Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Biblical criticism/archive2

Biblical criticism

 * Nominator(s): Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the history, major types, and impact of Biblical criticism. Biblical criticism permanently changed our understanding of the Bible, which in turn, has permanently changed our Western culture. This is an important topic. This article is thorough, makes complex concepts clear and accessible, discusses both pros and cons, strengths and conflicts, and does so better than any other article in any other online source on this topic that I have ever seen. This is, and should be, among Wikipedia's best because of the significance of the topic. It's obscure to the average person, and it shouldn't be. Jenhawk777 (talk) 02:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

SG comments
Moving all of my section to the talk page of this FAC, as the FAC is now so long and filled with templates that it is causing a problem with the entire page. (A reminder please, not to use templates on this page like smiley faces, as they cause the entire FAC page to reach template transclusion limits, that cuts off other FACs on the page and in archives.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't know and no one said before this. I have now removed them all. Hope that helps. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass

 * Images appear to be freely licensed
 * Too many images in "Textual" and "Contemporary developments" sections. This causes sandwiching which is against MOS. Suggest removing some images or putting them side-by side. (IMO, the "Contemporary developments" section looks better without any images at all: I don't know how the physical appearance of any of these people helps advance my understanding of biblical criticism). (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Images removed. 21:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Buidhe images are still changing (see talk); a new review will be needed further down the road. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Buidhe Hello! I am so glad to see you here. I removed the images of people, agreeing with you that they didn't further understanding, so Contemporary developments is now image free, as you suggested, and textual has fewer. No more sandwiching.  I added one new image at the front by the lead if you want to check it. I believe it is copyright free and had its alt text. I also had a question about including a diagram of Wellhausen's theory that's in German. Do you have an opinion about including an image that isn't in English? File:WellhausensTheory.png Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I can read Czech, but I highly doubt that most enwiki readers can. I cannot recommend the inclusion of foreign language graphics; however, it wouldn't be too difficult to recreate this image in English using a free flowchart generator. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  12:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay then. I can't read Czech but meine Deutsch is -- mediocre anyway. I tried looking up Flowcharts and couldn't find it. Can you direct me? Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I thought it was a WP tool! I will google it, thanx! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Buidhe So what do you think of the image changes? Are they good? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I am satisfied with the images in their current state. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  18:17, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Yay! Thank you.  I believe they will remain stable as they are now too.  No reason to make other changes.  Thanx again Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Buidhe Would you mind marking these as resolved, or striking through them, or something so they don't appear active? I would appreciate it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Buidhe Am I being paranoid? I am afraid there is a connection between no one else showing up to review this and it looking like there are things that haven't been done.  I would appreciate your help with that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, see my essay. It is a very long article.  It was nominated before bringing in all the previous supporters to a new peer review to make sure all ducks are in a row. It was nominated while a source review was unfinished. Under that scenario, it will be difficult to get people to show up. (If it were my article, I would split it to two articles, history and contemporary, start a peer review, and invite all previous participants first. Get two FAs out of it, each more digestible, each more likely to be reviewed.  But that is just an opinion. From someone who never supports 10,000 words of prose and prefers tight use of summary style.)  And reviewers will be shy when the previous supports were evidenced to have been premature. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:SandyGeorgia I addressed most of this below, but I will add here that prior supporters passed only the aspects they reviewed: the editor who reviewed images passed the images, which have once again passed, which indicates that particular support was not premature. The editors who reviewed the prose - which has not yet been re-reviewed here - passed the prose, and there is nothing to indicate that was premature.  The editors involved in reviewing the references found problems, and I contacted each of them to come take another look before I renominated, believing I had fixed them all because I was only focusing on their accuracy and not formatting. I don't believe it's a fair comment to say what support was there was premature. The passes and holds were for different aspects of the review. No one else ever did a formatting review like yours. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need to strike comments beyond clearly stating that they have been resolved. However, as requested I have marked as passed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Buidhe Your essay? User:SandyGeorgia linked an essay of hers that I read twice, and she linked an essay of User:Tony1 that I also read, and I have looked back over both pages to see if I missed yours somewhere, but I don't find a reference to an essay of yours. I would never ignore something like that - not knowingly.
 * Sorry, I see now this was a comment by User:SandyGeorgia and not User:Buidhe. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I did ask someone to look the article over before nominating. They did, and then they left and were out of contact for a good while. I queried them, and got no response, so I took that to mean they were done. Clearly, any and all confusion about this was mine, but I had reason to believe the article's only problems were a few references that I had since repaired, and that all its ducks were indeed in a row. I apologize for any problems my inexperience has created.
 * No one, and nowhere that I can find in any set of instructions, did anyone ever tell me to contact prior reviewers - though I did in fact do so on my own when I was looking for a previewer. They mostly declined to get involved again. What can I do about this?
 * Splitting the article in two is an interesting idea, but despite its length I am unsure of the wisdom of this, as most of these topics are already separate pages, and the topic itself is long and complex and correctly encompasses a lot of subtopics. But if others agree it would be a good thing to do, I will cooperate.
 * Thank you for responding to my request. I apologize for my ignorance of protocol. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you are referring to SandyGeorgia's comments/essays linked, not mine. I personally don't think that there would be benefit to splitting the article, although I could be persuaded otherwise. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that now. Sorry. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Axl

 * The first sentence: "... the belief that reconstructing its history according to contemporary understanding will correctly illuminate the texts." The word "illuminate" here might be confused with "illuminated manuscripts". How about something like "... the belief that reconstructing its history according to contemporary understanding will lead to the correct interpretation"? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Axl Okay, sure. Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The second sentence: "This basis in critical thinking set it apart from the precritical, the anti–critical and the post–critical methods that came before and after it." I can infer what "precritical" and "post-critical" mean, but I have no idea what "anti-critical" means. Does "anti-critical" come before or after? Also, it seems odd that "anti-critical" and "post-critical" are hyphenated, but "precritical" is not. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Axl I wondered about defining those. So I went and made those changes. If you don't like them we can change them some other way. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am still not entirely sure what "anticritical" means, but I take your word for it that this is the correct definition. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It's what it sounds like. It's google-able - is that a word?  Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Axl Is there a way you can think of in which I might explain it better? Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Eh, I am fine with the current statement, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:37, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool Thanx. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)


 * From "History", subsection "Eighteenth century", paragraph 3: ""Despite the difference in attitudes between the thinkers and the historians [of the German enlightenment], all viewed history as the key to unlocking the meaning of life." This sentence seems to start with a quotation mark, but there is no closing quotation mark. Is this supposed to be a direct quote? Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 19:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes! It's a common error of mine. I apparently forget what I'm doing by the end of the sentence - sort of like walking into a room and wondering why you're there... Fixed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:08, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 22:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "History", subsection "Eighteenth century", paragraph four mentions "English deism", while paragraph five mentions "British deism". Perhaps this is a minor distinction between "English" and "British". Is there a significant difference here? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 22:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * No there's no difference, that's just a mistake on my part. It is referred to both ways in different sources and I wasn't careful enough and I missed changing the one.  Fixed now.  Thank you so much for catching that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)


 * There is an anomaly with reference 19 (RN Soulen & RK Soulen, Handbook of biblical criticism (third ed.), Westminster John Knox Press. ISBN 9780664223144). <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I created this yesterday by misreading another problem. I am traveling today and will have limited access for the next two days. I will fix the mess I made as soon as I can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It looks like Quebec99 corrected the problem. Jenhawk, if you can confirm that the problem is now fixed, that would be helpful. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 13:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, either a miracle occurred (humor) or Quebec99 fixed it. It is fixed. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (Also, thank you, Quebec99.) <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * From "History", subsection "Eighteenth century", paragraph 4: "Rogerson adds that, among the early scholars of the Reformation who are considered to have laid the intellectual foundations of biblical criticism, are...". This statement is a little clumsy. I don't think that we need to say that this is Rogerson's opinion. (I note that the reference used is Baier, not Rogerson.) How about: "Three Reformation scholars who laid the intellectual foundations of biblical criticism are...". <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Vastly superior. Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have changed it. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 13:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)


 * From "History", subsection "Eighteenth century", subsection "Historical Jesus: the first quest", paragraph 2: "Semler effectively refuted Reimarus' biblical arguments using biblical criticism." Did Semler really effectively refute Reimarus? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I will go back and find what source claimed that. I don't remember if it was one I used. I'll find it or remove it - in a couple of days. I should be home by Tuesday at the latest. Jenhawk777 (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I am more concerned by the semantics of the phrase "effectively refuted". This implies that Semler has disproven Reimarus. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 13:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I am home! I am so glad! Questioning that phrase was a good call on your part. I checked 8 more sources and now think 'effectively' is an overstatement. I have replaced it. Please give it a look and see if it's better in your thinking as well as mine. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The third party description of Semler's work by Schweitzer is much better. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * From "History", subsection "Nineteenth century", paragraph 1: "Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies Richard Soulen and Professor of Systematic Theology Kendall Soulen write in the Handbook of biblical criticism." This is only a minor point, but shouldn't "biblical criticism" be capitalized as part of the title of the book? Also, is it really necesssary to state this source in the text? A reference to the handbook is already provided. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:44, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I didn't think it was necessary and it wasn't there originally, but GA requested it, so I added it and should have capitalized it as it is in the title of the book and not followed WP titling - just habit. Fixed now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not happy about leaving the name of the book in the text. I am not convinced that the book is so important that it must be mentioned. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:06, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're not happy then I am not happy. It's gone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:36, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "History", subsection "Nineteenth century", subsection "Historical Jesus: the second quest", paragraph 2: "In 1896, Martin Kähler wrote The So-called Historical Jesus and the Historic Biblical Christ. It critiqued the quest's methodology, with a reminder of the limits of historical inquiry, saying it is impossible to separate one Jesus from another since the Jesus of history is only known through documents about the Christ of faith." Separating "one Jesus from another" sounds a little clumsy. How about "separate the historical Jesus from Christ the Messiah"? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:38, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


 * "History", subsection "Twentieth century", paragraph 5: "The rise of redaction criticism closed it by bringing about a greater emphasis on diversity." Does "it" refer to the "massive debate" mentioned in the preceding sentence? If so, how about "The rise of redaction criticism closed this debate by bringing about a greater emphasis on diversity." [Would the participants of the "massive debate" be called "mass debaters"?] <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I like it! Done. Mass debaters - that was humor wasn't it? Maintaining one's sense of humor when under stress is an important mantra of mine. I value it in others as well. Thank you!Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hehe, thanks. :-) <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:15, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * From "Major Methods", subsection "Textual criticism", paragraph 1: "The dates of these manuscripts range from c.110–125 (the 𝔓52 papyrus) to the introduction of printing in Germany in the 15th century." I am not familiar with the symbol used for the P52 papyrus. I see that the article "Rylands Library Papyrus P52" uses a different symbol: 𝔅52. (As an aside, I was unaware that the earliest surviving documentation of the New Testament is from the second century CE. That's very interesting.) <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk]  13:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * P52 is the correct designation for the Ryland's fragment. I believe B52 is a fragment of Homer's Iliad, though I am not a classics scholar. I think it is in a museum in Berlin (hence the B) and that it has been used as a comparison for dating, The Ryland's fragment has been dated anywhere from the first century to the third. It was found in Egypt and scholars think it would have taken some time after being written for the papyrus to travel there. It's part of the ongoing debate about when the gospel of John was written. It is interesting! I am so glad to hear someone outside my obscure little field say so! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt that "P52" is the correct designation. My concern is with the symbol used: 𝔓52. Is this the symbol used in the reference? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So since you asked, I went and checked to be sure, and yes it is and referenced accordingly on pages 77, 78 and 79.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Since you have re-checked this matter, I am taking your word for it. Thank you. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 13:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Axl, P is just a filing number that stands for papyrus, that's all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * From "Major Methods", subsection "Textual criticism", paragraph 4: "Textual scholar Kurt Aland explains that charting the variants in the New Testament shows it is 62.9% variant-free." Is that actually what he says? It may be more helpful (and honest?) to say that 37.1% of the New Testament's text has more than one variant. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 13:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if I understood it correctly, yes. On page 29 there is a chart: Table 1. The Table lists, by book, three categories: the total number of verses, the total number of variant free verses, and what percentage of the overall text they represent. The total of these totals, given at the bottom of the Table has 7947 verses in the New Testament, 4999 as variant free, and 62.9 percent as the total overall percentage. The next paragraph says "nearly two-thirds of the New Testament texts in the seven editions of the Greek New Testament (Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, von Soden, Vogels, Merk and Bover with the text of Nestle-Aland, considered the best at the time of Aland's work) ... demonstrate a far greater agreement among the Greek texts than textual scholars suspected." 62.9% is in the source but 37.1% isn't. I think that if I wrote that in, it would qualify as Synth or OR or something equally terrible and earth shattering. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * From "Major Methods", subsection "Textual criticism", paragraph 5: "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"." This sentence has a closing quotation mark " but does not appear to have an opening quotation mark. (I am pleased to see Bart Ehrman mentioned in the article. He is particularly fond of parablepsis due to homeoteleuton.) <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 13:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dang it. Quotation marks will be the death of me I swear. Fixed. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (I was wondering if scribe 'J' introduced an error into the manuscript of scribe 'E'.) <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hah ha! I love your wit!  Scribe J did indeed introduce an error into the manuscript of scribe E!  He he!  I love it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods", subsection "Textual criticism", paragraph 1: "Textual criticism examines the text itself," and paragraph 5: "Textual criticism studies the differences between these families." Perhaps this is only a trivial complaint, but textual criticism itself doesn't examine or study anything. Rather, textual criticism is a technique used by scholars ("critics"?) to examine/study texts. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 13:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 01:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods", subsection "Textual criticism", paragraph 5: "Sorting out the wealth of source material is complex, so textual families were sorted into categories tied to geographical areas. The divisions of the New Testament textual families were Alexandrian (also called the "Neutral text"), Western (Latin translations), and Eastern (used by Antioch and Constantinople)." It is unclear to me why the past tense is used in these two sentences. Is the historical context of this sorting important? If so, perhaps add a year/time period when it was done? If not, perhaps change it to the present tense ("are sorted" and "are Alexandrian")? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 13:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Biblical criticism as it is defined in this article is a thing of the past. What was created in the German Enlightenment ended in the second half of the twentieth century.  It has progeny that live on, but BC itself ended.  This whole article is historical.  I don't know how important that is.  I use the past tense wherever possible to convey that historical criticism as it was fashioned in the 1700s has ended, but there are 'aspects' that continue, so that creates some problems and confusion in communicating that I am unsure how to make clearer. I said it in the historical section at the end of the twentieth century. If you can figure out a way to make it clearer, that would be genuinely appreciated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Axl That was a super good catch. Pat yourself on the back, please, from me.  I have gone back and rewritten parts of the lead from the first sentence on in hopes of clarifying.  Please take a look see and tell me if it is clearer now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, that seems to be fine. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 03:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods", subsection "Textual criticism", subsection "Problems of textual criticism", paragraph 3: " Some scholars have recently called to abandon older approaches to textual criticism." This phrase is a little clunky. Perhaps something like: "Some modern scholars have abandoned older approaches to textual criticism"? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 15:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If I use the terms 'modern' or 'contemporary' someone inevitably jumps all over me even though they are perfectly good terms imo. How about twenty first century scholars? Even though the ref doesn't actually say that, it's a reasonable rephrase I think. I hope. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In "Major methods", subsection "Source criticism", subsection "Source criticism of the Old Testament: Wellhausen's hypothesis", the diagram of the modern documentary hypothesis requires a caption and a source. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 16:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did it! I did it!  I can't believe I figured it out! The alt is there and everything! Whoohoo! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods", subsection "Source criticism", subsection "Source criticism of the Old Testament: Wellhausen's hypothesis", paragraph 2: "Wellhausen said P (for the Priestly source) was composed during the exile under the influence of Ezechiel." The P source was already introduced in the first sentence of the paragraph. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 16:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I reorganized a bit, see if that works. The dates are the thing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have adjusted the text slightly. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You adjust anything you please anytime you please. I am grateful. I wish someone who likes to do reference checks would show up.  You are the only one here right now, so I am really happy every time I see your name.  Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods", subsection "Source criticism", subsection "Source criticism of the Old Testament: Wellhausen's hypothesis", paragraph 2: "(R represents the redactor.)" This sentence requires some context and a reference. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 16:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It is now in the subtext of the image where it belongs. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In "Major methods", subsection "Source criticism", subsection "Source criticism of the Old Testament: Wellhausen's hypothesis", could you add a sentence about the Redactor to help provide some context to the diagram? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 13:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am unsure why this is a quotation, presumably from Peter Enns? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry! It is a quote.  I have now added the attribution. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that this needs to be a quote. I have paraphrased the information and removed the quotation. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 01:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * okayJenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods", subsection "Source criticism", subsection "Source criticism of the Old Testament: Wellhausen's hypothesis", paragraph 3: "Later scholars of the Newer Documentary Thesis inferred more sources." I am unsure what the "Newer Documentary Thesis" is. Is it the same as Wellhausen's (1878) description of the Documentary hypothesis? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 13:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I added an intro sentence that I think clarifies it and pulls the whole paragraph together better. See if you agree and I will change it if it is insufficient. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That's great, thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods", subsection "Source criticism", subsection "Source criticism of the Old Testament: Wellhausen's hypothesis", paragraph 3: " Proponents of this view assert three sources for the Pentateuch, with the Deuteronomist as the oldest source, and the Torah assembled from a central core document, the Elohist, then supplemented by fragments taken from other sources." This doesn't seem to be "three sources". Are there perhaps two major sources (Elohist and Deuteronomist) and several minor sources? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Axl bless your heart for hanging in with me. The three sources are referenced here are, as you say, the Deuteronomist, the Elohist and the fragments -- which could certainly be seen as minor, I suppose, but are not qualified in that manner in the reference. It doesn't call them major or minor, just three sources. Also, I went through your last edit and the I think I fixed all the issues you found. Thank you for those and for changing all the dates to year.  I  use the template and date is what it has.  I will change that manually in the future.  Axl thank you. I don't feel like I can say it enough.  Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I am unhappy with the implication that "other sources" are characterized as a single source, added to the other two sources (E and D). I call into question the suitability of the reference (John Van Seters), at least on this point. If you really think that Van Seters is the best reference for this point, perhaps we should change the text to something like: "Proponents of this view assert that the Torah was assembled mainly from the Elohist and Deuteronomist sources, supplemented by fragments taken from other sources." <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Van Seters is a well known Distinguished professor, and one of his specialties is the Hebrew Bible - he has a page here on WP John Van Seters. Here is a review of his book: I went back to the source and checked others, and tweaked the sentence a little, adding one additional comment. Don't be put off by the sources of ancient literature being fragments.  It's just the way it is for everything.  In truth, all the sources of the Pentateuch are fragments, the scholars have assumed that some of them were originally whole documents, but every one of those assumptions have been challenged.  Here, the Elohist is assumed to be a complete document, but later critics of this theory took that assumption apart.  It's the way scholarship progresses.  The best way to get your theory forward is to disassemble the previous one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:17, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Axl Are you okay with this now? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I accept that Van Seters is, in general, a reliable source for information about biblical criticism. I don't accept that Van Seters is a reliable source for the implication that two sources plus fragments from several other sources equals a total of three sources. (In case you're worried, I am not gonna oppose over this matter.) <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> This one has not been struck though it has been adjusted in the text. Is the change sufficient? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. My point has not been fixed. I am not striking this through. But let's not obsess over this matter. I am not gonna oppose over it. Let's move on to more productive discussion and editing. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 13:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * From "Form criticism", subsection "Critique of form criticism", paragraph 1: "Instead, in the 1970s, New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders wrote that: "There are no hard and fast laws of the development of the Synoptic tradition. On all counts the tradition developed in opposite directions. It became both longer and shorter, both more or less detailed, and both more and less Semitic. 'Even the tendency to use direct discourse for indirect, which was uniform in the post-canonical material which we studied, was not uniform in the Synoptics themselves'..."." There seems to be a double layer of quotation here. Why is this? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 17:05, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because apparently I have some kind of issue with quotation marks. I was scared by one as a baby and forever after have had a mental block about them! Or something! Anyway, the extras are gone. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * lol Thanks for removing the extra quotation marks. (By the way, it is rather a long quotation. Couldn't this be paraphrased? If you really think that we should keep it as a direct quotation, then I shall respect that.) <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 23:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)


 * This must be included as a quote. It's extremely important. It changed everything that came after it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * There is a minor inconsistency regarding the punctuation before direct quotations. For example, the last sentence of "Critique of Wellhausen" doesn't have any extra punctuation, but a quotation by N. T. Wright in "Critique of form criticism" includes a comma. Meanwhile, various quotations use a colon. I am unsure what our guideline at Wikipedia is on this matter, so I haven't changed any of them myself. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure the correct use for introducing a quote is a colon, but I might have copied what was done in the source. Let me know when you find out - or not. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What about this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, this is still an open question, because we are unsure what the solution is. (Again, I am not gonna oppose over this matter.) <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> Okay, so I don't want anything left unresolved - least of all for you after all the work you've put in here - so I went and looked at every quote. Really. What I found is that most of them have no introductory punctuation at all, beyond the quotes themselves, as they they are part of the sentence structure. For example: "Semler supported the view that revelation was "divine disclosure of the truth perceived through the depth of human experience."
 * Those that have a comma do so because they are an interruptor in the sentence, yet still part of the sentence structure, which means they require commas on both sides of the quote. For example: "In addition, Reimarus' central question, "How political was Jesus?", continues to be debated in the twenty-first century by theologians and historians such as Wolfgang Stegemann [de], Gerd Thiessen and Craig S. Keener."
 * For those quotes that use colons, they are independent clauses but connected to the previous complete sentence, so they require either a semi-colon or a colon. For example: Turretin believed in the divine revelation of the Bible, but insisted that revelation must be consistent with nature and in harmony with reason: "For God who is the author of revelation is likewise the author of reason."
 * I think I did them all in that manner, but as Nikomaria will attest to, I am prone to missing these small details, so even though I checked them, that doesn't mean I'm right! This is my habit however, so chances are it's how they all are written. Is explaining the differences sufficient, or do you think I need to make alterations? I want you happy. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was hoping that Wikipedia had a guideline on the (consistent) formatting of punctuation before quotations. However neither of us found such a guideline. Therefore I suppose that there is nothing for me to complain about. Your rather lengthy recent response implies that you might think that this matter is big deal for me. It is not a big deal. I am striking through the point to show that no further action needs to be taken. Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 22:16, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand it's a minor deal for you, but that doesn't make it unimportant to me. I expected a rule too - WP has a rule for everything - but I couldn't find one either. The ones I used above are from "The Brief English Handbook". Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods", subsection "Redaction criticism", paragraph 1: "Form criticism saw the synoptic writers as mere collectors and focused on the Sitz im Leben as the creator of the texts, whereas redaction criticism deals more positively with the Gospel writers, asserting an understanding of them as theologians of the early church." In this sentence, form criticism is associated with the past tense ("saw") while redaction criticism is associated with the present tense ("deals"). Why is this? Also, we have more personification of form criticism, which continues into the next subsection. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 12:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed the verb agreement problem. You are the only one who caught that. :-) I have done my best to go through and deal with this, but please note, in the quotes, that's how these are referred to: form criticism does this and it does that. Check and see if I missed any! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 22:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)


 * In "Major methods", subsection "Redaction criticism", the diagram of "Relationships between the Synoptic Gospels" requires a reference. Also, I would prefer it to be called perhaps "Correlations between the synoptic gospels" rather than its current title, but I am unsure how difficult this is to change. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 23:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I have added a reference, but you may want to adjust the formatting in line with the standard that you have applied to the rest of the article. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 23:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not add that illustration. I thought the one above in the section that actually discusses it was entirely sufficient.  what does this one have that the other doesn't? But someone wanted it so I left it.  Title it however you please.  Your ref is good but it has an ISSN instead of an ISBN.  Why is that? Does it matter? I really don't understand most of this formatting stuff. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The diagram gives percentage values for the correlations between the gospels. I found the reference in the article "Synoptic Gospels". I don't mind keeping it in "Biblical criticism". International Standard Serial Number is used to identify serial publications, i.e. journals and magazines. International Standard Book Number is used to identify books. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 10:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done then Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have changed the caption. I don't know how to alter the title in the image itself, but this is good enough. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 11:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods", subsection "Literary criticism", subsection "Narrative criticism", paragraph 1: "Historical critics began to recognize the Bible was not being studied in the manner other ancient writings were studied." When did these historical critics begin to recognize this? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 13:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 20:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * From "Major methods", subsection "Literary criticism", subsection "Narrative criticism", paragraph 2: "Narrative criticism analyzes narratives as "a complete tapestry, an organic whole". "It attends to the constitutive features of narratives, such as characterization, setting, plot, literary devices, point of view, narrator, implied author, and implied reader"." This seems to be two separate quotations, placed one after another. This is not elegant. Also, I guess that is not intended to be continuation of Christopher T. Paris' opinion from the previous sentence? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 20:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Legacy", paragraph 5, mentions "the creation of the modern world itself" and "creating the modern world." I am slightly concerned that "creation/creating" implies a creator, i.e. a conscious agent with deliberate intent. Indeed when I first read the paragraph, I thought that it might be referring to Genesis 1 where God creates everything. Perhaps an alternative such as "mo[u]lding" or "changing" or "forming" might be better? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 15:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I take your point. Done. But it was created by a conscious agent with deliberate intent wasn't it? Humans. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. (I am not convinced that humans "created the modern world", except perhaps in a metaphorical sense where humans created the modern parts of the world as opposed to the ancient parts of the world, but this isn't relevant to the article.) <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 02:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * In "Legacy", there is a quotation from Fishbane: "our hermeneutical hope is in the indissoluable link between the divine and human textus." The word "indissoluable" is misspelt&mdash;it should be "indissoluble". Is the misspelling in the source? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 17:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know but can fix it either way. Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. (I am wary of correcting mistakes in direct quotations. Usually it is better to add the confirmation "[sic]" after the mistake.) <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 01:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I get that, but the MOS does say "insignificant spelling and typographic errors should simply be silently corrected (for example, correct basicly to basically)." Original wording.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 14:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * "Legacy" has a subsection called "Socio-scientific criticism", but the first phrase is "Social-scientific criticism". Could we have a single consistent phrase please? <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 18:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yikes! Recent change. Fixed! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Gerda
Thank you for an article with an amazing scope article, Jen. I'm afraid I'm not at all familiar with academic looks at religious topics, but that may be an advantage for testing how a lay reader may react. I'll skip the lead for now, and can read only in bits at a time. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Jen, thanks a lot, - I'm ready to support at this point, for enlightening me with enough clarity about a complex subject. I have no time, nor the scientific background, to check the sources and their representation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)


 * All done now I think! Thank you so much.  I do need someone to come and check the source but hopefully that will happen!  Thanx again!  Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Coordinator comment
This has been open for five weeks and has only received a limited amount of attention. It is already in urgents, and if it doesn't attract further reviewers soon I shall be considering archiving it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don't! This is already its second attempt at FA and archiving it will sink it forever I'm sure. It just needs a source review. This is an important topic and needs to be among WP's best. I was so thrilled to see your name on my watchlist.  I hoped you had come for that review, but my heart sank when I saw this instead.  What can I do about this?  Perhaps I have enough friends here I can ask them for help.  Give me time to try. Please. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would suggest pinging anyone who has previously reviewed or commented on the article to see if you can get a review out of them. Plus calling in any Wiki-favours you can. In particular it needs thorough source review. I would like to review it myself, and if time permits will recuse from coordinator duties to do so, but things are busy for me at the moment. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I have just been pinging everyone I know on WP! I asked the original source reviewers for a peer-review kind of look before nominating it this time, and they declined then. Should I re-ask do you think - since it's urgent now - or would that be pesty and rude?  I don't want to be rude, not knowingly anyway. :-) Even if I'm not rude, I think I am annoyingly persistent some times, and every contact I make here doesn't automatically result in a friend. I have asked about a dozen people for a source review, but that pretty much exhausts everyone I know. I was still relatively new to WP when I was run off a couple years ago and have only been back a few months, so I don't have a lot of established relationships. I'll just have to wait and see if anyone shows up. If you could find the time for this, I would be forever in your debt. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Personally, when I want a review I am shameless, although hopefully polite. This is getting an important topic to FA; if people don't wish to review, they can politely decline. Try some of the regular multiple reviewers - see Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Will do Chief! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Gog the Mild User:Sdkb had some questions I couldn't answer: the location of the sidebar which another reviewer had me move to the bottom, how many images are good? as another reviewer had me remove a bunch of them, some line break thing in notes that I don't understand, and the access dates in further reading. Also, do all the ISBNs need to have dashes?  They are copy-pasted from the sources and are accessible as they are. It's not that I mind doing the work but I mind doing unnecessary work. This would be time consuming for no real benefit to my thinking but I will of course bow to your judgment. You say and I will make it so.


 * Gog, this is now my third formatting review, and don't get me wrong, I apparently need it and people are showing up and being kind and careful and genuinely improving the look of the references and I'm grateful for that. But no one is doing the kind of reference check I asked for. No one is checking for accuracy. What am I gonna do Gog? I am getting so stressed I can't eat. I love Wikipedia but this is crazy!  This is a hobby!  But I so very much want this FA for this article.  I'm going to need therapy after this, however it goes. If only WP provided that! <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Sdkb
Responding to the plea I noticed on AlanM1's talk page. Bible-related topics strike me as one of those areas that probably has a lot more interest from readers than editors, so I share the sentiment that getting this page over the finish line should probably be prioritized over pages in other, more niche areas. I'm relatively new to the FC nomination process, so I regretfully don't have the time or expertise to dive into a full source review, but I'll take a skim over the sources and leave some comments with anything I find. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Sdkb Thank you, thank you, thank you! I am so grateful you are here! Responses follow! Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking over what I just did, maybe that does count as a source review; I'll leave that to the coordinators as I haven't done a source review before. I was mostly just looking at how they display, not diving into the links to see if they adequately support the article text. Pretty much all the references are scholarly, so I don't really anticipate issues with reliability. Hopefully this will at least make it easier for someone else to complete the review. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * User:Sdkb A thousand blessings upon you for showing up and doing something.<abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">Face-smile.svg If you ever need a favor or a friend, please call on me. Unfortunately, this is not a source review, this was formatting - which apparently I still needed!  So not a waste, valuable, but not yet the thing I am in such desperate need of. Still, thank you.  Don't think for a second that I am not grateful for what you have done. If you are up to it and could finish up with my responses and either strike through, or support, or something, that would be great. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I hope someone else comes along and is able to complete it! I'm not sure whether I ought to give a bolded !vote as I don't think I've looked at the page outside the reference section closely enough to be able to judge it comprehensively, but once we take care of the few remaining items above I'll consider all my concerns satisfied and be able to speak to the reference section complying with all formatting guidelines. And nothing super urgent at the moment, but I appreciate it and am glad to be of help! :) &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 00:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In an FA review you are not obligated to review the entire article, you can do as much as you want, and be done whenever you decide you're done. Reformatting all those ISBNs is going to take me a little while, and I need some additional info on reference 10 - the para|at thing - but otherwise I think I have addressed everything. Any additional comments are always appreciated of course. Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait! I figured out the "at" thing, so nevermind about that, but will wait on Gog to lower the axe on me on those ISBNs! The rest is done! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Apparently it is a source review, I just didn't know there was more than one kind. Thank you again, for your help and just for showing up. It means a lot, and your input has been valuable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Small lingering things

None of these I view as reasons to hold up the nomination (I consider my concerns satisfactorily addressed), but just placing them here given that I've collapsed the above: Input from other reviewers on these things would be helpful, as Jenhawk and I have already discussed them and gotten as far as we can by ourselves above. Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Myself and Johnbod above both feel that it'd be beneficial for the visuals in the history and legacy sections that were removed during the image review to be restored.
 * User:Buidhe could you comment on this? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe that both SandyGeorgia and I supported removal. Images are not just for decoration, they should have some encyclopedic purpose. Any that are added back should show more than just what some person looks like, and should not violate MOS:IMAGELOC. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I opened a thread at VPT asking if it'd be possible to get rid of the line breaks that occur for notes 1 and 7.
 * Some ISBNs lack dashes, whereas others have them.
 * Update: I followed up at WT:FAC. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I opened a thread seeking to make ISBNs non-wrapping in references.
 * I have an instinct (explained to the extent I can above) that access dates shouldn't be used for the further reading section, but it's unclear what actual best practice is for this.
 * Update: I followed up at WT:Further reading. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 20:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You may have to ask directly, I don't think others are looking here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Update: the ISBNs all have their dashes now thanx to an exceptional person and a toolbot. :-)Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Nikkimaria
Pass on source review and spotchecks. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Legacy

 * I am rewriting things in order to eliminate some of the attributions and quotes and to include links where I can. There aren't any links for some of these, and I wouldn't know how to title them to make a red link - which I was told FA didn't allow. See if you like the changes. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Struck, since it's not an issue for FAC, but redlinks are absolutely not a reason to oppose a FAC, and a coordinator would not treat that as a valid oppose. WP:REDYES is the relevant guideline: there's no obligation to include redlinks but they're a real benefit to the encyclopedia because they encourage the creation of the missing content. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:03, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead
I waited to read the lead until I'd read the whole article. Some comments: I understand the point you're making -- the current generation of critics do not use the techniques that are discussed throughout most this article. I think there are a couple of ways to deal with this. Here are the options that occur to me.
 * Biblical criticism was the practice of critical analysis of the Bible that began in the eighteenth century and ended in the twentieth. This surprised me. I don't see anything in the body of the article about biblical criticism having ended, and in fact in the last paragraph of the lead you discuss biblical criticism as a continuing enterprise, albeit in new sub-disciplines.
 * Yes, new forms, and those new forms mean its original form is dead. It says "the Enlightenment form of biblical criticism has ended... " What they did and what is done now are not the same. What else can be said? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, so the original form is dead, but the article talks about the new forms too, so whatever is the topic of this article includes the new forms. If we can't refer to those new forms by the name "biblical criticism" then doesn't that mean the article is misnamed? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 22:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Dearest Mike Christie, No, this article is not misnamed because the article is primarily about the original form, its types, its history, its legacy, and its progeny - which must be mentioned after all - though they get short shrift only as an aspect of BC's legacy - in one measly paragraph apiece - and that isn't even all of them! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I guess that sounded like a negative comment, but I didn't mean it that way. What I meant to say was that if the progeny are now thought of as successors to biblical criticism, rather than part of biblical criticism, the body of the article should say that, and I don't think it does.  For example, down near the end, the article says "Social-scientific criticism is part of the wider trend in biblical criticism" -- shouldn't these sections not call themselves part of biblical criticism?  I'm really just saying that the lead and the body of the article need to agree on this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:22, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's okay, you're allowed to be negative if that's how you feel, and I understand the confusion about this. You are not alone. But I think we are arguing tomayto tomahto, potayto potahto. The "wider trend in biblical criticism" involves all the progeny. They all share that same surname - so to speak. They are all family, but that wider trend does not include the original enlightenment version, because, its distinguishing characteristics of neutrality and historicity are not the distinguishing characteristics of the progeny. The parent was about how the texts were formed - what was the original text, where did it come from and how- the progeny don't care. They care about the texts as they are in their final form - what we have now - about why they were written, what they produced, the effect they have - that kind of thing. The parent was historical, the progeny are almost all literary. They are different generations of the same family, but the generation this article is about has now passed on. The kids have taken over. Even the modern form of historical criticism gives equal weight to literary aspects. I think that is all implicit in the discussion of the new methods as part of BC's legacy. Does it really need to be hammered into the reader too? Perhaps you could have one of your brilliant ideas and come up with a sentence or two - and tell me where to put that sentence - that would sufficiently tie this together for you, and that would probably then solve any problems others might have as well. I have nothing right now. My brain is oatmeal. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If modern critics do use the term "biblical criticism" to describe their discipline, then we need a term that lets us distinguish the old from the new --- "Traditional biblical criticism" vs. "modern biblical criticism", or "old" vs. "new" -- preferably terms that would be recognized by practitioners. The article does cover the newer discipline, right at the end of the article; I assumed there's not much about it because there's not yet much to say.  So I would have thought even in this case it's not quite right to say, as the lead does, that "Biblical criticism was the practice...", because biblical criticism is still going on, albeit transformed.  The first sentence could say: "Biblical criticism is the discipline of attempting to understand and explain biblical texts and the meaning intended by the biblical writers".  I hope that's broad enough to include the old and the new.  Then we could say "Traditional biblical criticism began in the eighteenth century and ended in the twentieth..." and later say "Modern biblical criticism began in the late twentieth century..."  I think this would be enough, and it's the solution I think would work best, and it wouldn't require changing more than a few words.
 * If the modern critics don't use the term "biblical criticism" to describe what they're doing, then we need to use whatever term is used instead when we talk about them. That would mean changing the last two sentences of the lead and the "Changes in methods" section to use that term instead.  If they do use that term, but you feel this argument doesn't really cover their discipline, and only really talks about traditional biblical criticism, then we need to figure out what their article would be called and make sure we distinguish the two in this article -- e.g. with a link at the end of the lead to that article saying it's the successor to biblical.  That's why I was wondering if we needed to rename the article -- I was thinking it would have to be "Traditional biblical criticism" or something like that.  But as I said, I don't think that's the right answer -- unless I'm mistaken, you do cover the modern discipline, though not in as much detail because there's less to say about it so far.  So the first option above seems right to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, dazzled by brilliance yet again!! I am not joking either, I mean it. I like this. Traditional biblical criticism is often referred to as historical biblical criticism, but all the children are also referred to as bc as well, so I will go do as you suggest and we will see how it works.  I will have to work that through the rest of the article as well, so check me on that as well please! Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a fan of this method, and I think it would also service us well to explain this distinction in the Definition section too. My remaining quibble is whether we can truly say "traditional forms of biblical criticism ended in the twentieth century." Do you have a source which says that, or—as I said below—has it just left the mainstream? In other words, I would probably just omit the "ended" part, just saying they transformed into new forms. Also, Googling "historical-biblical criticism" doesn't seem to bring anything up; do any scholars use that term?Ovinus (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Ovinus and Mike Christie Used Mike's approach, and took out ended, did have to add something to definition, but I think that might be it.  Try Googling historical criticism or higher criticism, but yes, there is already a source referenced that calls it historical-biblical criticism, and it's easy enough to find another if needed. These terms are flexible in their use and in the understanding of what they mean. Different people have used them differently.  I'm guessing that is because they are so old. Anyway, if you guys like the changes then we are good here right? Let me know if not. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's better, but I don't know if it's clear yet. I'll keep it on the backburner for a bit. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Overall
I'm leaning towards a weak support here. Support, because the material is all here, and I think the structure is right, and the prose is professional. Weak, because I think the article could be made to flow better. There's a lot of reliance on quotes, and on naming individual scholars. In places this is fine -- in the historical section, for example, one expects the story to be dominated by the names of the important scholars. Even there, though, I think the reader would benefit from hearing a single voice narrating the story, with the quotes used to illuminate the tale, rather than to construct it. This is not a fatal flaw, which is why I expect to support once the points above are addressed, but it's an area where I think real improvement is possible. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I can see the justice of the complaint that attribution interrupts the flow. Now that I have spent all the time on verifying every quote for Nikimaria, let me go back and see if I can remove some of them and make it flow a bit better. I already did some of that as you and I went through Mike, but I will go back and 'smooth' it a bit more, where I can, without removing too much of its authority. See what you think.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Just one point left above, in the section about the lead. I'll switch to at least weak support once that's fixed.  I'll read through again to see if I can remove the "weak"; I've already noticed the removal of some of the attribution and what I've seen so far is definitely an improvement. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Jen, I've read through again, and the flow is definitely better. Just the one point left about the lead, above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 10:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I did change it yesterday but have done so more today. See what you think of the last paragraph in the lead. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Support. The last issue I had was addressed. This is a fine article. One minor point which doesn't affect my support: "criteria" is used in a couple of places where I think "criterion" might be better, but I didn't want to fiddle with it myself since I'm not familiar with the material. The only really jarring use is criteria of neutral judgment has been changed which has a single verb with the plural form, but there are a couple of other places I thought a change might be worth looking at. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5
A contravorsal topic if I'd say so. I'm more a MOS type guy thus my comments wouldn't involve that much of grammer. Since it's big and I don't really have that much time to review it in one straight row, I will review it in a couple of parts. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead
 * of critical analysis of the Bible that began in the eighteenth century and ended in the twentieth In the "History" section some philosophers and theologians are from the 17th century while only one Richard Simon just made it into the 18th century shouldn't this be changed into the 17th?
 * Spinoza and Hobbs wrote books but they were isolated events that preceded the actual beginning of biblical criticism. BC starts with Simon. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * historical basis for the man Jesus separately I don't think "Jesus" should be linked since he is MOS:OVERLINK.
 * Okay, I have no problem doing that, but I might need consensus as I was told to put in that link, and if I take it out it seems likely someone else will put it back.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is so then I don't mind to.


 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Definition
 * Section has no links per MOS:UNDERLINK please add some links here.
 * I apologize for this section, it was only added a few days ago. It has been rewritten now. See if you think it's improved. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see there's only one link which is still MOS:OVERLINK.

Can you tell me where it is? How do I go about finding overlinks for myself? It's such an easy mistake to make. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * CPA-5 Has this been resolved? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "generally do so by emphasizing its essentially historical character".[1]:32,33 Per this two diffrent pages should have an en dash.
 * That line is gone. I put commas and not dashes between page numbers when I want to communicate that the information is on each page separately, and when I want to say it's contained on all the pages in between a well, then I put a dash. I hope you're okay with that. Some discussions in the sources are lengthy. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with that; didn't know it was meant to be two pages even though it's weird 'cause if I'm not wrong in this situation an en dash was required. Since the other pages should have separate citations but I could be wrong here.


 * You are indenting differently than I am which makes me think I am doing it incorrectly. Am I?  Anyway, yes some of the pages do have an en dash in them but not all. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah you're not incorrect if other reviewers say so then I might be incorrect. BTW I see some citations like "to biblical criticism.[55]:9,149" I think comma should be added in every citation who uses commas to separate other pages. On first view, I thought it was meant page nine thousand one hundred fourth-nine. I think a space would help here to separate these small issues.
 * I cannot find what you are referring to. Ref#55 is page 443.Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * CPA-5 Can you clarify? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * John Barton says that biblical critics and historians agree that Historians sounds a little bit wide maybe explain which kind of historians they were?
 * Gone Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)


 * scientific methods and approaches as their secular counterparts.[1]:45,46 Same as above. An en dash should be added here instead of a comma.
 * It's stated once on each page but their is no lengthy applicable discussion that connects the pages, so I used a comma. Others have asked about this and been okay with it. Please be okay with it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * emphasizes reason and strives to be objective.[1]:5,6 Same as above.
 * Same as above. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
 * CPA-5 Is this accepted as is? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

That's it for now; will come back soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you and bless you for being here and doing this. I am deeply grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Eighteenth century
 * In the Enlightenment era of the European West I've never heard of the term European West?
 * I could reverse it and say western European but I believe that is the term used in the source. The West is more than just Europe. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm there are two sources here and if both use the term then I'm fine with it? Though it's odd to me and I'm probably not the only one but whatever if it's part of modern English.
 * Does American actually speak modern English? :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * CPA-5 Is this accepted as is?Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Optional could not have written the preface to Deuteronomy (the fifth book) --> "could not have written the preface to the fifth book, Deuteronomy"
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

That seems redundant to me and perhaps irrelevant to the context. It seems to me that if someone doesn't know what the Jordan is, they won't care either, and it doesn't matter to the sentence or the concept. But if you feel strongly about it I will do it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * since he never crossed the Jordan into the Promised Land This is MOS:EGG; maybe add "River" after Jordan?
 * I disagree, if the river indeed were introduced before this sentence then yeah it's irrelevant but in general, the river should be added since there is are also Jordan Rift Valley and the Jordan Valley. Like MOS:EGG says "Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link." since there are more Jordan-related articles than one; "river" should be added here.


 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * John W. Rogerson reflects a twenty–first century A hyphen is okay instead of an en dash. Plus a hyphen between first and century is needed since it's a compound adjective.
 * Is it? That is good to hear! More than one person has gone through here putting en dashes everywhere! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * while also referring to it as "a masterpiece of world literature."[27]:22,16 Maybe switch the page numbers?
 * the polemic quote is on page 22 and the masterpiece quote is on page 16. If I reverse them won't that create a verifiability problem? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * CPA-5 Is this accepted as is? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * independently of theology and faith.[12]:46.[27]:25,26,23 Same as above with "23".
 * These are multiple ideas each taken from one of those pages in the order listed, but since they are not quotes I think it would be okay to put them together.
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * debated in the twenty - first century by theologians Is it normal to have spaces in the letter "21" here?
 * I changed the dash in 21st century is that what you mean? I went with what you said above which I think looks a ton better! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * CPA-5 Is this resolved? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Nineteenth century
 * "nineteenth century" vs "19th" maybe standerdise them?
 * I think they are written out throughout the whole article. I was told to pick one and stay with it.  Let me check. Ooops! found some!
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * theme in Herder (1744–1803), Schleiermacher (1768–1834), de Wette (1780–1849), Baur (1792–1860), Strauss (1808–1874), Ritschl (1822–1889) Maybe add their full names here?
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * form critics of the twentieth century until World War II Link WWII as I believe it's not linked yet.
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Martin Kähler is the only one who has no life span?
 * Ooops! Done!Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * The second quest wasn't considered closed until Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965) --> "The second quest was not considered closed until Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965)" per MOS:N'T.
 * Ooops again! Fixed.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


 * quest's pursuit of the apocalyptic Jesus.[47]:2–4[35]:173 Shouldn't the citations be switched in numerical order?
 * Yes! DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Will continue later on. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. It's been really helpful. Your comments have been really helpful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Twentieth century
 * was shaped by two main factors and the clash between them.[22]:20 May I ask you why there's an unnecessary citation here? There's another citation with the same page number just a sentence bellow.
 * Because I'm getting paranoid about every word being properly cited. I removed one of them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * concentrated instead on the kerygma: the message of the New Testament.[49][22]:20 Maybe re-order the refs here?
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Same as Martin Kähler but this time with Rudolf Bultmann? Same with E. P. Sanders, Stanley E. Porter, Ernst Käsemanndoes
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * reinterpretation of the biblical myths ("myth" is defined as descriptions of the divine in human terms) Why is myth here linked?
 * Ummm ... cuz I link everything? removed Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)


 * composition of biblical critics began to change.[22]:21 Same as above with the unnecessary citation.
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * does not necessarily preclude the other.[69][46]:11 Re-order the refs here.
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)


 * N. T. Wright is overlinked.
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * He also needs a life span.
 * I have not included life spans for anyone still living. Is that Okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * E. P. Sanders explains that, because --> "Sanders explains that, because"
 * Okay now, didn't you just have me adding full names above? Sanders is not referred to in this section before this sentence, and I was told each section had to stand on its own, so to speak, in case a reader only read the one section. You and I know who Sanders is but a reader might not. I vote for leaving it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * May I ask you have you read this sentence In the 1970s, the New Testament scholar E. P. Sanders (b. 1937) advanced the New Perspective on Paul which is a couple of sentences above?


 * NO! I missed it! Haha, touché! DONE Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's still there are you sure you've removed the right "E. P. Sanders"?
 * Well I must not have if you say it's still there. I removed another one.  See if that's right now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * CPA-5 is this resolved? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

The rest will follow soon. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much.Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Have responded to your responses. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Have responded to your responses to my responses. :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Textual criticism
 * New Testament is overlinked.
 * I only found one, but I removed it just in case. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * are generally accepted to range from c.110–125 A circa template is needed here.
 * I went and looked for one here and couldn't find one.  Do you know where I could? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * the next best-sourced ancient text is Homer What/who is Homer and link it?
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Charting the variants in the New Testament shows it is 62.9% variant-free Per MOS:PERCENT we shouldn't use the symbol per cent with exceptions of "In the body of scientific/​technical articles, and in tables and infoboxes of any article, the symbol % (unspaced) is more common".
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Link Greek New Testament.
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 19:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Western (Latin translations), and Eastern (used by Antioch and Constantinople).[note 2][84]:213 Per this first citation and then note.
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

That's anything from my Sunday. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:19, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * CPA-5 Please check for anything that has not been resolved to your satisfaction. I want to be sure everything has been fixed or explained or whatever you require. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey Jenhawk777, I have some problems with my monitor and my eyes hurt because of it so I prefer not to be online that much or even not at all. Since Black Friday has passed and Cyber Monday is coming I'm not sure when I will get a new one. This year is gonna be a busy sales. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:11, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * CPA-5 You have my sympathy and understanding. I too have been having troubles with my computer, and I understand how frustrating it can be. If that means you can't post a conclusion here, perhaps User:Gog the Mild will explain what's proper to do.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

All right I'm back but I'll be doing this much slower than expected. I hope I finish the sections' part (before I can move to the next phases like sources, images, infobox, grammar and issues in general) in the coming week. But I won't promise anything!

Problems of textual criticism
 * New Testament papyri, he concluded Clark was right, and Griesbach's rule of measure was wrong.[94][83]:214 Re-order the citations here.
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For example, in the late 1700s, textual critic Johann Jacob Griesbach developed No life span?
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Source criticism
 * written the book of Genesis (the first book of the Pentateuch) --> "written the book of Genesis" Genesis was already mentioned a couple of sections before.
 * Yes it's a slightly reworded restatement of what was already mentioned in the history section as the beginning of biblical criticism, but because it's the beginning, that's unavoidable. It has to be mentioned in both places. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Source criticism of the Old Testament: Wellhausen's hypothesis
 * establish the sources of the first five books of the Old Testament collectively known as the Pentateuch --> " establish the sources of the Pentateuch" The five books were already mentioned a couple of sections before. Also re-order the refs here.
 * Gerda Arendt told me that each section has to stand on its own as if the reader jumped there and didn't read the other sections -  that I can't assume they know something just because I've said it before. Are you advising otherwise? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The Wellhausen hypothesis, also known as the JEDP theory, or the Documentary hypothesis, or the Graf–Wellhausen hypothesis proposes that the Pentateuch was combined out of four separate and coherent (unified single) sources (not fragments). I have some questions here: first where is the citation here? Second, why are some places in bold written?
 * The citations are listed separately where each of these is discussed. Another reviewer wanted them all listed together, he said it confused him when he got to the other paragraphs where it was called something else, even though I said 'was also called'. Bold's been removed. The only thing in bold is the Wellhausen theory as it's the title of the section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * before it was found in BCE 621 by king Josiah --> "before it was found in BCE 621 by King Josiah"
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Critique of Wellhausen
 * which undermines arguments for their separate origins.[104]:36[100]:4[note 4] Re-order the refs here.
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

That's anything for now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * than Wellhausen thought.[109][99]:64[110]:11[note 5] Same as above.
 * DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I reordered the refs as you asked putting them in numerical order, but this practice bothers me. When I have a compound sentence with multiple claims, I put the references in the same order as the claims to make it easier for anyone who wants to check and see the full context of what was said. My other alternative is to break up the sentence with a reference after each individual claim - or use simpler sentences - and neither of those seem like good ideas either. But piling them all at the end in numerical order makes me unhappy too. I don't know how to solve this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * has rejected the main claims of the Documentary theory Why has Documentary an upper case?
 * It's a title, a proper name. That's the only way I've seen it used. although I cant say how it's written everywhere. I can check if you like. I think the other titled theories are all capitalized as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * CPA-5 Glad to see you back! Thank you for all of this! Happy holidays! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Source criticism of the New Testament: the synoptic problem That's anything for now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As sources, Matthew, Mark and Luke are partially dependent on each other and partially independent of each other. I think you better can change "sources" to "books" since this makes more sense.
 * It references the previous sentence: "This has revealed that the Gospels are both products of sources and sources themselves. As sources..." If I change it to books, it introduces a new concept that is not previously mentioned. I can't say I agree that's a good idea. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * but six hundred of those verses are in Matthew and 350 of them are in Luke --> "but 600 of those verses are in Matthew and 350 of them are in Luke"
 * Thank you for catching that! Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Hope you and yours are staying safe and have a wonderful holiday season. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I am archiving this nomination. It has been open for nine weeks and there is little sign of a consensus to promote. The discussion above suggests that its nomination may have been premature. It also suggests that there is a promotable FAC there, with some further, off-FAC, work, and I look forward to seeing it back here in the future; subject to the usual two week wait. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)