note
 * ref#99, is Long's journal article, it works
 * ref#100, Luomanen, type in biblical criticism, page 24, first and second paragraph
 * ref#101Wood, type in Hellenistic culture, get page 46, bottom paragraph; the quote from Wright is on page 47

That's it for today probably--maybe a little more later tonight--if I can stay awake. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:53, 30 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I am going to do my level best to finish these this week.

rhen back to ref #83, type in Bultmann, go to bottom of page 247, it's #7-9 then #92, type in Campbell, page 15, quote is opening statement
 * ref#102, Powell, type in Jewish eschatology, start at bottom of page 23 and go on to 24
 * ref#103, Porter, type in Bultmann, get page 19

This is up to Redaction Criticism now then ref # 107 is Soulen's Third Edition, I know, I know, but the quote I used couldn't be accessed in the Fourth edition, so I went back and got it from the older book; it's on page 159, about Markan priority.
 * ref #6, type in Redaction, get info on page 181
 * ref#104, type in redaction, get page 96, go to bottom of page 97
 * ref#105 is online article, no page numbers
 * ref # 106 is Soulen's Fourth Edition, type in Redaction criticism--it's the paperback edition on Amazon
 * ref#108, Lee, type in redaction, go to page 355, "evaluation" that starts at bottom of page; next two refs are to the same discussion

Up to Literary criticism now on page 3-4 are the factors that led to literary criticism's development; on page 5 there's Robert Alter, some characteristics of formalism, bottom of page 6, another factore in rise of lit.crit.; page 8 has procedures of rhetorical crit.; pages9-11 has structuralism; page 13 has formalism, and Gunn is on page 14.
 * ref# 109, Paul House, just scroll since it's on page 3, opening paragraphs; there are four more references using House on different pages but they are all in the same section. It's after midnight here. More tomorrow. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ref#110, Conrad, type in Childs or can onical, go to p.46, middle of first paragraph, and page 47, footnote #4, get use of historical critical tradtion both places
 * ref#111, John Barton, page 79 gets inadequacy of HC, page 90 #2, says canonical crit. is part of literary crit.; and page 102 discusses dealing with whole not part
 * ref#112, Oswalt, journal article--it's a PDF, page 318, bottom paragraph, page 320 top paragraph
 * ref#113, Robert Wall, type in biblical criticism, or just scroll to page 2, middle of second paragraph, more up to page 7
 * ref#114, Gottwald, be sure to click "Archived" to see
 * ref#115, John Hayes, scroll to intro, pages xii-xv; type in canonical, get pages 122,123,125, and second paragraph on 127  Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

back to 125, Cross, type in twentyfirst century, P.779, quote at end Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:03, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ref#116, book review online, prophet ref is in second paragraph
 * ref#117, Sonja Foss, type in dimensions, get page 6, second paragraph
 * ref#118, Watson, type in rhetorical criticism, 181 and 182 both come up, got to 182, left hand column, second paragraph
 * ref#119, Willey, type in Trible, page 615, first line
 * ref#120, Greidanus, type in David Rhoads, page 278, top paragraph and footnote
 * ref#121, Powell, scroll to page 2, middle paragraph, bottom of page 3, top of 4 has Auerbach quote, bottom of 4 and top of 5, axiomatic, page 26 top of page
 * ref#122, Paris, type in narrative economy and narrative unity, page 9, footnote #7
 * ref#123, Weitzman on Jstor
 * ref#124, Merenlahti, type in Auerbach, p.49, middle three paragraphs, get hidden God
 * ref#125, Cross, type in historical Jesus, p.779, 1st paragraph
 * ref#126, Theissen, just scroll to p.1, first line
 * ref#127, Porter, type in one quest, p52, top of page
 * ref#128, Sanders, type in know a lot, p.5, get quote center of page
 * ref#129, Telford, type in life of Jesus, page 33 (Sanders quote also on 34)

then back to 125, Cross, type in twenty-first century, get page 779, 'Quest of the historical Jesus' section, first and last paragraphs back to #10, Rogerson, type in A. S. Peake, get page 298, almost to the bottom then back to #10, Rogersone, go to page 298 These next two are not really referencing anything but the men's names in irder to show they are Bible scholars since they don't have a page on Wp to link to
 * ref#126, Theissen, just scroll, page 1 first line
 * ref#127, Porter, type in one quest, get page 52, top of page
 * ref#128, Sanders, type in 'know quite a lot' and get quote from page 5 center of page
 * ref#129, Telford, type in 'life of Jesus' get page 33 (Sanders quote also on page 34)
 * ref#130, Watt, there are no pages, but if you type in Christian modernism, pick the third option down,
 * ref#131, article--go to the section "The Fundamentalist-Modernist controversy"
 * ref#132, Bendroth--same article, same section
 * ref#133, Prior, type in 19th century, get page 13, go to #2, Overview, at bottom of page
 * ref#134, Madigan, type in LaGrange, get page 84 (starts at bottom of 83) go to section titled "The coming of age of Catholic biblical studies" lookfor Proidentissimus, page 86 has Catholic scholarship
 * ref#135, Montagnes, type in biblical school, get pages 23, and some on 135; type in Providentissimus Deus get pages 13,14, 91-94;
 * ref#136, Bea, type in Divino afflante Spiritu get 231 and 232; type in Bea, get 236
 * ref#137, type in Orchard, get four mentions
 * ref#138, type in Fuller, get mentions on pages 5 and 9

then it's back to #22, Sweeney then back to #22, article, pages 142-146 Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
 * ref#139, Levinson, type in Higher criticism higher anti-semitism, will get the quote on page 83, second paragraph, also used stuff from 42, 43 and 82
 * ref#140, Schwarz, type in historical criticism, page 210, under Jewish Orthodoxy

then back to ref #40, Soulen type in postmodern get 403 and 404 for date, then bottom of 405, bottom of 406, and middle of 410 then back to 144, type in suspicious page 140, in section on PBI it's fifth line down back to 145, Soulen, type in biblical criticism, left hand column toward bottom Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) 140 again twice--type in M.M.Kalish, page 213, bottom of page: type in "full entry", get page 222, middle of second paragraph; type in Wellhausen, get page 216 for a discussion of Hoffman; type in Breuer, get page 277
 * ref#141, Horrell, scroll to page 3 for 'part of wider trend'; page 4, middle paragraph; then type in form criticism, get page 8
 * ref#142, Eliot, type in dimension, get page 70, third paragraph down
 * ref#143--journal article, document
 * ref#144, Adam, type in stance, it's in the middle of the Editor's Forward, page vii
 * ref#145, Soulen, Third Edition, post biblical interpretation, pages 140-142
 * ref#146, (twice) Briggs, scroll to page 1, opening paragraph; page 2 top of page about fifth line down
 * ref# 147, Fiorenza, type in Fiorenza, page 56, second paragraph--in the 1980's...
 * ref#148, Walsh, type in Fiorenza, page 236, discussion of hermeneutics
 * ref#149, Jobling, can type in patriarchal or scroll to page 9, bottom of first paragraph
 * ref #150, type in feminist biblical scholars, page 49 "dissenting reader"
 * ref#151, Comstock, journal article, have to scroll
 * ref#152, Rollins, (twice) type in began to appear, page 67, 1st paragraph
 * ref#153, Kille, scroll to page 3, center of page

Support from Johnbod

 * Support Not a subject I know (or knew) anything much about, but nothing struck me reading through, and it seems an impressive piece of work on a significant encyclopedic topic. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh thank you! Thank you thank you! Blessings upon you and all your progeny to the tenth generation!Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)


 * There are some changes in Text criticism I am going to have to undo as they have reversed some changes made at the request of another reviewer here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * And I've reverted you, as they were just wrong - you need to firm up on what "ancient" and "antique" mean, and not just do everything reviewers ask. Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Ancient and antique are specific words with specific meanings in both biblical studies and classical studies. They refer to a specific time frame of the first four-hundred years of Christianity and the Roman Empire of the same time period. I know you said you don't know much about this, so I understand you didn't know, but those are the proper terms to use as they specify what texts are being referred to--as opposed to texts from the Middle ages--and so on. If you would please, self-revert those changes I would be grateful.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * It's biblical criticism I don't know much about - post-biblical history and MS are much more my thing, thanks very much. You don't seem to grasp that most of these MS are medieval on any definition. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * nevermind, I will fix it with specific dates and that will accommodate both reviewers and add that specificity. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Good luck with that! Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please don't take offense, I was just going by what you said. It's done. It's copied from the article here on Wikipedia [Biblical manuscripts] so there is synthesis in the meta-data. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Support from Display name 99
This is a very good article. A few points.

The nineteenth century
 * "Foundations of Christian anti-Jewish bias in the field were also established at this time, as these critics read the Protestant emphasis on grace and faith, and opposition to Catholic "law", back into the biblical texts, and treated texts in the Hebrew Bible and New Testament accordingly, albeit under the guise of scholarly objectivity." I think a little bit more is needed here. An example or two would be nice. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, certainly--more is always obtainable! In process right now. I'll be back when it's done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This is now done. I hope you approve. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:36, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I do. It looks good. Display name 99 (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Textual criticism
 * " There are more than 3,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts..." Maybe throw in the word "ancient" or something like it. Otherwise, it seems like you're saying that there are only 3,000 Greek versions of the New Testament that exist in total. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh Duh! You are so right! Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No, he isn't, really. "Manuscripts" should be enough, and many (even most) of these are 1,000 years too late to be called "ancient" - there are only a handful of those.

Johnbod (talk) 03:18, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note this article on Wp uses the term "Antique Rome" to communicate the time period from the first century BC to the fifth century AD. "Late Antiquity" is from the fifth to the eighth found in this one   titled "Classical Antiquity." However, I can accommodate both concerns represented here by adding specific dates to this section and will go do so right now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * I still think that there needs to be something to make it more specific. A brief explanation of the time period to which the manuscripts date would be sufficient. "There are more than 3,000 Greek New Testament manuscripts dating from around..." would be fine. I just think right now it's a little bit vague. Display name 99 (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

More soon. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please get rid of "literally" in the first paragraph. It isn't needed and it's too colloquial for an encyclopedia. Display name 99 (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, I did, but it seemed genuinely needed to me when I put it there because "there must be a million of them" is a common exaggeration--and it's kind of an outlandish claim if you think about it that might be subject to exaggeration. But there were a lot of church "fathers" they all wrote a lot and it does cover about 400 years--so--literally a million. Anyway, it's gone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made it through "The New Testament synoptic problem." Everything thus far looks good. I'm sorry I'm going a little slow but I should have everything finished within a couple days. Display name 99 (talk) 03:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)


 * No apologies necessary. Take your time.  I'm thankful for your participation. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Redaction criticism
 * I don't really think you need the "then" in the second sentence. Display name 99 (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done through Literary criticism." Display name 99 (talk) 20:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * "Then" it's gone. :-) You rock. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Responses
 * I think a little bit more explanation on Pope Leo XIII and Lagrange in the second paragraph would do well here. A sentence for each would probably do it. Display name 99 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I am feeling a little unsure what you might be looking for here. Is it possible to explain a little more? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just looking for a short explanation of what Leo XIII said in his encyclical and the sort of specific arguments that Lagrange advanced in his own work. The article provides a fine very basic summary but I think a tiny bit more detail could be added. Display name 99 (talk) 21:36, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well... I have written something. Please take a look and see if it is anything like what you had in mind. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. This is basically what I was looking for. Display name 99 (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Is feminist criticism really all about confronting "liberal Protestant theology?" I'm not sure why the term liberal is included here in reference to the enemies of feminism, since feminism and liberalism go together. Secondly, feminist Christianity is not an exclusively Protestant phenomenon. It exists in the apparatus of the Catholic Church among those who dissent from the Church's practice of only ordaining men, for example. Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza is a Catholic. Display name 99 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't actually about feminist Christianity, it's about feminist theology; those are different. One is an inclusive Christian movement that is not denominational and does include Catholics and Protestants, the other is more focused and specifically scholarly, and this feminist theology would also include some of the Jewish scholars--like Tykva Frymer-Kensky--and is not specifically Christian. Feminist theology was a theological response to what was "accepted" in academic circles at the time. Academia was enamored of the German critics. The feminists wrote a good bit on the downside of patriarchalism and its effects. "Liberal Protestant theology" was the theology of the German critics; they were pretty exclusively white male Protestants. I'll go look it over and see if there's a way I can make it clearer--without making it too much longer! I'm not sure what's actually needed here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what to do about this one. It seems clear to me--but then I know what it's about! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you could help me out once again with what to clarify. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:13, 3 October 2018 (UTC) That's all. Once I hear back from you on these points, I'll look over the article one more time and will give my support if nothing else comes up in my mind. Thanks. Display name 99 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support-The article is well-written, comprehensive, and well-sourced. It meets the criteria. Display name 99 (talk) 14:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you so very much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It hasn't shown up at the top--do you know why? This is my first FAC so I don't know exactly how this works! Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to be a pest, but if it isn't too much trouble, would you mind posting your support in that box at the top? As it is, it looks as though comments are continuing. Thank you so much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:04, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator note - This has been open for two months. While some support has been earned here, it's clear that issues are still being found, and a thorough spot-check of citations is still going to be needed when all the dust settles. This is work that really should occur outside of FAC, but I don't want to necessarily archive this if we're close. , can you give me a sense of where you are in your review process? , are you done going through all the citations? If so, can we have take another look? If we're not wrapped up soon, I'll have to archive and you can renominate when issues are worked through. -- Laser brain  (talk)  13:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I am about three-quarters of the way through. I still need to check "Life of Jesus research" and "Contemporary developments". <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I will finish my re-review of every single source quoted today. If they are not all correct and accessible now, it will have to be archived because I will most likely go shoot myself. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I already told you not to do that:. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No one ever accused me of being overly obedient. Besides--155 references--I have gone through every single one--you would feel exactly the same... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:16, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * , : I can recheck tomorrow if Jenhawk is ready; I've had a long day today. A. Parrot (talk) 01:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Tomorrow would be perfect. That allows me time for a last run through.  Please God.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * As much as I hate to drag this nomination out any longer, I can't give a verdict today. I have started checking and most of the problems that I pointed out last time have been fixed, but I still want to spot-check more extensively. Be back tomorrow. A. Parrot (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * This is my first FAC so forgive my ignorance, but how many votes does it take for an article to be accepted? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Butting in as Laser brain's fellow coord, try not to think of "supports" as votes, because it isn't supposed to be about numbers (a well-reasoned "oppose" may carry more weight than several "supports"). Suffice to say that there seems to be enough supporting commentary to result in promotion once we're all satisfied with the results of the spotcheck, and provided nothing else of consequence comes up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Okay, thanx! I am burning incense to the reference gods as we speak... :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:28, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Oppose. I've done more random spot-checking and found several more errors, without having to look all that extensively. I must assume there are more. I'm very sorry, but I can't support this as an FA.

I want to emphasize that the referencing problems are not insoluble, just insoluble within the time limits of an FAC. I encourage Jenhawk to keep working on them and renominate when finished, although I can understand not wanting to after this grueling FAC. I'll list what I found:


 * Citation 8, to the paper on religion and mental health links to a PDF of something unrelated to that paper (looks like book reviews in a 1950s journal).
 * If you click on the title you get that weird PDF, but if you click on the DOI, or the PMC, or the PMID, (which is what I did when I checked it), you get the correct article. I don't understand why the title goes somewhere else. How is that even fixable?  What happened? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Citation 44, about New Criticism, says that New Criticism emerged in the period that the article text discusses, but it doesn't tie it to biblical criticism, and from what I can tell, biblical criticism isn't mentioned anywhere in the book. This use of the citation might be allowable, especially because the book in the next citation does mention New Criticism as affecting biblical criticism, albeit only in passing, but it is less than ideal.
 * Okay now this one just doesn't seem fair. The statement in the text is New criticism (literary criticism) developed. Period, that's it, that's all it says. The reference says in the second paragraph on page 8 "But the New Criticism was, in America, the movement that successfully introduced literary criticism..." How is that not a fair reference? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Citation 61a, to Wasserman et al. on text types/textual clusters, points to page 44, but that page talks about computer tools for studying manuscripts. Pages 8–9 or 8–10 seem to be the ones to cite here instead.
 * Page 8-9 is the right reference, and 61b has it right, but I apparently forgot the ref inside note 1. It's fixed now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Citation 133, on Providentissimus deus: The second sentence, "Part of its message said that no exegete was allowed to interpret a text to contradict church doctrine", isn't supported within the provided page range, although it is supported on page 98. Even so, I'd tone down the language to "no exegete should".
 * This should be reference # 134, Madigan. The numbering got screwed up because I added two references per request of another commenter after I had begun the run-through. I tried to go back and change them all, but apparently didn't. "No exegete was allowed" is what the ref says. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ref #134 is now there as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Citation 143: "…this socio-scientific approach revealed women were more important to the beginnings of Christianity than had previously been realized." This isn't supported by the paper linked in the citation. The paper is pointing out flaws in Rodney Stark's claims about women in early Christianity, which do include that women were numerous and had high status within early Christian communities. But the paper doesn't say that this claim is a break with past scholarship, and it uses MacDonald's more nuanced treatment of the same subject as evidence against Stark. A. Parrot (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The paper is primarily about Stark but it does also refer to McDonald's method--that was all I cared about. I lost my other references because my free membership at Jstor ran out and I couldn't afford to buy back in. I thought about deleting it entirely but what the Hell, I didn't. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The paragraph can survive without the example of McDonald. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your time and participation. I am apparently incapable of getting these all right at the same time. I don't believe I will renominate. Thank you anyway. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Help me understand where you want to go from here? I can't consider promoting this until all of the citations are correct per WP:V. I'd prefer to have this work done outside of FAC especially since it's been open for over two months. However, it would be a shame if you were to discontinue the process altogether. Re-nominating shouldn't be that bad—you can ask those who have already lent there support here to revisit and restate their support as appropriate. -- Laser brain  (talk)  17:20, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I understand completely. I knew that would kill it. I started redoing this article in May, and it has nearly taken over my life ever since. From the beginning, I did the reworking by myself, and only got help with GA and the subsequent peer review--and no one ever volunteered to help check references. I was told to make them consistent, which I did attempt to do, but that's pretty much it. I have been over and over the stupid references and find it the most frustrating process I have ever endured. I don't understand how some problems arise--how is it I can see the pages of a book--use it--and then later can't see it or find it for a reviewer to check? How can I find content on Amazon that Google then tells me isn't there?  How is it transformed isbn's sometimes go to completely different books?  How did it happen that Citation 8 goes to a different place if you click the title than it does if you click the DOI?  I don't understand any of these things, so I am at sea about how to fix them.  I think it's me.  I think I am simply not detail oriented enough--I'm not a programmer--I'm an ethics major.  I am afraid that no matter how many times I go back to reference Hell and attempt to check every one, yet again, that I will only fail at it, yet again.  I'll fix one and somehow screw up another. I understand this kills the FAC--and I really do believe it should be a featured article as far as notability and content go--but I don't think I can cope with any more of this. I have been through these references more than four times, and I'm tired.  I despair.  I have no confidence left in my ability to make all these references what they should be. Renominating requires that I revisit reference Hell probably  until the day I am taken over by an alien life form capable of this. :-)  I don't have confidence in them either. Aliens never show up when you need them. I'm sorry. Perhaps time will heal all wounds and down the road I will go mad enough to reconsider, but right now, I am just done. Thank you for your consideration. I promised Grabergs I wouldn't shoot myself over this, but I do think I'll go have a good cry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear all of this. I spent some time combing through the history and I think a good deal of your bewilderment likely traces back to this edit performed by with the edit summary "Assisted by Citation bot". This is where the error to Fn 8 was introduced. At least you know you didn't do something without knowing knowing it, and this is why it's critical to examine edits made by automated tools before saving them. -- Laser brain   (talk)  19:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I had no idea that was even an issue. I bow to the bots at all times.  However do you know this stuff?  How did you find that?  How can it be fixed?  I'm sorry--you've given me a taste of encouragement and it's gone straight to my head. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * @Jenhawk777 Sorry for the issues. I've been using the bot less as more problems with it have been occurring more often. JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Not at all your fault. You were trying to work, that's all, and I am grateful for anyone willing to help with that.  I have been on Wp about a year and a half now, and every time I think I have started to get a handle on things, something like this pops up.  I have never used a bot, don't know anything about them, and while it may seem fair to say I should have examined these changes before saving them, I didn't actually save them, and I would have had to know enough about them to know to revert all those edits--and that was, quite simply, outside of my level of experience.  I guess I didn't do something without knowing it, but I allowed something to be done without knowing it. I guess that makes me responsible.  Don't take ownership of articles, but what goes in them is your responsibility.  Don't revert other people's work, talk, but foresee future problems they might create--that you will be held responsible for. So far, I have found the rules of Wp a little bit difficult to juggle. So, thank you for the apology, but honestly, I don't think anything is the fault of anything but the circumstances of the weird world of Wikipedia.Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Is it possible to undo the error in ref #8? If you will explain how, or direct me to where I can read about it, I will fix that one at least. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Jenhawk777 If it helps, I can restore reference 8 back to the original format. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That's a great idea! Let's give it a try and see if it fixes its issues.  Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Jenhawk777 Done. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * YAY! That did it! It fixed it! Thank you! !!  JudeccaXIII put it back to the original form and now either place you click it goes to the open article!  We fixed one thing!  In only a day!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I have asked someone else--not me--to do a reference review.  is exceptionally good with details, and has begun going through these one at a time. It won't take him as long as it took me--he's super smart and terrifically competent and experienced at Wikipedia--much more so than I. He's already completed the first 30 and says there are no problems yet. If you can wait just a little bit more, and not close me out till he's through, I would be so grateful. I am guessing he'll only be a few days.  He's amazing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem! -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to work through the references, although I imagine I'll do the bulk of my work Friday or Saturday of this week. At this point, I'm going through and making sure that each link to a source goes where it is supposed to. I'm pretty confident I can get that particular aspect of the references working correctly. Is there anything else I should be looking for as I go along? I'm not very familiar with what all FAC is looking for in references, although if I have a "checklist" of some kind I'm pretty decent with repetitive boring tasks. I once hit "0" on a calculator, then "+1" and then hit the equals button, causing it to count one by one, until it hit sixteen thousand, at which point I got bored and quit. So I've got that. As for "much more" experienced than Jenhawk at Wikipedia, that's probably a stretch. Edit counter says I have just a few more edits than she does. Alephb (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * If I claim you're more experienced I don't have to admit you're just plain smarter and more capable. It allows me to keep a little pride intact and still be grateful.  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Aleph and I have a question. When the bot went through, part of what it did was put in google url links--on some of the refs--but not all. How important are those? I don't usually put those in the template--they always seem to cause those pretty red errors. But I know consistency is the most important thing, so   should we go through and put google links in them all?  About half the books I used I had to go to Amazon to see inside, so even if we put google links, it wouldn't necessarily access the book that was used. Should we delete what's there or attempt to add more or just leave it and do nothing?  Aleph is going through the references one by one bless his heart.  He is already up through 92 out of 150.  Pretty awesome huh?  He's amazing.  He should be king of Wikipedia. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Just passing by, guys -- to same me time looking can you point out examples of exactly what you mean and then perhaps I can offer advice? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sure. Thanx. Here are the very first two references in the article. They are back to back exactly like this:   You will of course see immediately that the Spinoza reference has no url link, whereas the Muller link does.  Does that matter?  The entire rest of the article is like this--some with url's--some without.  I did not do this.  But there it is. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay tks. I think these Googlebooks links are of dubious worth -- even if they do take you to books with previews, there seems no guarantee the relevant pages can be accessed, or even (as you yourself said, Jen) that the edition is the one you used. Perhaps CitationBot improves the references in some other ways, but adding the GoogleBooks links doesn't IMO fit into that category for the reasons mentioned -- and that's before we even worry about inconsistent appearance because some books aren't linked. I wouldn't necessarily hold up promotion over the links but I'd still be inclined to get rid of them -- ? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:03, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with getting rid of the links. As a whole, CitationBot doesn't seem that useful. -- Laser brain  (talk)  14:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

YES!! Whoohoo! YAY!! (clearing throat, gathering some sense of dignity...) Thank you very much for that timely input, we will take care of that immediately. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Jenhawk777 and assorted reviewers, when I was most recently recruited to check some references, I was under the impression that what I needed to check was that links in the sources go to where they're supposed to. It was on that basis that I worked out a pace of work that would likely finish by today at the latest. Unfortunately, it looks like the reference issues are going to require a lot more than just making sure all the links work. Out of about 150 references, I'm at 113 so far today and will need to go back over all of 1-94 given how the issues are much more extensive than just the links: there's a wide variety issues with reference formatting, the exact contents of quotes, etc.
 * I'm still quite happy to pitch in, and I'll keep plugging away at the references until I see no more issues, but I don't want anyone to have the impression that I'm almost finished. I don't anticipate putting more than about two hours a day into this, and given the page today, it looks to me like that's going to mean getting through about 20 references per day or less. Given that I need to go through about another 130 references, I'd be surprised if I wrap this up in less than a week. Just as an example, for the latest bunch of references I've checked -- numbers 102 through 113 -- required some kinds of corrections to 102, 104, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113. That's nine out of the last twelve references needing some kind of correction. I don't think more than maybe 2 of those nine were "Where do the links go?" sorts of problems. Alephb (talk) 20:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * OMG, I had no idea things were that bad. He just sent me this: There should be a horror movie about a Wikipedia editor slowly losing her grip on reality during an FAC. As a clearly insane editor with bloodshot eyes frantically tries to fix things for a FAC, a low and foreboding voice-over could read, The citations says 1990, while the ISBN seems to lead to a 1979 edition. The Google books scan ... I am there.  I am so there. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * To be clear, the horrow movie would be very loosely based on real events. Not that you're actually any more crazy than anyone else would be if they spent two months going through a FAC review. Everything I've seen so far seems pretty fixable, and I don't find references unpleasant, so I'd be happy to do the work of getting them all lined up. I just don't want to mislead anyone into thinking it's about to be finished. And they're not actual problems for the most part in the sense of anything that would actually cause anyone problems when using Wikipedia for information. They're just an endless number of little nit-picky problems of the kind that seem to distinguish GA from FA articles. Alephb (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Not so loosely... and he keeps working with me anyway. Every horror movie has to have a hero that rescues the rest--even the crazy ones. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh, no, the hero role will have to cast somebody else. I could be the scary narrator voice that reads my nit-picky reference notes out loud as foreboding music runs in the background. I have a voice that would be perfect for audio work, and a face that is likewise made for radio. Alephb (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We're having too much fun with this. I don't think that's allowed. This is serious stuff you know. Back to work! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It appears Alephb is now as fed up with going over these as I eventually became. It does not look likely to be finished in a timely manner for the FAC.  My horror movie has a sad ending.  Nothing to be done.  Thank you for attempting to help, for leaving this open as long as you have, and for your kind understanding, but we are dead in the water now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I realize you may have run out of steam in terms of going through the citations, but can you give me an idea of the scope of the issue? Is it that citations don't support the statements they're attached to, or that the citation itself requires formatting/styling? One issue is much different from the other. If it's the latter, that could be fixed within the scope of this nomination and we can move on. If it's the former, I'd prefer to archive this and bring it back after cleanup. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello, I began working with formatting and making sure links worked in the citations. All that stuff could be fixed, and in a reasonable time-frame. As I was doing that, I started discovering citations where quotes weren't quite right, where page numbers weren't correct, where the references only partially supported the information in the body of the article, and so on. I think it would be difficult to find five references in a row where there isn't some kind of issue with the citation not supporting the statement it's attached to. It's likely not fixable in any short amount of time.
 * I wasn't fed up with going over the reference; I got fed up with something that isn't entirely attached to the topic of this article. I think it would be better if myself and Jenhawk work on separate projects, and I'll continue to work on citations elsewhere. Alephb (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: what I see is that Jen left, which is sad. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - Unfortunately since the nominator is disengaging (hopefully temporarily), I have no choice but to archive this. It's gained a solid amount support for promotion but I can't even consider it without a full source review and sign-off. I think someone who's familiar with the scholarship could potentially take this across the finish line (?), so anyone who has been involved here is welcome to try after the sourcing is worked through. -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC) -- Laser brain  (talk)  22:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.