21 September 2023
- 06:1006:10, 21 September 2023 diff hist +2,749 Talk:Week →Erroneous attribution of the week's origins to Babylonia: new section Tag: New topic
25 October 2020
- 01:4201:42, 25 October 2020 diff hist −80 m Noah →Mesopotamian: Changed the date of authorship for the Gilgamesh epic to 1800 (the date of our oldest fragments). Deleted reference to the gods being disturbed by the noise of humanity - this occurs in the epic of Atrahasis but not in Gilgamesh.
4 September 2020
- 06:5906:59, 4 September 2020 diff hist +768 Talk:Babylonian calendar →Unreliable citation on the Babylonian "week": new section
26 August 2020
- 07:5407:54, 26 August 2020 diff hist +1 m Daniel 7 →Imagery and symbolism
- 07:5407:54, 26 August 2020 diff hist +106 m Daniel 7 →Imagery and symbolism: further supported the suggested interpretation with reference to similar descriptions in chapters 2 and 11
- 07:4907:49, 26 August 2020 diff hist −46 m Daniel 7 →Themes: see note on similar edit in the header section, scholars are divided as to whether chapter two belongs to the apocalyptic genre and the four kingdoms was a well known ANE literary trope that is not apocalyptic per se.
- 07:4507:45, 26 August 2020 diff hist +27 m Daniel 7 →Chapter 7: chapter 9 is dated to the first year of Darius, thus continuing the (ahistorical) succession already established.
- 07:4207:42, 26 August 2020 diff hist +15 m Daniel 7 The theme of four kingdoms is present in chapter 2 - hence 'reintroduces'
4 October 2018
- 11:3711:37, 4 October 2018 diff hist −5 m Hippolytus of Rome →Eschatology: Changed 'Medo-Persians' to Persians. See Commentary on Daniel 2.12.4, 4.3.1
- 11:2511:25, 4 October 2018 diff hist −4 m Hippolytus of Rome →Eschatology: Hippolytus does not see Rome in chapter 8, rather interprets the 'little horn' as Antiochus Epiphanes with no reference to Rome
20 August 2018
- 06:5406:54, 20 August 2018 diff hist +594 Talk:Gospel of Peter →Misrepresentation of Crossan's position: new section
15 March 2017
- 07:2107:21, 15 March 2017 diff hist +34 m Sons of God →Hebrew Bible: separated similar expressions from exact/near exact phrases
- 07:1607:16, 15 March 2017 diff hist +8 m Sons of God →Hebrew Bible: Clarified that the language is Aramaic in Daniel 3
- 07:0807:08, 15 March 2017 diff hist +22 m Sons of God →The Sons of God in Genesis 6
- 07:0107:01, 15 March 2017 diff hist +9 Sons of God →The Sons of God in Genesis 6: added relevant supporting evidence for angelic interpretation; removed misleading references "explaining" Christian tradition
- 06:4706:47, 15 March 2017 diff hist −13 m Sons of God →The Sons of God in Genesis 6: Corrected misleading label: "Sons of God" does not refer to the 'Offspring of Angels' but to Angels in this interpretative stream
- 06:4506:45, 15 March 2017 diff hist −3 m Sons of God →The Sons of God in Genesis 6: Changed 'sons of heaven' to the phrase in question: sons of God
- 06:4306:43, 15 March 2017 diff hist +12 Sons of God →Literary origins: Renamed the section, as it focuses almost exclusively on variant interpretations of Genesis 6:1-4
- 06:4006:40, 15 March 2017 diff hist −5 m Sons of God →Hebrew Bible
- 06:3806:38, 15 March 2017 diff hist +80 Sons of God →Hebrew Bible: Sumarized the intent of the biblical passages - this seems to have been somewhat ignored in the discussions that follow.
- 06:0006:00, 15 March 2017 diff hist +29 Sons of God →Hebrew Bible
- 05:4505:45, 15 March 2017 diff hist +23 m Sons of God →Hebrew Bible: Clarified that bene elim is not an example of the precise phrase in question
- 05:4205:42, 15 March 2017 diff hist −192 m Sons of God →Hebrew Bible: Removed reference to 'godly beings' - interpretative
- 05:3505:35, 15 March 2017 diff hist −754 Sons of God →Hebrew Bible: added missing biblical references to "sons of Elohim" and clarified the one in Deuteronomy 32
- 04:3704:37, 15 March 2017 diff hist +1 Sons of God →Literary origins
- 04:3604:36, 15 March 2017 diff hist −351 Sons of God →Literary origins: The correct translation is "children of Sheth" (e.g. Goff and Adams). The "Shethites" were condemned by Baalam in Num 24:17 and the term becomes a name for "the wicked" in general in other DSS texts. Also clarified sources and dates
- 04:1904:19, 15 March 2017 diff hist +153 m Nephilim →Interpretations: Added qualification concerning relationship between the Sons of God and the Nephalim in Genesis 6
- 04:1104:11, 15 March 2017 diff hist +40 m Nephilim →Interpretations
- 02:5302:53, 15 March 2017 diff hist −66 m Nephilim →Interpretations
- 02:3502:35, 15 March 2017 diff hist −268 Nephilim →Interpretations: Steamlined and provided additional references for confusing list of sources.
- 02:0102:01, 15 March 2017 diff hist +37 m Nephilim →Interpretations: corrected identity of Sethite proponent to Sextus Julius Africanus - not the first century figure described in the link
- 01:5201:52, 15 March 2017 diff hist −12 Nephilim →Interpretations
- 01:5101:51, 15 March 2017 diff hist −226 Nephilim →Interpretations: There is no certainty that the correct translation is "children of Seth". Goff and Adams both translate the word as "Sheth" - the Shethites condemned by Baalam in Num 24:17 become a name for "the wicked" in general in other DSS texts
14 February 2017
- 02:5302:53, 14 February 2017 diff hist +38 m Gilgamesh flood myth →Material altered or omitted: This sentence is overly speculative. It is a sniping addition designed to undercut the point of the paragraph as a whole.
13 December 2016
- 01:5001:50, 13 December 2016 diff hist +1 m Epic of Gilgamesh No edit summary
- 01:5001:50, 13 December 2016 diff hist +1 m Epic of Gilgamesh The epic itself does not date from 2100 BCE - corrected this with a minor edit
9 February 2016
- 13:2213:22, 9 February 2016 diff hist +477 Talk:Gospel of Mark →Composition and Date: inappropriate inclusion of a tiny minority viewpoint: new section
1 October 2015
- 15:2515:25, 1 October 2015 diff hist +62 Talk:Book of Revelation →Opening sentence is incorrect.
- 15:2115:21, 1 October 2015 diff hist +10 Talk:Book of Revelation →Scholarly interpretation
- 15:2015:20, 1 October 2015 diff hist +2,368 Talk:Book of Revelation →Scholarly interpretation
- 14:1814:18, 1 October 2015 diff hist 0 Talk:Book of Revelation →Opening sentence is incorrect.
- 14:1714:17, 1 October 2015 diff hist +544 Talk:Book of Revelation →Opening sentence is incorrect.
- 14:0914:09, 1 October 2015 diff hist +3 Book of Revelation →Eschatological: this section ignores scholarship almost completely - the 'interpretations' discussed are those of believers and Christian denominations
- 14:0714:07, 1 October 2015 diff hist +63 m Book of Revelation →Genre: the genre of Revelation is very different to that of classical Hebrew prophecy - it is better to say that the author understood himself to be a prophet
- 14:0514:05, 1 October 2015 diff hist −6 m Book of Revelation →Genre: the genre of the work as a whole is not that of an epistle
- 14:0214:02, 1 October 2015 diff hist +10 m Book of Revelation These are all faith based systems of interpretation. Scholarly approaches differ considerably and do not start with an assumption that the book is authoritative or divinely inspired.
19 July 2015
- 00:5000:50, 19 July 2015 diff hist −3 m Book of Daniel minor stylistic edit, repitition
- 00:4700:47, 19 July 2015 diff hist +11 Book of Daniel →Sources: "Sources" normally refers to other works used by the author - it is misleading.
- 00:4600:46, 19 July 2015 diff hist +173 Book of Daniel →Sources: Previous description was too dogmatic. There are many variations of the development theory and citing only Redditt's version is problematic.
- 00:2700:27, 19 July 2015 diff hist +15 Book of Daniel →Sources: Corrected misleading, ambiguous reference to "Babylonian Diaspora' and 'folktales'. 'Court tales' is the most common scholarly term.
