Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Biblical criticism/archive2

Comments from SandyGeorgia

• There is not a consistent citation style: some page numbers are rp, others are embedded in the citation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Currently, presently ... see MOS:CURRENT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
• Please review MOS:CAPTION; there are punctuation errors in both directions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia Okay now. I went over using rp in some detail at [1] with these editors User:Yaakovaryeh, User:Nick Moyes and User:AlanM1 who all corrected me for using rp throughout the article. We went through the entire article changing it to what you now say is inconsistent. Who is right?

Where is currently misused? I am happy to change it, but I need detail, since it is occasionally an appropriate term.

I have gone back and changed currently to extant and included its definition, so hope that works okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Nothing has been done to the captions of the images since they passed the original FA review two years ago. I don't see the problems you refer to, and I checked the references you listed. Perhaps I just don't understand. Those captions that are sentence fragments have no periods at the end, those that have complete sentences with periods have them on every sentence. What punctuation errors are there? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps I already caught all of them, but you might still want to check, as I stopped after fixing three. There is one instance of currently and one of presently. Also, keep in mind that every FAC is a new venture. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia Thank you so much, I appreciate that. I will go look at every caption. I only found one use of 'currently' using control 'F'. The proper term is really "extant" which means 'currently existing', but it is jargon, which confuses people, so I 'translated' it into ordinary language. If you think it would be better to use extant, I will change it. It's certainly simpler. Presently is now redone as 'in the twenty-first century.'

I will try to do as you suggest and keep in mind that every FAC is a new venture. I wasn't sure how this worked. Beginning this one two years ago was my first FAC, and I didn't finish it, so I am relatively clueless about this whole process. Thank you for your patience and your help. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:48, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

What is the conclusion concerning the use of rp? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

There are actually multiple citation inconsistencies, that would probably be better dealt with on talk. I cannot decipher what the citation style is ... either for author names, page numbering, and there are basic problems like missing access dates and unlinked DOIs. There are at least four different author styles, some use of pages, some use of pp. and some use of p. when referring to multiple pages. There are considerable citation cleanup needs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh wow. I used the citation template and filled in the squares pretty consistently I think. I have no idea what style that is. I was told access dates weren't required. Sigh. I'll go through and try to clean up p. and pp. What's an author style? How do I link DOI's if they aren't linked automatically? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I went through all the references and found three of the pp. that needed changing and did so. Do I need to go through and add access dates on all the references? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the kind of work that should be done pre-FAC. I will summarize the citation and other MOS problems later on talk so as not to overwhelm the FAC. Books and journals do not need access dates; websites do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• WP:MSH the article title has “criticism”, which is repeated at both level 2 and level 3 headings. The word criticism can be struck from most of the section headings, as it is repeating higher level headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

On it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

All gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia I believe I have now addressed every issue raised on the Talk page. Every book is formatted through the cite book template, all authors are listed in the same manner, last name first, all titles are italicized, and all pages are spaced accordingly except for rps. All 229 rps are without spaces between the numbers, have dashes for a range and commas for individual page numbers, and are all alike. All the isbns are there, though some of the books predate isbn, those that have them are there, and every one has been checked, and they are all correct. There are 9 or 10 that are Amazon not Google, but they are all findable through the isbn #. Every cite journal and web has all the information available, uses the cite templates, and are all locatable and accurate. I hope I have done all that you requested. I moved the nav box, added a suitable image to the lead, and made the changes you indicated, including removing the "only" claim entirely. You have been amazing and I have learned a lot from you. Thank you again for your time and patience and for not just giving up on this article - or me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Whew, that was a lot of work, but accomplished very quickly!
For other reviewers, I have not done a comprehensive MOS check, nor have I done a source check (rather focused on formatting issues). Hopefully this work has made the article cleaner now for an examination of prose and sourcing. I will check in again later for a MOS re-review, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Why do we have quotes here at all, much less single quotes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

• the 'scientific' concern

For emphasis of its significance, its difference, and the paradox of applying science to a book of faith. The scientific view is a new view at this time, separate from what came before it - a complete paradigm shift in thinking. Science itself was new and revolutionary, and applying it to the Bible was earthshaking. It turned out to honestly be as earthshaking as they thought too. It seemed like marking that to draw attention to it was appropriate. If this is OR again, I will remove it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

ok, see MOS:EMPHASIS. Not a biblical scholar, don’t know if someone else will object to the emphasis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia I can't imagine that even the Fundies would object to that emphasis as it is well known and what sets biblical criticism apart - for better and worse. There is no reliable quality source for any objection, at any rate, as all sources emphasize that this was a new approach to studying the Bible that coincided with the scientific revolution and science being applied everywhere to everything. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall ever reading this before, and I would have sworn I read all the stuff on MOS. Thank you, yet again. I will take care of this - and remember it.Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:51, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

User:SandyGeorgia Hello, hope you are well today. I am concerned that no one else is showing up, and wonder if taking this in at a glance is leading people to think this is all still unresolved. Should we strike it or something? Should I strike my responses? Can you strike the whole thing? Does it even matter? Am I being paranoid? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Traveling, in the car on a hotspot; FAC is excruciatingly slow these days, see my essay, making it imperative to show up with all your ducks in a row. More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

MOS and citation issues

JenHawk777, see the essay I referred you to before you opened the FAC. It can be very off-putting to other reviewers when a FAC becomes overly long because of housekeeping issues that are best dealt with before approaching FAC. It is also adviseable to keep your answers and queries brief; if you don't understand what a reviewer is asking for, then briefly ask for clarification. As the former FAC delegate (now called Coordinators), I can assure you that reading through lengthy commentary that veers away from "is this article ready" is tedious, but the bigger concern is that it discourages subsequent reviewers.

To clear up some of the things you have mentioned ... an image review deals with image licensing, not necessarily captions. Books and journals don't need accessdates because they are static; websites change and do need acessdates, lest they change after you accessed them. Every FAC is a new venture; little that went on in the prior FAC is relevant, as different sets of eyes may show up to each FAC. Normally, when there are significant cleanup needs, I oppose and suggest withdrawal to better prepare for FAC; in this case, I am not, because of some of what was stated in the previous FAC, but for future FAs, the advice in my essay stands :) Also, it is not uncommon for reviewers to disagree; when that occurs, a brief request for clarification is best.

SandyGeorgia Thank you for your patience, genuinely. I read the essay, but clearly didn't absorb all you wanted me to get out of it. I will read it again. I will try to say less, make my questions clearer, and not to sound disagreeable when I am actually just confused. Much of WP is still obscure to me. I am afraid you are walking this through with a toddler here, so bless you and thank you.

Great :) I was willing to help out pre-FAC, but I guess I did not make that clear enough. And now, because you have considerable content on an important topic, I don't want to see your FAC sidelined by MOS issues, when it should be focused on substance. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

MOS

• The RFC has not yet closed, but there is considerable opposition to using navigational boxes in the lead. I suggest moving the box down and using an image there.

Is the nav box the same as the Bible sidebar? I moved the Bible sidebar down to the first section of history and removed an image there.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes that's it. Now what if you were to instead put something like the Richard Simon history as the lead image? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I can do that if you recommend it, however, it is next to the text that refers to it right now--does that not matter? If you say it doesn't then I will move it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I have two more questions about images and nav boxes. Down at the bottom of the page there is a link to Wikimedia commons that says it has images relating to biblical criticism. I went to look at them and there is a cool nav box that I am wondering if it might not be better than the one someone else put on the Bible here. I wanted your opinion on that.

Could you please tell me which? The way to put an image into a textual description is add a : before the File within brackets. Also, this is more of a general question that does not really impact on whether the article is FA quality ... again, editorial decision better sorted out on article talk than during a FAC, to avoid a lengthy FAC that doesn't focus strictly on "does this article meet WIAFA". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

There is also a good graphic of Wellhausen's documentary theory that I really like, but it's in German. Is it copacetic to translate it and use it? Can it be posted as is in an English page? I won't do anything without your say so. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It is your choice what to do here, but I am suggesting that it would be helpful to have a lead image. There is no reason within WIAFA to object to an image in German, but without knowing which image you are suggesting, I can't opine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Got it. I added a lead image that seemed appropriate to me. The image I would like to add to Wellhausen is: File:WellhausensTheory.png|thumb|WellhausensTheory - without its brackets so it doesn't show up here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Here is how you make it not show up here (see the colon before the word file): File:WellhausensTheory.png. That gives me a clickable link so I can go look at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I think both that, and what you currently have, are too busy for the lead. But a) I am not an image person at all, and b) these are editor consensus things that should be worked out pre-FAC. You really shouldn't base it on only me. But I think both of them are trying to convey too much info at once, and will distract from the lead. You want the readers actually reading your lead, not trying to decipher what the image is about. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I added an image to the lead and wanted the Wellhausen diagram to go down in the discussion of his theory. It illustrates it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• As Buidhe stated, the article is cluttered by images. Not only is there MOS:SANDWICHing, but many of these images do not advance understanding of the topic and are not needed.

I can see that. I removed all the images of people. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

It may not have been necessary to remove all of them-- just enough to lower the "picture book" feel and Sandwiching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• Images need to be placed within sections, not just above them, for ACCESSIBILITY concerns.

Got it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

• I fixed the faulty hyphens to WP:ENDASHes with a script; please be aware of the differences in WP:DASHes if adding new date or page ranges.
  • This should not be an WP:ENDASH, rather a hyphen: have pointed to weaknesses in the redaction–based arguments
  • Ditto: In the mid–twentieth century,
    • I fixed those two; there may be more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • There are spaced WP:EMDASHes. In Wikipedia's house style, EMDASHES are unspaced. Eg: of a literary work — author, text, reader — within your prose, you can use either spaced WP:ENDASHes or unspaced WP:EMDASHes. Either is fine as long as you are consistent.

Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I am throwing my dear friend under the bus, but I didn't do any of these, because I don't understand any of it. Can you clarify what I need to do to fix it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If you just say whether you prefer unspaced emdashes, or spaced endashes, I am happy to fix them for you. But it's good to generally understand when hyphens are used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no attachment to a dash style. If you have a preference and are willing to do such a tedious task to help me, I would be overwhelmingly grateful. I will attempt to read and absorb about dashes as well.

I switched to unspaced WP:EMDASHES. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Why is this italicized? prompted Schechter to describe "Higher Criticism as Higher Anti-semitism".[141] Is it a book? The citation does not lead to a book of that title, which is confusing.

It is not the title of a book, it's just a quote. Italics are gone. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

So then why is it in uppercase ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

That's how it's written in the source. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Allen P. Ross (Beeson Divinity School, Samford University), "The Study of Textual Criticism" Guide to the methodology of textual criticism. Is SAMFORD supposed to be STANFORD? Why are all of these External links not in Further reading? See MOS:APPENDIX.

Samford is correct.

It is quite difficult to understand what link is. The link is to the Christian Leadership Center. Whatever the source is, it needs to be clearly fleshed out. I can't decipher from when comes the detail about Beeson Divinity School, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

By all these External links do you mean the references to scholars' bona fides? Should I go through and move them all? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

If I move all those links to the external link section, then there will be no reference, no footnote number, at the place where they are used, right? This is just confusion, not disagreement okay? I was told to do this when we don't have a blue link for someone so there is some reference to why we should care what that person says, and while I am assuming you are the one in the right on this, I am still confused--should I just remove those links and red link them instead? And there were some that have pages on other language WP and those are gone now too. Should they go to external links too? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, I understand. You don't yet seem to have a clear understanding of the difference between the use of the Appendices, "Further reading" vs. "External links". Could you have a thorough read of WP:EL, and MOS:APPENDIX, and then I will try to help sort out your confusion. Sources that are used in the citations are never included in Further reading, so I am unsure what you are asking. For a Featured article, which should be comprehensive, you should be able to justify why something is included in Further reading ... that is, what it provides that can't be included in the article. I am unsure what you are asking ... we will need to sort this further. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Okay, I read them and as near as I can figure out from what it says, these are 'links to avoid' as they don't directly address content, so I have taken them all out. I have to say, it considerably cleans up the look of the refs. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• The Bible portal can go in the last appendix; there is no need for a separate section.

Moved. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

That created other problems. Please read WP:LAYOUT; I hope I have corrected it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I thought I was doing as asked. Truly. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

It's all fixed now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

May I add another thank you? This is a valuable educational experience for me - though I may never understand dashes - I appreciate all you are teaching me through this process and especially the time and patience it is taking. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that's nice of you :) I wish we could have done all of this at a more leisurely pace, pre-FAC, and I worry about not cluttering your FAC with stylistic things. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Citation formatting

SAMPLES ONLY, there are more

• Author formatting; there is no consistent style for authors. Most have last name first, but there are random first names first, sample, Timothy W. Seid.

I am beginning now to go through them all and make sure there is a consistent style and info on all of them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I found a half dozen that needed changing. I'm embarrassed. They are now all the same author style, with last names first.

Also, those bona fides stand out like a sore thumb in the reference list don't they? I see what you are saying about them being in the external links section instead, except I wonder if they even need to be here at all. Should I just remove them? There is no WP rule about having refs for people who aren't blue linked is there? I can't find one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I am unsure what you are asking here. But I am not sure yet that you are understanding the distinction between citations and External links. What is it that you are suggesting or asking if you should remove? If you provide a diff to the changes you made, it may be more clear to me what is done and what remains to be done. I pulled this diff, which I think/hope is where you made adjustments. Notes:

I did do those! I think that is all of them. I removed the personal reference links. Those links were about the scholars themselves - providing a look at their curriculum vitae in order to validate them as a reliable source when there was no WP page on them that did so - not the content of the article. So they didn't seem to qualify for EL and they weren't actually a reference like like other references either, so I took them out. I didn't think I could ever make them meet all the requirements to keep them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Journals and books do not need accessdates; websites do. Also, when the title of article includes a quote, but the format of the citation also includes a quote in the title, to not end up with double quotes, you have to reduce the quote in the title to a single quote.[2]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I will remember that - are those things okay now? Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Rechecking, I still see issues. Will start a new list as this is getting complicated : ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• On some page numbers, you use the range, yet others, list the pages. See this correction; you need to have one style and stick to it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
• Similarly, sometimes you leave no spaces between page nos (rp|151,152,153), other times you leave a space ( pp. 96, 119–122). Whatever your citation style is, it should be consistent. (I suspect that when you went with the rp system of using page numbers, you ended up with quite a mess of no citation style). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I'll bet I'm more afraid of that than you are... Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I went to try and change the spacing of #2 ( pp. 96, 119–122) and it is written without spaces in the ref itself so the spaces automatically went in because I use the template. That same spacing apparently doesn't happen when using rp, so does that mean I have to go add spaces to every rp? That will look horrible and be a big distraction when reading. Aaarrgh! What do I do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

meh ... don't worry about it then, unless someone else raises it. Leave them without spaces. I don't use rp, so don't know the problems that occur with them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• I now see you answered this below. 'Tis a very weird system that was forced upon you here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so, if I mean for there to be a range - like 70-75 - for that broad topic I mentioned, I use the dash, but if I mean each page is a separate reference, I should not list them separated by commas but still use the dash? Is that right? Because the page numbers connect? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there a convention in biblical publishing where we don't just express a page range? I don't know the answer. To my mind, giving a range is cleaner. The reader then knows the topic is mentioned on all those pages. I've never seen a convention where you list each page separately when they are consecutive pages, but perhaps that is standard in the publishing you are familiar with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes! Thank you! You're right! I see it all the time and sort of assume it when I do. But it was in the first FAC review that I was told to narrow my page range and not include the entire discussion but just the specific thing I was referring to. Some of the discussion of these complex ideas go on for a long time, and I thought people might actually want to know more on occasion, but that apparently is a fault in a FAC. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Why is author Graham Ward linked to allegory in the citation template ??? If you link an author in a citation, it should be to his article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea. I don't recall doing it myself. It's gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:11, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• There appear to be book titles that are not italicized and are also missing ISBNs, samples (there are more):

All the book titles have to be italicized? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:ITALICS; book titles are *always* in italics, whether in text or in a citation. When you use cite book, it automatically italicizes them. Presumably you have used cite book whenever you are citing a book, and you will end up with a correctly italicized title. The two that I mentioned below are not showing correctly. Did you check all books for correct italicization on title and ISBN? The way to check your ISBNs is to click on the ISBN, and that will take you to a page where you can look up the book on Amazon, or Google, or Worldcat etc to make sure you have everything right. The point of this is to allow readers to locate the book in a library or to purchase it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• • Russell, Jeffrey Burton. Mephistopheles: The Devil in the Modern World. United Kingdom, Cornell University Press, 1990.
  • Stout, Jeffrey. The flight from authority: religion, morality, and the quest for autonomy. United Kingdom, Routledge, 1981.p.41

I have now properly templated these and all others. Everything should be italicized accordingly and yes I am in the process of checking every ISBN. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Still checking. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• There are typographical spacing issues ... see Stout above. Why is it not p.SPACE41 as other refs. Similar throughout.

I have no idea. I will check and fix. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe these are all fixed now. All refs with an ISBN have them listed in the citation. Spacing should be fixed as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Except that there is a difference in the way the rp templates are using spaces, and the citation templates are using spaces. I mentioned this above ... you sometimes have spaces in page nos, others not. (You may be beginning to see why so many editors hate the rp templates :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I do see what you are saying. The spacing goes in automatically in the template and doesn't for rp, but adding all those spaces to rp - which is visible - will really clutter up the text. I don't know what to do. Is it enough to have consistency in the rp as they are so visible? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

As I mentioned above (somewhere :) don't worry about it then. Sometimes on Wikipedia, we have to live with the vagaries of the templates. Not worth worrying about. Unless someone else complains, and then they can explain how to fix it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

May a thousand blessings fall upon on you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• There are incomplete citations
  • "Sharon Betsworth". Schools and Colleges. Oklahoma City University. Professor of Religion & Director of the Wimberly School of Religion ... no final punctuation, no accessdate. There are multiple websites used with no accessdates, and the actual names of the webpages need to be reviewed.

This is one of those bona fides. How about if I just remove all of these? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, now I understand what you mean by "bona fides" included. No, we don't do that in citations unless it is part of the title. And just removing that part does not correct the overall citation, which has other errors. Almost none of your websites are cited correctly. All webcites need a title and a publisher and a link. If a publication date is available, it is included. They must include an accessdate. The title must agree with what is on the page. Giving you one example:

• "Sharon Betsworth". Oklahoma City University. Retrieved October 12, 2020.

All citations to webcites need review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Further reading is supposed to be formatted the same as the citations, so same problem with author names.

I'll fix those next. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I hope this is okay now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Inconsistency in how page numbers and rp are used. If you can explain what system you are using, I can review further.

I was strong-armed into this remember! When a reference is only used once, its page numbers are within the citation. If a reference is used multiple times, each instance's use has its page numbers in a separate rp: rp is only used for multiple uses of the same reference. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't remember, because I wasn't part of the earlier FAC, and find it impossible to read. It went way off track many times, and you would have been well advised to FIRST get a FAC mentor to help you deal with these stylistic issues, so that the FAC could focus on your considerable work on content. It is unfortunate you went to that system, but we are where we are. OK, now I know your system :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. You were the first to answer when the FAC was posted this time, and I included a link to the talk section that discussed this, so that's what I was referring to - not the first FAC. I did get a mentor and do a peer review before the first FAC, which made me think it wasn't necessary this time. Silly me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This has been addressed above.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Why is this not expressed as page range, when others are? .[171]:151,152,153

Page ranges are inside some citations when applicable to the broader topic being discussed, especially used when there is an rp# outside referencing only the specific claim in the sentence, but these page numbers represent three specific references to the claim in the sentence, they are not about the broader topic.Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Inconsistency in how editions are expressed ...
  • Michaelis, Johann David (1802). Introduction to the New Testament. II (part II) (Second ed.). F. and C. Rivington.
  • Soulen, Richard N.; Soulen, R.Kendall (2001). Handbook of biblical criticism (third ed.).

These are referenced this way because the edition is included as part of the title when you google it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe they are all fixed now. I had apparently filled in the edition box on the citation even when it was in the title so I removed those duplications. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Many cases of missing ISBNs (see Soulen just above)

All fixed now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• Davies, Philip R. (20 September 2014). "Biblical Studies: Fifty Years of a Multi-Discipline" (pdf). Sage Journals. 13: 34–66. doi:10.1177/1476993X13508083. S2CID 147421901. Research article .. why are the words "research article" appended to this ref?

Idk, but it's gone now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• What is your system for when you include location on publishers and when you don't?

I never include location anymore. If they are in a citation, someone else did it. Do you want me to go through them and add them or eliminate them? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Generally, you must be consistent. Specifically, whenever there is confusion about location, it should be included. For example, if there is a newspaper name that is used in multiple locations, we express the location (sample, see El Universal). I see a Minneapolis in Further reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, there are none of those. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Prose

• Please check usage of however, per overuse of however; they are better ways to lead into sentences than starting them with however.
• Ditto for subsequently redundancies.

... all I have time for now, to be continued. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

I found ten uses of however and now there are two. I only found two uses of subsequently but they are both gone now as well. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• "There are a total of only 476 extant ... " This is redundant; "There are a total of only 476" says exactly the same thing as "There are 476 ... ". To write at the FA level, I highly suggest going through all of the exercises at User:Tony1/How to improve your writing. His advice will help you weed out stuff like this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Ouch. I understand. I did it for emphasis. Is that not allowable on the rare occasion when the point seems worth emphasizing? Jenhawk777 (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, I started this talk section to focus on stylistic issues, so they would not derail your (very worthy) FAC, but this is getting away from style and into substance, that should be raised back at the FAC. When you say "I did it for emphasis", that translates in Wikispeak to editorializing or original research. We can't do that. Unless you have a scholarly source that somehow qualifies this number, we can only state the number and let the reader decide. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, I didn't know that. I'll remember that, thanx. I think I will rewrite some of what's in that section using a different source. The one I used there is an undergrad course at Brown university and the citation from 2018 is no longer accessible, so I used the pdf instead, but I think I can do better. I'll get back to you on this one. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Continuing

Starting a new list, as things are getting hairy above !

• cite web |last1=Moreira-Almeida |first1=Alexander |last2=Neto |first2=Francisco Lotufo |last3=Koenig |first3=Harold G |title=Religiousness and mental health: a review |url=https://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?pid=S1516-44462006000300018&script=sci_arttext |website=Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry |publisher=SciELO |accessdate=6 August 2020

This is wrong several ways. First, it is a journal, it should be cite journal (which will correctly format the rest of the information. Second, journals do not need accessdates. Third, it is not wrong to include the Publisher, but it is rare to do so. Whatever you choose to do on Journals (include publisher or not), make sure you are consistent. Fourth, website= should be journal= Check all journal sources that you have used cite journal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The reference has now been changed and all cite journals have been checked. There are no publishers in any of them now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Good, done. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• In checking your cite webs, I found this lacking a publisher and lacking a date.
  • But more importantly, the citation is dated 2004 so the statement it is backing is likely dated. We need either a new source that is updated, or you need to say:
    • As of 2004, there were 476 extant (existing ancient manuscripts) non-New Testament manuscripts dated to the second century. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I will. This is a replacement reference. The original, which is actually a Brown professor's undergraduate class, became inaccessible since 2018 when it was first posted. All the newer sources are "Forbidden access". I will look for another source. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

OK, this is again another instance that moves beyond style into substance. First, we should not be using undergraduate class synopses at all for a Featured article, which requires higher quality, scholarly sources. Second, a thorough survey of the literature is required. If you do not have journal access to important articles, there are ways to get it. You can ask collaborators if they have access, you can request them from the Wikipedia Research library, or you can go to a library. If there are scholarly sources that you are not using because you do not have access, that is a pretty serious issue for a FAC; it means we don't know what else might be left out. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I always check twice as many sources as I end up using. I do use the Resource exchange and the library. When I used what became a forbidden class, it wasn't one yet, it was accessible as a research article. He later turned it into a class and closed access, but that was after I was gone. It was a really good article! Never saw a class synopsis, so don't worry about any of that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• Still checking web citations. In this instance, it is unclear to me what the citation is sourcing, why it is needed, and whether this is the quality of source required for an FA, but at any rate, it needs formatting adjustments:
  • Socio-scientific criticism cite web |title=Social-scientific Criticism |url=https://webpages.scu.edu/ftp/cmurphy/courses/all/bible/exegesis/social-scientific.htm |website=Religious Studies Department Exegesis |publisher=Santa Clara University |accessdate=6 August 2020
    • The date (2020) is found at the bottom of the page, and the author (found at the top and the bottom) is Catherine M. Murphy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Not yet corrected? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I have some real life issues going on here at the same time I am doing this. I replaced this one with a book. There are now only 4 cite web and I think they are okay. I am checking all ISBNs for accuracy - that's slow, but I will finish it and be back. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• I do not pretend to have addressed all of the citation formatting issues; you will need to carefully go though all of your sources re-checking for all of the kinds of errors I've raised. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• My opinion only, but the dreadful navigational sidebox now in the History section is detracting from the article (still) and cluttering the top of the article. Is it possible to move it down lower, to one of the empty sections? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

You know, I don't care if we remove it entirely. Someone else added it and I didn't argue. Whatever you think is okay by me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

That's not a decision I am comfortable making; you are the scholar and main editor here and my opinion is just a personal preference (that is, not backed by any guideline yet, as the RFC has not closed). I would at least for now move it down at minimum to de-clutter the top of the article. There are several sections with no images where it can be placed. I would also worry that if you remove it entirely, the person who added it will just add it back, and then you could be getting into 1e (stability) territory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay. Will do. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It is now moved down to the very last section. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

• It is still unclear why all of these external links are needed. A featured article should be comprehensive, so we need to understand what these links add that cannot or has not been included in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

They are exactly the same as Further reading. But I don't care if they are removed if that's what you recommend. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm concerned that we're still not understanding each other on this.

Do you mean that what is listed as "External links" was intended to be listed as "Further reading"? If so, they should be worked in, alphabetical order, and formatted completely and correctly in the same style used for citations.

But more importantly, your editorial input into which are really useful, and why, is needed. Drive-by editors tend to plop things in to External links and Further reading for promotional reasons. An FA should be comprehensive, so you should have a reason for anything that is listed there. Those reasons have to come from you; you are the topic expert, and I know nothing of biblical criticism. It is your call as to which are useful. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought Further reading was only books. Is that incorrect? Because if that's wrong then they should all be in further reading! There is a short description w/my editorial input by each link. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia I saw what you did on Further reading and it is awesome. It looks better and makes more sense. You are amazing and wonderful. Thank you so much! Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

You are welcome! I am still not entirely convinced that we have Further reading and External links nailed down, but it's at a stage now where we will see what other reviewers think. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Ovinus

Planning to review this over the weekend! Agree with Sdkb's sentiment that these types of articles should get our attention. I have an overarching question that has been asked here before: why past tense? In the Definition section it's defined as "the effort at using scientific criteria (historical and literary) and human reason to understand and explain, as objectively as possible, the meaning intended by the biblical writers." Is this effort truly finished, as in there is no scholar—and will never be a scholar again—that scientifically investigates the Bible? Or has it just left the mainstream?

I think there needs to be a very compelling argument to use past tense on something like an academic practice, especially one that died so recently. Overall it feels like the lead is trying to place the history of general biblical analysis on a neat timeline, with biblical criticism giving way to new, distinct methods because of greater diversity in the field. I'm no expert, but I doubt the change was so clean?

I recognize that this change is recent, but I would really like to see a reliable source that uses the past tense to refer to biblical criticism, as defined in this article. I think either the definition needs to be stricter, or the scope of the article needs to be expanded. But the "progeny" bit in the lead doesn't seem to have corresponding info in the article body, hence my confusion. Maybe there's just too much vagueness around the term "biblical criticism" itself... whoever came up with that name is probably looking down at me laughing! Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you so much for caring enough to show up here! I am genuinely grateful. I look forward to working with you. As to the past tense, the change only looks recent. It was always an aspect of this article in the lead and in the twentieth-century history section. The recent change was simply an effort to clarify. The Handbook of Biblical Criticism is the source where I found what I explain below. If there is a better way to communicate what I am trying to say, I am certainly open to changing it.

Biblical criticism as it originated in the enlightenment has now transformed into other forms that do not share the original's basic characteristics. I think of the new forms as children of the parent form: they are all family, and are all, therefore, biblical criticism, but the old form was historical, it claimed neutrality, and it focused on pre-compositional issues like: how did this text develop, where did it come from, and what did it say originally? The new forms are not historical, they are literary, they focus on what the text says now, and they do not claim neutrality but claim a recognition of what biases are brought to the reading of the text instead. Plus, each one of the new forms is a little bit unique in itself. The point is, the original enlightenment form of BC is "dead" and the new forms of BC are not the same.

Biblical criticism as you are using it - as it is often used - is an umbrella term that is so large it is undefinable with any real precision. Therefore, I attempted to narrow the definition enough to identify these complexities. How do I make it clear that the new is not the old, that the old is no longer practiced in the way it used to be, that BC has transformed into something entirely different without using the past tense for one and not the others? If there is a better way to communicate that, I am most certainly open to suggestions.

Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ovinus Mike Christie has the same objection and had an idea on how to deal with it. See if you think the changes are an improvement. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Ovinus I know it's been a holiday weekend, but you are my last reviewer. I am anxious to finish this up soon, as it's been ongoing since October 11, and a lack of response has already led the coordinator to say he will close it as unresolved. Thank you for participating, but please don't let that happen. You don't have to do more if you no longer have the time, but I would appreciate it if you would say so - or return and let's finish it up together. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It depends on the timescale then... I'm unfortunately quite busy today but I can review the article by tomorrow evening. If that's too late, then I can step back. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 23:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

No, no, that's fine! I will wait as long as needed if I know you're coming back. Forgive me for nagging. My anxiety level on this is high.Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

An important note

I'm concerned about the article's length. According to xtools it's 79k characters of prose, while WP:SIZERULE says that anything over 60k should probably be divided (and certainly anything over 100k). I've read for quite a while and still haven't gotten to the specifics of criticism.

A simple fix would be to spin off the History section into a sub-article, History of biblical criticism. But we're also nearing the end of this article's second FAC. Hopefully someone else can weigh in.

Jumping in to say that while the article could certainly be split, it's not out of the range of long articles promoted to FA. I think it's OK to promote it at this length, though I wouldn't want to see it grow significantly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

[[User:|Mike Christie]] Thanks for that context! I wasn't going to oppose on this issue, but it seems some reviewers have a stricter size requirement. Ovinus (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Here goes, hope I'm not being too picky. Also, you don't have to respond to every comment; if I'm not satisfied I'll bring it up after you've taken a look.

Ovinus You are not the first to raise this issue. SandyGeorgia did as well, and Buidhe answered that she did not like the idea of splitting it - though she might be persuaded. I personally do not like the idea of splitting it for several reasons: one because I have compared this article to other online encyclopedia's articles on this topic, and its length is not out of line with those; two this one contains history, descriptions and critiques, and a legacy section, while most of those other articles do not cover as much, and yet, are just as long; and context matters; having it all together puts it into perspective better to my way of thinking. But as I said to SandyGeorgia, I will bow to the opinion of the majority.

Let me add how grateful I am that you have come here to participate in this. There aren't enough words - thanx seems so inadequate. I had some really bad experiences when I first started WP, and the people here have totally restored my faith in WP. All of you FA reviewers are clearly the best of WP, and it's a privilege to work with you. Thank you for being here and for taking your time to do this. Thank you thank you thank you.

And be as picky as you please. I just finished your lead section and your comments are all good. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Lead

• Biblical criticism is the discipline of attempting to understand and explain biblical texts and the meaning intended by the biblical writers using critical analysis of the Bible. Since the first sentence is new it probably needs to be scrutinized once more. How about "Biblical criticism is the discipline of attempting to understand and explain the intended meaning of biblical texts using critical analysis of the Bible." ? It seems closer to Harrington's definition, removes an extra "biblical", and it's not clear in the original what "understanding and explaining biblical texts"—as opposed to understanding and explaining their intended meaning—really means.
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• In its first form in the eighteenth century, it began as historical-biblical criticism. Taken literally, this means there were multiple forms in the 18th century. How about "In its first form, it began in the eighteenth century as historical-biblical criticism."
  • That's how it was in the first place! Ha ha! Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• It was based... probably should be "This form of criticism was based"
  • Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Any particular reason why "scientific" is emphasized?
  • The importance of criticism being scientific was emphasized in the source and in the period itself; they were making a big deal about science having all the answers. I eliminated a discussion of the positivism of time from the definition because I decided bracketing scientific here was sufficient - trying not to add to length.

Sounds good!

• Correct understanding of it all It's unclear what this means, and it probably would mean different things to different readers, especially because it's prefaced with "belief". Correct understanding of what God intended? Of what the writers intended? It's a bit poetic but there's an associated ambiguity; probably should be "correct understanding of their intended meaning"
  • Okay, but that added length Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

How about we just say "would lead to a correct understanding of their intended meaning"? Again, this is closest to Harrington's definition, and I agree that what you just added is unwieldy.

User:Ovinus I can do that, but it's ever so slightly misleading; intended meaning was only one thing the critics looked for, and they didn't all look for that. Some didn't really care about meaning, they just cared about history, or how it developed and so on. You know what? I just stopped the sentence after understanding - perhaps it doesn't need explaining. It's the lead. It's explained elsewhere. How's that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Jenhawk777 Hm... this is hard. Here's the thing, you're already saying that they're reconstructing the historical events behind the text and the history of the text itself, so saying after that it will also lead to a correct understanding of the text's history and its historical events is redundant—one would guess that, by reconstructing the events/history, you'd get a correct understanding too. I think the "intended meaning" part is critical to avoid ambiguity. I'll think about it. Ovinus (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Ovinus Stopping the sentence after "current understanding" avoids the repetition you don't want and makes me more comfortable not limiting claims to something they weren't. I don't see any ambiguity. I hope this is an acceptable compromise - we are both equally unhappy so it must be. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know if I can agree here... would lead to correct understanding of what? Honestly "a correct understanding of it all" is better than it is now. Ovinus (talk) 06:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

• earlier pre-critical methods Should be "earlier, pre-critical methods", as otherwise "biblical criticism" is considered a pre-critical method
  • Did you mean early? I changed it to that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

What I meant is that you need a comma, otherwise it sounds like historical-biblical criticism is a pre-critical method. "This sets dogs apart from earlier undomesticated animals" implies that a dog is an undomesticated animal.

• • • • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• oppose critically based study Do you mean "oppose criticism-based study"? I've never heard this construction before
  • Done

• post-critical orientation
• If you do implement my above changes, you'll probably need to semicolons in the sentence
  • It's my understanding that semicolons go between independent clauses and none of the clauses in that sentence qualify. It's a list, which gets commas. If I am mistaken, please clarify. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

My grammar isn't great, but according to this, we should use semicolons if any element in the list has commas.

• • • • The example still has independent clauses, but how about a colon? a colon followed by a list uses commas. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• I'll be honest... this first paragraph was a bit overwhelming. I'll think about how it could be improved.
  • Well, it does describe an entire field of study of almost 300 years. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

True!

• ecclesiastical Since we should be writing a level down, maybe just "churches'" ? Or maybe link it
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• historical basis for the man Jesus separately from traditional theological views concerning him A bit confused again. What does "the man Jesus" mean? Can we just say "historical basis of Jesus" and omit the second part?
  • Reimarus was trying to prove Jesus was just an ordinary human and not the god incarnate that Christianity claims. Human vs. divine was/is the issue. I can change it to that if you like, but somehow that has to be conveyed. I tried sometging, see if you like it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Jesus of history Any reason not to use "historical Jesus" ?
  • Done - that shortened it too! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• This "quest" for the Jesus of history began in biblical criticism's earliest stages, reappeared in the nineteenth century, and again in the twentieth, remaining an interest within biblical criticism, on and off, for over 200 years. How about, 'his "quest" for the Jesus of history began in biblical criticism's earliest stages, remaining a recurring interest within biblical criticism for over 200 years.' I don't know if the century markers are so relevant in the lead, but keep if it's important.
  • Done - shortened that too! YAY! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• "Traditional historical-biblical criticism" Is this a subset of historical-biblical criticism? Otherwise I'd probably remove "Traditional".
  • Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• criticism began by examining the writings, called the text, and its manuscripts (the documents that contain the text), to identify what the original text would have said. A bit confused here. The writings are called the text? But "writings" also has physical connotations. Then what is the "original text"?
  • This was changed to suit another reviewer. What the writings say? Whose content is called the text? The content of the writings called the text? It's about content, so, let's try this. Let me know if you don't like it, it still seems a little awkward. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

How about we just say "Textual criticism began by examining biblical manuscripts and their content, tracing their origins to identify what the original text said." I'd link biblical manuscripts just in case people didn't realize that the Bible was written in that way. I just think the current description leads to readers focusing more on the distinction between "text" and "manuscript".

• • • • Brilliant! DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• original sources Probably should be "their original sources"
  • Done

• setting of their origination Can we say "their origin and lineage" ?
  • That would be source criticism. For form criticism, they were in search of the sitz im leben the setting in life that they believed was the situation of the community that originated the text. They believed every form had a different setting that had originated that particular form, and that form was therefore traceable to the setting of its origination. They were wrong, but hey, that's what they did for decades. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Haven't gotten there yet! From reading the top part of that section, I can't think of a clearer way to describe it, and it seems pretty abstract. I'll ping you again if I think of something.

• Literary criticism of the twentieth century Probably should be "Literary criticism, which emerged in the twentieth century, differed from these earlier methods."
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• This led to a transformation of biblical criticism I don't like repeating "biblical criticism", maybe we can combine it with the previous sentence with a comma, saying "leading to its transformation." Though to be fair, I like the emphasis of the short sentence.
  • I went with your first change because it shortened it. I take that wherever I can. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• The fourth paragraph has further soothed my earlier confusion. Thanks!
  • Oh good! And thank you again for doing this. These are good comments! I'm glad you are here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• understood, and saw, the Bible Probably could just remove these commas
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Redaction criticism later developed as a derivative of both source and form criticism combined Could just remove "combined" I think
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

That was my reaction reading the lead. So far, it seems pretty well-structured and presented, though I have some prose concerns. The first paragraph has two consecutive monolithic sentences, but they all provide important information, so I'm not sure what to do there. Shall move on to the rest! Ovinus (talk) 13:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Jenhawk777 Responded to your changes! If I didn't say anything I am happy. When my remaining comments here are actioned on I think I'll be satisfied with the lead. Also, I probably won't be able to get to reviewing today unfortunately, but hopefully the later comments I've made already will keep you occupied! Ovinus (talk) 13:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• • Ovinus Got it! Thank you, that simplifies things for me. I appreciate your effort here. And yes, you are definitely keeping me busy! Don't worry about time anymore, you are here, and are well worth the wait. It was a lack of earlier response from anyone that threatened to close it, but we put out the call, and people have showed up, including you, and it has been amazing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Definition

• academic fields, expanded Remove comma
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• The second paragraph is a bit confusing. By "often conflicting interests", do the disciplines conflict with each other, historical-biblical criticism, or both?
  • All of the above - is it necessary to add an explanation? Does it matter? It would make it longer. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Remove "the criteria of" and "that of"
  • Done - and it's shorter! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Newer forms of biblical criticism are primarily literary, are no longer focused on the historical, and attend to the text as it exists now The second two phrases seem like a restatement of the first. How about setting them off with a semicolon: "literary; they are"
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd like to see "historical-biblical criticism" used and cited in this section somewhere, just so that we know that "historical-biblical criticism" and "Traditional historical criticism" and "traditional biblical criticism" are one and the same (if I'm getting that right). Ovinus (talk) 13:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• • You are getting that right. This was a change for another reviewer too. I had just used biblical criticism throughout, but the difference between new and old was confusing. The citation is there in the first paragraph: Barton, page 31. I have now tweaked the whole thing. See if you think it's any better - or if untweaking would be better!  :-) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

History

Eighteenth century

• Biblical criticism can be said to have begun Feels a bit weasely to me. What does the source say?
  • I have to go back and get it again from the resource exchange, I have already requested it, but I looked at other sources in the meantime: Biblical Criticism: A Brief Discussion of Its History, Principles and Methods says on page 15 that: "The fuller systematic stage of the study of Old Testament criticism began with Jean Astruc." In The oldest book of Hebrew history by Addis, he says on page xx that "...Simon is rightly called the father of Old Testament criticism." This isn't a hard and fast universal declaration however, and that's why the softening of the statement. I'm not sure if any of this is what you're looking for. BC is often said maybe? I'll try that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• The existence of separate sources explained Genesis' literary differences in style and vocabulary how about "The existence of separate sources explained the inconsistent style and vocabulary of Genesis". Per MOS:POSS we should put 's after Genesis, but avoiding is ideal
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• differing accounts I'm not familiar with Genesis. What's the difference between this and "discrepancies in the narrative"
  • differing accounts would be multiple accounts of the same event - there are three flood accounts that are edited together, they think - and discrepancies in the narrative are when something in a story is expected to be there and it isn't, or not there and it is: the earth is seemingly, maybe, created before the sun; when Adam and Eve are cast out, there are evidently other people out there already? Anyway, that type of thing. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• the genesis of biblical criticism Great pun!
  • You are the only one to catch it! Bless you! Two other reviewers made me take out any humor they ran across, are you going to make me remove this one too? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• he is called Probably should qualify it with "often"
  • Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• believed in the divine revelation of the Bible probably should be "believed that the Bible was divine revelation"
  • seems like happy to glad, but it's Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• reason: "For I think it would be okay to use a comma here, and make it reason, "for...
  • That's not what my brief English handbook says, but okay. DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Extreme rationalism I don't know if it's right to call it this in Wikipedia's voice, since standards have of changed, but we're currently talking in 18th century–land. Maybe we could just say "Comparatively extreme rationalism"
  • That drags the modern into the 18th century, how about 'What was seen as extreme rationalism'? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• attempted to navigate a course between How about just "navigated a course between". Currently it sounds like we're saying that this course is difficult to argue—that figuratively speaking, it is treacherous. But more importantly, how could Semler have navigated a course between, when Paulus came after Semler? I think this needs clarification.
  • Okay, I hope this works. I moved and combined sentences. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• the idea that "the idea" could refer to "outward religion". How about replacing this with "the distinction that"?
  • Well, I just used distinguished between, distinction seems like a close repetition, and it's used a couple sentences down. How about I just remove it? See if that's okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• "Despite... for understanding" I've never seen a quote being used as a standalone sentence in prose like this. It feels a bit weird to me; can you paraphrase?
  • It would lose its authority as a paraphrase don't you think? There are several quotes as stand alone sentences in this article.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• there are also histories of biblical scholarship that have found "strong direct links" with British deism Hm... I think we're going two levels out and then one level in. Literally this means that biblical scholars have found strong links in the Bible to British deism. Can we just say "there are also types of biblical scholarship that have 'strong direct links' with British deism" ?
  • Well, no one has found any links to British deism in the Bible that I know of. And there aren't any number of different types biblical scholarship with links to it either. It's histories of biblical criticism, those authors, the historians, that claim a link between BC and British deism. Let me rephrase it and see if it's clearer. DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• British deism should be linked the first time, rather than the third time it appears.
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Tindal's "view of Christianity as a mere confirmation ..." How about Tindal's view of Christanity as "a mere confirmation ... "
  • If Nikkimaria comes back and dings me for words in the text being outside the quotes, I'm going to throw you under the bus - just so you know. Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• "philosopher, writer, classicist, Hebraist and Enlightenment free-thinker" Perhaps we could more quickly describe this polymath! :P How about "philosopher" or "philosopher and writer" outside of quotes?
  • It's a quote! It's the title of the book! It's a very cool description! Grumble, grumble, fine. Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• I agree with your above point that dating scholars helps with the reader's understanding. But I don't know if we should do it for every single scholar. For example, dating Turretin/Paulus/Semler helped, but I think Eichhorn, Gabler, and Bauer can all be lumped into "late 18th/early 19th century".
  • I was told to be consistent, that I had to date all the historical references or none at all, so I went and added these. Please don't make me take them out. Pretty please? with a cherry on top? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• other Semitic languages Other than Hebrew I'm guessing? Perhaps your could say that explicitly, plus link "Semitic language"
  • Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• twenty–first should be hyphen
  • Please clarify. It has a hyphen in every use I see. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• the term "higher criticism" Could this be mentioned in the definition section too? Acknowledging alternate names there is important, I think
  • Already done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• means that the term 'lower criticism' is no longer a term Remove "a term"
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• John W. Rogerson reflects a twenty-first century view of biblical criticism's origins that traces it to the Reformation; this is a minority position but the Reformation is the source of biblical criticism's freedom from external authority imposing its views on biblical interpretation. When I first read this, I thought John W. Rogerson was another 18th century scholar, and had to check the ref. (Maybe he should have been dated too!) Also, Rogerson reflects a minority position which is also a twenty-first century view.... Why is Rogerson singled out in all this?
  • He's the source, but it might read better without him. Is that okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Is Hugo Grotius's work relevant here? What does comparative religion have to do with biblical criticism?
  • It's one of the things BC still does. Many of the early critics were interested in tracing the development of religion itself. Anthropology was a brand new science, as was evolution, and they were all enamored of doing what those scientists did in their study of the Bible. Comparative religion has developed into a whole field unto itself nowadays. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Historical Jesus: the first quest

• Hermann Samuel Reimarus' I think "Reimarus's" should suffice rather than his full name. I've corrected instances of "Reimarus'" per MOS:POSS; hope that's not violating some FAC rule
  • That's how I had it originally! Hah, this is funny - put it in, take it out. I agree with you, and I am grateful for anything you feel like doing. It does not violate any Fac rule, every editor has done some themselves. I did have to revert one once though. He didn't get upset. I was grateful for that too. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• acknowledges that Is this a universal POV, or should we say "considers" instead
  • It is indeed a universally accepted view and has been for a hundred years now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• is a polemic not an objective historical study Should have a comma after "polemic"
  • Yes of course, you're right, but since it was missing from the original quote I didn't add it. A quote is supposed to be exact, so again, Nikkimaria, bus, etc. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• I've changed instances of Jesus' to Jesus's
  • Okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• apocalyptic preacher, motivated by his repeated warnings about both earthly and spiritual ends Not sure what motivated means here, do you mean "as evidenced" ?
  • As evidence of another reviewer... I like your way better, see if you agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• , according to Schweitzer, Can be removed, since this is all Schweitzer offering his comments. Maybe to differentiate the accepted fact of Reimarus's not being a historian from Schweitzer's opinion, we can do something like Schweitzer also comments that since Reimarus was a historian—not a theologian or biblical scholar—he "had not the slightest inkling" ...
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• longterm -> long-term
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• making it clear that biblical criticism could -> "making clear that it could"
  • Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• had also shown biblical criticism -> "His work also showed biblical criticism"
  • Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• In addition, Probably remove, it just interrupts the great prose
  • Flattery will get you anywhere. Done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• in the twenty-first century can probably remove, since we're saying it continues to be debated
  • Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• Gerd Thiessen -> "Gerd Theissen" (typo)
  • Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• now the accepted view Perhaps "scholarly view" or "accepted scholarly view" is more neutral
  • Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Overall, it's quite well structured and written, and understandable even to someone who isn't well-versed (your "genesis" pun is rubbing off on me) in the Bible. Ovinus (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• • Ha ha, I love it! Well versed! Puns are great! Thank you! The FA contributors here have made a big huge contribution to polishing it and getting it up to standard. I owe these reviewers forever, including you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Nineteenth century

• Professor Emeritus of New Testament Studies Richard Soulen and Professor of Systematic Theology Kendall Soulen Could we just call them "professors" ? The capitalization seems a bit aggrandizing
  • Another reviewer, blah blah, DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• (known in German as Kultgeschichtliche Schule or Religionsgeschichtliche Schule) Maybe we could put this in a footnote?
  • That's a brilliant idea.
• It would be nice, after the above edit, to combine these two sentences, making it "... the history of religions school,^{[note n][4]:161} a group of German Protestant ..."
  • All the above: Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• many concepts that are influential in the twenty-first century, began here in the nineteenth. Does this have a citation? If so maybe it could be moved after this sentence, because on its face it looks like WP:SYNTH from the example of Baur
  • see below Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• many concepts How about "many related concepts"
  • Most of them actually,
• For example, in 1835, and again in 1845, how about "For example, in 1835 and again in 1845, theologian Ferdinand ..."
• I'd suggest not dating Baur because we have an idea of when he's active anyway.
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• postulated a sharp contrast I don't know if this is the most appropriate diction. It's also quite vague what the contrast is. Clarify?
  • Have redone this whole paragraph, is it sufficient? Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• methodological doubt, analogy (the idea that all events are similar in principle), and mutual inter-dependence I don't understand what this means
  • well if you don't know one else will either. Fixed, I hope. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• what Anders Gerdmar calls a paradigm shift Do we have to attribute that it was a paradigmatic shift to Gerdmar, or can we just attribute the quote to him?
  • I've moved him Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• anti-semitic -> "antisemitic"
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• It was picked up By "it" do you mean the contrast? Probably should clarify that
  • removed the phrase Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• As above, I don't think dating these scholars is very helpful. Hopefully we can have a brief discussion about that, but it's also not a big deal.
  • My only objection to the change would be on the grounds of consistency. That has been a big bugaboo and might be grounds for failure to some. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Historical Jesus: the Lives of Jesus

• Why is "Lives" capitalized in the title?
  • It's a proper title. At least each Life of Jesus is, so maybe lives shouldn't be. Fixed.

• primarily involved writing versions of the life of Jesus I'd probably qualify "versions" with "their own versions"
  • Who else's version would they be writing? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• The book was culturally significant because it contributed to weakening church authority, and it was theologically significant because it challenged christology. This could be clearer. The book was theologically significant because it challenged christology... did nothing do so before? What exactly about christology did it challenge?
  • How about the divinity of Christ? And no, that had never been seriously challenged before the modern era. All the early heresies accepted the divinity of Christ. The argument with the gnostics was over whether he was a real human as well as a divine being. The monophysites argued over whether his dual nature as human and divine meant he had two wills. No one argued that he wasn't divine. Celsus ridiculed the idea, as did some others, but there were no real theological challenges to it before the 1800s. Funny isn't it? We take doubt for granted now. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• in The Essence of Christianity, published in 1900, how about "in The Essence of Christianity (1900),"
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• that there was a historical core about him in Mark Probably should be something a bit less vague, maybe just: "that the gospel of Mark had any element of historical accuracy regarding Jesus"
  • that would be an inaccurate overstatement not supported by the source. I have changed it to be more specific and added a source. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Why is Old italicized and capitalized?
  • It's a title, "The Old Quest", and it's set apart from 'first' as it isn't universally agreed upon, but I went ahead and removed the italics. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• as reflecting more of the lives of the authors than Jesus I just thought this was really funny
  • Schweitzer knew how to turn a phrase. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• by proving to most of that scholarly world should probably be "by proving, to most of the scholarly world, that the teachings..."
  • Hmmm, I'm uncomfortable with the ambiguity of that. It sounds like that is an ongoing proof, to the scholarly world of now included, and that would be inaccurate. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• He concluded I kind of like "Schweitzer concluded" here instead, just because the male subject Jesus was thrown in there
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I have some worries about the list of mostly unrelated scholars in this sub-subsection, but otherwise, this is pretty good! Ovinus (talk) 15:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Twentieth century

• biblical criticism was shaped by two main factors and the clash between them a bit too figurative I think, would suggest removing "and the clash between them"
  • Oh no, that's crucial to what transpired in the 20th century. It eventually gave rise to canonical criticism which changed everything that came after it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• leading NT I think you can just omit NT here entirely
  • But they are different from Old Testament scholars, or biblical scholars, or religious scholars, etc. etc. - they all study different things. The reference specifically said NT.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• in the contributions archaeology could make to biblical studies can be "in archaeology's potential contributions to biblical studies"
  • seems like happy to glad, but okay. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• "original text" which needs a comma after the double quote
  • I didn't agree, so I offer a compromise. I split the sentence. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Jesus's first century Jesus's first-century
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe wikilink redaction criticism?
  • It's already linked in the lead. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• As with Old before, is there a reason why New is capitalized and italicized? I understand that there are distinct historical quests, but if they're just called "old" and "new", I don't know if doing this is helpful; let me know
  • I don't really think we have the right to say whether how they are titled is helpful or not. It's how they titled themselves. It's capitalized in the sources, so I think that's the way to go. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Who is James M. Robinson? Should he be given a redlink?
  • Sorry, he has a wikilink Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• radically and pervasively Together, this sounds pretty negative. how about "began an extensive and radical change."
  • Those are the terms used in the source. The full quote is: "...new approaches proliferated during the 1970s and 1980s and their impact was so pervasive and radical that some compared their advent to the introduction of historical-critical methods 200 years before. By 1990 biblical criticism had been transformed..." page 21, Soulen Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• New criticism developed as an adjunct to literary criticism concerning the particulars of style The grouping here is unclear. Is "literary criticism concerning the particulars of style" a group or "new criticism... concerning the particulars of style" a group? Also, should it be capitalized as "New Criticism" ? If the first (which is what I'm guessing) just put a comma after "literary criticism".
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• post-critical biblical interpretation I can take a guess as to what this means, but maybe a link to internal section would help? If you do link it, I think you could remove "biblical"
  • Removed biblical, but I don't know what you mean about a link to an internal section - of what? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• often conflicting interests You said above that they conflicted with each other and with the original. I think this should be specified. What does the source say?
  • "By 1990 biblical criticism had been transformed from a basically historical discipline consisting in interrelated methods to a field of disciplines with much more disparate and conflicting interests". He then has a list of examples: Linguistics; Reception theory; Semiology; Sociological interpretation; Psychological biblical interpretation; Narrative criticism. That's it. He doesn't explain further. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• world views Apparently "worldviews" isn't accepted by my spellchecker, but I don't know if "world view" is better. Let's go with "worldviews" for now?
  • CoolJenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• In turn, this awareness 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 This can also be shortened per my above comment
  • I don't remember your comment above. Is it that you want to remove criteria? It makes it a smidge less accurate - the criteria are a whole field unto themselves - but I can do that without substantively changing its meaning if that's what you mean. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Historical Jesus: the New quest into the twenty-first century

• Most, but not all I think "but not all" is a bit redundant here... maybe it emphasizes that there are other views. Maybe remove it and put ", however," after "Stanley E. Porter" ?
  • One of the other reviewers here made me go through the entire article and remove ever "however" in it. It's kind of funny to be putting one back. DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Ah ha, now I see the "New" and "Old". Could we just use first, second and third to distinguish them throughout the article?
  • Well, sure, you and I could, but since they didn't, and the sources don't, we might have some difficulty justifying adjusting their terms to suit ourselves.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Käsemann showed that "show" seems closer to "prove" here. Probably "argued" makes more sense, or to give him a bit more credence, "reasoned"
  • Okay Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• according to Witherington Which part of the sentence is according to Witherington? The first part, or the second part? Do we need to attribute this to him in-text anyway?
  • I was told to attribute every quote. But I'll remove him - per Nikkimaria, bus, etc. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Having read the whole history section, I agree that it's quite important. Onward! Ovinus (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• • Oh I'm so glad! That's wonderful! Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Major methods

• The Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible), and the New Testament, are distinct bodies of literature that raise their own problems of interpretation and are therefore generally studied separately. I'd suggest removing the commas and putting one after "interpretation"
• For purposes of discussion, these methods are separated here and the Bible is addressed as a whole, but this is an artificial approach that is used only for the purpose of description, and is not how biblical criticism is actually practiced. Helpful! I'm guessing the citation is for the last phrase of the sentence? I think we should be a bit clearer though. "These methods are separated here" could be interpreted to mean different methods for the two Testaments. How about we rewrite this section a little bit:

Theologian David R. Law writes that textual, source, form, and redaction criticism are usually employed together by biblical scholars. For purposes of discussion, these methods are separated here and the Bible is addressed as a whole, but this is not how biblical criticism is actually practiced: The Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament are distinct bodies of literature, and are therefore generally studied separately.

Trimmed a bit, but I think it's a bit less verbose. Ovinus (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• • All Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Textual criticism

• original text Define? How about "original text – what was originally written". As the first sentence of this section, it should be quite understandable
  • It's same phrase used in the lead and the twentieth century, but I added yours to it. I think it adds words without clarifying anything personally - original text and originally written are just different ways of saying the same thing. The trouble is, a reader can't understand what this means without reading the explanation that follows. There's no other way to clarify it without getting into it.
    • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Biblical criticism make lowercase
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• roughly 900 manuscripts found at Qumran Is this referring to the dead sea scrolls? If so, maybe this could be put in or wikilinked. I know we mentioned it earlier in the article, but I want this to be clear to readers
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• c.110–125 Let's use {{circa}} and add "CE" maybe?
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Speaking of CE and BCE, we should either use that or AD/BC consistently. I think the latter makes more sense given the topic.
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• As a comparison, the next best-sourced ancient text is of the Iliad, presumably written by the ancient Greek Homer in the late eighth or early seventh century BCE, which is found in more than 1,900 manuscripts, though many are of a fragmentary nature. I don't know whether this comparison is helpful. One would expect something as consequential as the Bible to have a lot of history... but I don't know. Maybe this could just be shortened: "As a comparison, the next best-sourced ancient text is the Iliad, which is found in more than 1,900 manuscripts, though many are of a fragmentary nature." Note that I removed the first "of", which should be done in any case
  • Okay, shortened. The Iliad is far older than the New Testament, yet the New Testament has 10 times as many manuscripts. That's the point being made, since the more manuscripts, the more variants, and that's what textual criticism does. You know what, I went and made that point better I think. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• by copying from another handwritten text probably should say "often copying" instead of "by copying from". One would assume the texts ultimately originated from some intellectual(s) who wrote down their original thoughts
  • That's what textual criticism searches for, but there are no originals of the New Testament. Those were lost, destroyed when Jerusalem fell, or something. There are copies, and copies of copies, thousands and thousands of copies. That's it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Ovinus is this okay?Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• For example, a scribe would drop one or more letters, skip a word or line, write one letter for another, transpose letters, and so on. For concision, how about "For example, a scribe might drop letters, skip a word or line, or substitute or transpose letters."
  • Substitute has a specific meaning in textual criticism. In Greek, dropping one letter can change the meaning as Greek is written without punctuation. Dropping letters isn't alone in that ability. I think my statement is technically more correct even if it is a bit longer. Is there a compromise? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Ovinus Concise vs. precise, I go with precision. Are you okay with that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• reliability of a single text We should be clear about what "reliability" means here. Does it mean "faithfulness" or "textual accuracy", rather than historical?
  • Accuracy. The text has not been corrupted by later mistakes and alterations. It is likely it is as it was first written and no later findings have altered that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Ovinus Explaining that will add in a good bit of text. Do you want me to do that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• there are critical editions Instead of "critical", maybe we could use "important" or "crucial" or something, just to avoid confusion
  • critical is not used here as important, it is used as "a product of critical study" Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Okay?Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• "It also means that the fourth century "best texts", the 'Alexandrian' codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, have roots extending throughout the entire third century and even into the second". Probably should paraphrase here.
  • I don't think I can say it better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Okay?Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Say scribe 'A' makes a mistake and scribe 'B' does not. Copies of scribe 'A's text with the mistake will thereafter contain that same mistake. 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 section feels a bit weird, especially the italicization. I don't think we need A/B at all. How about this:

If one transcription contains an error, while another does not, copies of the former may contain the same mistake. Over time, the texts descended from each transcription will further diverge, but later texts will still be identifiable as descending from one or the other, depending on the presence of the original mistake.

If you're adamant about A and B, I suggest we don't use italics:

If transcription A contains an error, while transcription B does not, copies of A may also contain its mistake. Over time, the texts descended from each transcription will further diverge, but later texts will still be identifiable as descending from A or B, depending on the presence of the original mistake.

• • This is taken from Metzger and Ehrman's really famous landmark work on textual criticism. They are the ones who used A and B; doing so here accurately reflects the source. Another reviewer came through and put those nowiki marks around them that italicize and set them apart. Everyone else liked them. I'd say that means consensus is on leaving it as it is.Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Ovinus Unless you have really strong feelings about this and will fail me if I don't do as you say, I would really prefer to keep this as it is. It reflects the source. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't know if MOS says anything about this, but both of these look good to me.

• If we use A and B, then the next sentence could be The multiple generations of texts following A, containing the error, are referred to as a "family" of texts.
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Amos 6.12 Should it be Amos 6:12? Also, would a transwiki link to wikisource be helpful here, as you did earlier?
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• but the context of the passage seems to demand a 'no.' Could this sentence, particularly this phrase, be more specific? Why is the obvious answer "yes"? In isolation, maybe. Instead of calling it "obvious", we should call it the "apparent" answer or something to that effect. But I don't really understand Cooper's point, so maybe we can figure this bit out.
  • The obvious answer is yes, because in the days when it was written one did plow with oxen. That's what they were for. What else could the answer be? But in the overall context of the rest of Amos 6, [[3]] interpreters say the desired answer is no. It doesn't make much sense to me either way, but the point is that the interpreter changes it to suit what they think it should say. Hence subjectivity. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Ovinus This reflects the source. Is it okay? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• This contributes to textual criticism being one of the most contentious areas of biblical criticism, as well as the largest, with scholars such as Arthur Verrall referring to it as the "fine and contentious art". "as well as" usually feels a bit forced, and I feel like the meaning is more of "despite". Because Verrall doesn't say anything about it being large, how about we remove the "as well as the largest". We could also rephrase to

This subjectivity contributes to textual criticism being one of biblical criticism's most contentious areas—despite its being the largest—with scholars such as Arthur Verrall referring to it as the "fine and contentious art".

• • It isn't contentious despite its size, it's contentious at least partly because of it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

The double passive construction makes me sad, but I don't know how else to phrase this. A bit less precise, but a bit more pleasing and easier to parse:

Textual criticism's subjectivity contributes to its being one of biblical criticism's most contentious areas—despite its large following—with scholars such as Arthur Verrall referring to it as the "fine and contentious art".

• • Does it have a large following? Where is that? Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Ovinus where are we with this one? Verral is referred to at the end where his quote is, and the large claim was made at the start of the section separately from him, so I don't think this inadvertantly attributes anything about size to Verral. I like the comparisons of the two "mosts", but I can drop the 'as well as the largest' phrase and go with your second sentence if you want.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Real life interfering - will probably happen a lot this time of year - but I'll be back as soon as possible. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yet any of these can be contested, as well as any conclusions based on them, and they often are. This is pretty verbose. Why can they be contested, if they are guidelines? (Perhaps these scholars have their own version of IAR!) How about "Yet any of these principles—and their conclusions—are often contested."
  • They can be contested because the people contesting them are the people who invented and use them. There are about two dozen different criteria used in these methods of study: the criterion of multiple attestation or independent attestation, dissimilarity or discontinuity, the criterion of embarrassment, the criterion of coherence (also called criterion of consistency or criterion of conformity) were all invented in the twentieth century. I can shorten it to your version w/o losing anything I think. Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
    • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• challenged this in 1914 Replace "this" with "Griesbach" or "this assumption". I don't think I'm alone in this, but I believe that using "this" as a noun rather than a modifier often leads to ambiguity (though not always, given this... sentence).
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• saying "A text is like a traveler who goes from one inn to another losing an article of luggage at each halt" Fun, helpful quote!
  • I know, I loved it and decided I just had to include it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Some twenty-first century scholars Normally I would have advocated for the usage of "recent" here, but as long as the source says that all these scholars came after Y2K, then it makes sense given the preceding historical discussion
  • Ovinus One of the previous FAC reviewers had me go through and remove all words like 'contemporary' and 'recent' as weasely and undefined and replace them all with more precise terms. I'm glad you're okay with that. Imagine how I would feel going back and undoing it! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

A really interesting and well-presented section! Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

• • My head is going to swell! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Source criticism

• repeated three times indicating the possibility of three sources how about a comma after "times"
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Genesis was set probably should be "is" in this case, though it's a difficult edge case. To be extra clear, could also do the rest of Genesis is set or other parts of Genesis are set.
  • I know literature is always written about in the present tense, but history is written about in the past tense, and in this case, I think it's a reference to history - since only history can have anomalies. I'm going to argue for keeping 'was' on that basis - and it's less complicated. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• this was originally separate for specificity, how about "these anachronisms" or "these statements"
  • Sources. DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Source criticism of the Old Testament: Wellhausen's hypothesis

• Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels (Prologue to the History of Israel, 1878) Should specify that it's German language
  • Really? If someone doesn't recognize German does it matter enough to add length? Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• sources of the first five books of the Old Testament collectively known as the Pentateuch We've established what the Pentateuch is several times, let's just say "sources of the Pentateuch"
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• The Documentary hypothesis, also known as the JEDP theory, or the Wellhausen hypothesis, proposes that the Pentateuch was combined out of four separate and coherent (unified single) sources. Probably should rearrange to give the bolded name priority: "The Wellhausen hypothesis, also known as the documentary hypothesis or JEDP theory, proposes that the Pentateuch was assembled [or maybe compiled] out of four separate, coherent sources." I don't know what "unified single" means, by the way
  • A coherant source or document is one that is whole and not fragments. The documentary theory deduced fragments of sources that were put together but they also assumed those fragments came from documents that had been whole complete cohesive documents at one time. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
    • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

• Let's preface this second paragraph with something like "JEDP is an initialism of the four sources." If it's pronounced "jed pee", then "acronym"
  • The second paragraph does say that. Wouldn't adding that be redundant and unnecessary in an article that's already quite long? It isn't an acronym, but it is well known by these letters. Even people outside the field have heard of JEDP. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Yahwist, Remove comma after Yahwist
  • Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• We should consistentify BCE/CE vs AD/BC as I said earlier. (I have no strong preference.) BCE and CE, unlike AD, should always come after the number.
  • Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• found by king Josiah probably should be "founded by King Josiah"
  • It wasn't founded, it was found, in that, it was lost, and then it was found: rediscovered. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• In this case, I think "JEDP" should remain unitalicized, while J, E, etc. should become "J"; no italics, in quotes.
  • Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• thereafter sometimes referred to as the Graf–Wellhausen hypothesis but is this the same thing as the Wellhausen hypothesis? We should consolidate all the extant names for this.
  • Yes it's the same. I added it to the list in the first Paragraph, will that do? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• composed during the exile My uncultured-ness is showing... :( Maybe wikilink it, and capitalize if appropriate?
  • Don't feel bad, it has nothing to do with how cultured you are. Religion has probably been the single biggest contributor to western civilization, yet most people don't know anything about it. Babylon conquered Israel and carried off the people to be slaves in Babylon in the sixth century BCE. They were exiled from their home so they refer to it as the exile. The Jews are probably the only people on earth who have been dispersed and scattered in that manner who did not lose their identity as a people. That was usually an effective way of annihilating a national identity. It worked with everyone else, but being Jewish wasn't just a nationality and they survived as a people, a race and a religion with their traditions and culture and even their language intact. Pretty impressive.
    • linked Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• This theory argues that fragments of various documents, and not continuous coherent documents, are the sources for the Pentateuch Not too important, but how about "This theory argues that fragments of documents—rather than continuous, coherent documents—are the sources for the Pentateuch."
  • Sure Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• I just realized that this article is using spaced ens rather than unspaced ems. Sorry that all my suggestions involving them are unspaced ems!
  • Should I go back and fix those? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• The Supplementary hypothesis should this be lowercase?
  • It's a proper name, but I guess it could go either way.Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Proponents of this view assert three sources for the Pentateuch: the Deuteronomist as the oldest source, the Elohist as the central core document, with the Torah later assembled by adding a number of fragments or independent sources. But the Torah is a superset of the Pentateuch. Could this be clarified?
  • Other reviewers have rewritten me without really knowing the subject. This guy objected to the source saying "three sources" when one of them was fragments, so he rewrote it - incorrectly.
    • Fixed Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• different literary strata I only know of this word in a geological context or its figurative one; what exactly do you mean here?
  • It means basically the same thing for literature that it means geologically: layers, levels, some parts are identifiably older than others, some parts have been updatedJenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• This has led What is this? Assuming you mean "supplementary hypothesis", so how about "This hypothesis"

• the development of the idea there was such a thing as a Deuteronomist school that had originally edited and kept the document updated How about "the idea that a so-called Deuteronomist School originally edited and updated the document." Should "School" be capitalized here as I've done? (What do RS do?)
  • School is not capitalized in the source Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Critique of Wellhausen

• until the 1970s when it began to be heavily criticized comma after 1970s
  • Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• end of the 1970s, and into the 1990s remove this comma
  • DoneJenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• like a series of hammer blows could we excise this portion? It's vivid but also not helpful
  • It's a quote, so not w/o Nikkimaria coming in the dark of night and wreaking havoc on us both. Besides, I like it. It's a bit of 'vivid' in a dry topic - like Clark's quote. And it has the added benefit of summing up what would take multiple sentences to paraphrase. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Documentary theory Again, not sure about capitalization. Since this is a direct quote, if we decide on lowercase then we can do [d]
  • Proper name. I don't think I've ever seen it not capitalized, but if you find that I will change it. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• arguments for separate origins Would put "their" after "for"
  • Done Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Problems and criticisms of the Documentary hypothesis have been brought on by literary analysis which pointed out the error of judging ancient Oriental writings as if they were the products of European Protestants; and by advances in anthropology that undermined Wellhausen's assumptions about how cultures develop; and also by various archaeological findings showing the cultural environment of the early Hebrews was more advanced than Wellhausen thought. A doozy! How about

Criticisms of the Documentary/documentary hypothesis have been brought on by literary analysts, who point out the impropriety [idk if we can call it an error] of judging ancient writings as if they were the products of European Protestants; by advances in anthropology that undermined Wellhausen's assumptions about how cultures develop; and also by archaeological findings showing the cultural environment of the early Hebrews was more advanced than Wellhausen thought.

Regarding "Oriental": are they truly "Oriental"? Also, funny coincidence, but I recently asked a question at the reference desk about whether the word is offensive and got a mixed answer (probably mostly no in this case), but they mostly agree that it's dated. If Wellhausen was calling them "Oriental" I'd probably keep it, since it's understandable enough for its archaicness to be appropriate, but it seems to be attributed to the more recent analysis.

• • It was the term used back then, but I changed it to Eastern, changed to analysts, but kept error as that's what they said. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Source criticism of the New Testament: the synoptic problem

I'll continue my review tomorrow morning, but so far this seems great. Most of my time is spent thinking about efficientifying parts. Ovinus (talk) 03:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Off-topic moved to talk as the length of this page is causing template transclusion limits to be exceeded. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

@Jenhawk777: I'm really sorry, but I don't think I'll have the time to finish this review; life has caught up with me. I didn't realize there was a lot left to read, and I came to this review late. I hope my comments were helpful, and apologies again. Ovinus (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Jenhawk777 Seven pings, that scared me a little! I'm genuinely sorry it's been so long; I've been busy with college applications and it's hard to find the time to sit down and read for a few hours. I may be able to look tonight. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

• Ovinus Oh dear! I'm so sorry! I didn't know how else to mark the comments I still had questions about since they are all mixed in with the rest. Please forgive me! I understand and guessed that real life was interfering - it's that time of year - so no worries, really! Take all the time you need. You do know that you can be done any time you choose right? You are not obligated to do the entire article. You can comment on what you've done so far and have that be enough, if that's what you feel like, or continue on as you wish. I'm not trying to discourage you, just being sure you know you have options. Where are you applying for school? I went to a little state college for my undergrad then to Vanderbilt for grad school. It was a whole different world. Good luck! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

It's totally fine, I was only joking with the "scared" part! I have a reasonable headstart on apps (Vanderbilt's one of my top choices, in fact!) so I'll be back in full force soon. Plus, editing is kind of a therapeutic thing for me, so I don't see it as stealing time from doing the needful. And if something comes up I'll let you know that I can't finish the review. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments from Ergo Sum

This is a substantial article that deserves careful attention, which I doubt I can sufficiently provide, but will attempt nonetheless. I will post my comments below as I work through the article. I should also note that I haven't had an opportunity to go through the above comments, so if anything I say is redundant, please do point that out. Ergo Sum 00:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• The most obvious question that occurs to me is the framing of the article in the past tense. The lede describes biblical criticism as a thing of the past and the article includes a legacy section, suggesting the discipline is dead. This strikes me as odd. While it's true that scientific methods/practices fall by the wayside (e.g. phrenology), I'm not aware of any social science or humanities methods that have. When I Google "biblical criticism," I don't find other authorities that refer to it in the past tense; rather, they speak of it as a discipline. In my own experience, I've also heard it referred to as a present rather than historical field. Can you explain your reason for describing it in this way? Ergo Sum 00:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

  Hello hello! I am so glad you are here! I can give you my reasoning and you can see if you agree. This is how it is represented in the sources imo. Biblical criticism as it was first formulated in the Enlightenment is dead. Its progeny are what lives on - and multiply - so people still speak of 'biblical criticism' as ongoing - even though, technically, it isn't the same BC. The best analogy I can think of to compare it to is Darwinian evolution. Darwin's original theory is no longer upheld - technically - but the concepts it produced are: evolution lives on in newer interpretations; natural selection and adaptation are better understood and defined. Etc etc. We know now that evolution doesn't necessarily happen gradually - it sometimes jumps - and while that might seem to undermine the original theory, all that has done in reality is produce newer more refined and informed versions of it. That's what has happened with biblical criticism. Some of its early ideas were just ideas, and they didn't hold up well with actual application - but it still opened a door that can't be shut. It changed everything, including itself. So I wanted to make sure people understood this original version of BC is no longer practiced as it was, but that it has morphed into something more - several somethings more. Does that make sense? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I am moving my comments here from the main discussion. Unfortunately, I haven't had sufficient time to go through the lengthy article. Best of luck to all in concluding this FAC. Ergo Sum 22:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)