Bible: Criticism Project‑class

This page is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles Project This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This page is within the scope of the biblical criticism work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

How do we change the Bible links back to its original (author's) weblinks? Someone is CHANGING the original authors' links, directing people to www.biblegateway.com, and to a Bible translation that is noted to be inaccurate for some verses (having been purposely changed to weaken the divinity of Jesus).

I have just joined the project. What articles need to have their scientific aspects reviewed? --Savant13 13:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd be very interested in hearing from others at Talk:Early_Christianity#"Messianic Jews"? about this edit. Is it appropriate to apply the term "Messianic Jews" to the Early Christians? Seems anachronistic to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:33, 6 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NO. Messianic Jews are a completely different group of people (and some exist in the present time). And you also have to consider the Ebionites, Essenes, Gnostics, et. al. --User talk:FDuffy 13:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to try to clean up and improve the pages about the story of the fiery furnace. The story of the fiery furnance has a lot of importance in the Jewish and Christian traditions, and had has a lot of cultural impact; Wikipedia ought to have better information about it. I've started by poking at the pages and suggesting some merges; I'd appreciate any help from project members on whatever relating to this subject, but specifically (since this is your project) to add historical / critical analyses to the articles and include a lot of solid information about many perspectives. Please leave any comments on the talk page of fiery furnace. Thanks! -- Tetraminoe 14:03, 30 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meditation is currently nominated on WP:IDRIVE. If you want to see it improved and could help us bring it up to featured standard, please vote for it here! --Fenice 08:59, 31 December 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not really sure what this has to do with this project? Meditation isn't really mentioned in the bible as far as I know. --User talk:FDuffy 15:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

would you like to create certified articles about attacking the bible? -- Zondor 03:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone more familiar with textual criticism and Biblical translation issues take a look at An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture? This is something Isaac Newton wrote, back in the days when titles were real titles, about two verses which got mangled. I have been unable to verify recent contributions, and I'd like to see what other people think. The back story to my request is at Talk:Comma Johanneum. Thanks. Anville 19:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone watch this page? There has been some slow edit warring over at Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of Luke (in addition to a couple other articles like Messianic prophecy). I was wondering if a couple more editors wouldn't mind throwing in their two cents. I want to remain objective and make sure that I am not being reactionary or too harsh. Most of these issues have to deal with conservative dating for the Gospels, which I feel have lead to POV issues. Thanks!--Andrew c 22:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will write Andrew about his concerns. Bbagot 00:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC) BbagotReply[reply]

I added The Context Group a few weeks ago, but didn't find this project until today. David L Rattigan 10:09, 20 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been conceptualizing a Scripture Database website for several years now. I've finally gotten around to publishing a rough draft of the site online. It is wiki-based and would make a good compliment to Wikipedia scripture pages. Please use my dedicated talk page to discuss. --J. J. 19:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please join the discussion on terms like "Old Testament" and "Hebrew Bible": Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias in religion#Latest in biblical terminology. --J. J. 15:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure how many people are watching this page, but I propose an article improvement drive on Augustinian hypothesis. Last week, I weeded out some of the larger quoted material and made a number of positive edits regarding POV issues and wikifing/format. The former of my edits was more controversial than I anticipated. I explained my edits on talk, and through the discussion and mutual edits of another user, seemed to have reached some compromise on this situation. However, another editor has stepped in also questioning my edits. I want to get more opinions on the state of this article, if I cut too much out, and if so, what needs to go back in. Also, there is one section of the article that is in serious need of sourcing. Hopefully the members of this project can contribute to these matters. So whether you are into conflict resolution or research or simply improving articles, I urge you to join us over at Augustinian hypothesis.--Andrew c 02:59, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Someone has put up Snow-white Miriam for deletion - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snow-white Miriam. This seems to be part of a campaign they have recently started to remove historical-critical content from wikipedia articles. --User talk:FDuffy 17:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The above proposed deletion is about a minister who won some sort of award for his biblical criticism. I don't know if he qualifies as notable on that basis or not. Please indicate at above whether his page should remain or not. Thank you. Badbilltucker 14:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 22:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now moved the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 14:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Many contemporary Orthodox Jewish religious practices have Biblical roots. In some cases, articles on contemporary practices have had contemporary information erased and were rewritten to appear as articles on a perspective on what may have happened in Biblical times.

I would like to make three proposals. The first is that articles on contemporary Jewish religious practices with Biblical references be structured by contemporary practice, not Biblical roots, although you are welcome to provide information on those roots as an addendum to the Biblical referneces. The second is that traditional and biblical-criticism perspectives on these practices and their origins generally be in separate sections. The third is that we devise an appropriate way to deal with s situation when articles about both Biblical and contemporary practices need to be structured or titled in very different ways. This may in some cases require two parallel articles, but in some cases we may simply need to pick which one to focus on.

I want to protest the fact that in some cases editors adding Bliblical Criticism perspectives have ridden roughshod over content on contemporary Jewish practices, rewriting them to remove all references to post-Biblical Jewish thought and practice and recasting as articles on (a particular view of) ancient Biblical society. An example is User:FDuffy's edits to Pidyon HaBen, which required me to revert and rewrite the article. I'm sure you can understand the difficulties this is causing us and I would appreciate it if articles referring to contemporary practice not be recast as Biblical articles.

Another difficulty involves articles like Heave offerings, which reflect a series of practices presented as having a unifying identifying element which is not relevant to the contemporary situation. An example is Terumah, which no longer has the "heave" implication in Modern Hebrew that it did in Biblical Hebrew but which is sent by the disambig page to Heave offerings. Terumah in contemporary Judaism refers to contemporary practices among Orthodox Jews that, while based on Biblical Terumah, have evolved substantially since their Biblical origins, and generally no longer involve a heave element. See e.g. the Maaser Rishon and Maaser Sheni articles I started. Even worse are situations when the supposedly identifying element is the subject of a contemporary debate as to its religious centrality. An example involves the Pidyon HaBen ceremony, also listed under Heave offering. Today as in Biblical times the Kohen customarily raises up (heaves) the five silver coins. However, the heave element isn't required by Talmudic law, and there is a passage in the Talmud that refers to a non-Kohen rabbi receiving Pidyon HaBen monies on behalf of his Bat Kohen wife. This long-dormant passage has given rise to an argument by contemporary Orthodox Jewish feminists that a Bat Kohen (female "Kohen") ought to be able to perform a valid Pidyon HaBen ceremony herself, but there is a question as to whether she can perform the heave element. This example of a feminist argument sticking to within classical sources -- an approach that may perhaps seem as foreign as the very idea of Orthodox Jewish feminism -- means that the validity of the femininst position may depend on ones view as to whether the heave element is or isn't central to what makes a contemporary Pidyon HaBen religiously valid. Thus the current classification involves an implication that Wikipedia is taking a position on a contemporary Jewish law debate of a sort that doubtless wasn't intended. Surely you can see how problematic this can be.

While I don't object to articles reflecting multiple views about biblical references to contemporary practices, my view is that these practices should be classified in a way that represents contemporary meaning. My personal view is that contemporary practices should generally be referred to in transliterated Hebrew with translations in parenthesis. Many Jews today use words like "Terumah" but there is essentially no contemporary constituency for a phrase like "heave offering". However, I want to avoid an out-and-out POV fork situation as well.

Please feel free to reply on my Talk page. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Shirahadasha that in such articles a clear distinction needs to be made between the classical sources, their historical context and contemporary practice. Specifically, interpretations offered by academics should be distinguished clearly from traditionalist views. JFW | T@lk 23:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An RFC has been filed to determine whether or not the position of the Jesus Seminar should be included in Lazarus and Dives. Your comments would be most welcome. --Joopercoopers 23:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aaronids and Levite Tithe have been nominated for deletion per WP:AfD on grounds of WP:POVFORK with Kohen and Maaser Rishon, respectively. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aaronids and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Levite Tithe. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to ask the members of this WikiProject to offer their opinion. I have for quite some time been concerned with the high-handed approach of FDuffy (talk · contribs) in Bible and Jewish history articles. While I strongly agree that DH and biblical criticism theories deserve mention, this user has a habit of completely rewriting articles, relying exclusively on a small set of sources that he regards as representative of DH theory. These are the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia and Richard Elliott Friedman's books, most notably "Who Wrote the Bible?"

Members of the "Judaism" WikiProject, largely writing from a traditionalist perspective, have been alarmed by Francis' approach, and I have personally called for a high level of scrutiny to Francis Duffy's edits. Again, this is not because I am opposed to the representation of biblical criticism on Wikipedia per se but the approach taken by this editor.

Mediation attempts from other members of this WikiProject are invited. I'd like to work with this highly knowledgeable editor, but not at the price of the abovementioned. JFW | T@lk 23:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I fully endorse and second JFW's concerns! It's time to stop FDuffy's latest shenanigans (yet again, sigh...) IZAK 08:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What exactly do you mean by "with a high hand"^[1], and why are people in the WP:JEW project writing from a traditionalist perspective rather than a neutral one?

(can I also just point out that I don't consider "wikipedia jew" - "WP:JEW" to have been a particularly good choice of shortcut) --User talk:FDuffy 20:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to say that I believe that the standards of wikipedia are such that all relevant content can and should be included, from whatever perspective, including, in the case of articles relating to the Jewish Bible, Christian and Islamic perspectives, if separate articles on those subjects do not yet already exist. If individuals could point out the specific areas of concern, like specific articles that have been changed, specific "tendencies" with supporting diffs if possible, this would probably be a lot easier to discuss. John Carter 21:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the purposes of centralized discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bible#Proposed merger. John Carter 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are working on some major changes to this article at Talk:Gospel of Luke specifically concerning higher criticism (date, author, etc), and input from participants of this wikiproject would be appreciated. The issue is trying to represent the scholarly consensus, if there is one, while also representing minority views, while balancing it all with due weight per NPOV. Other issues are what scholars to cite, how to describe the factions, and the bigger theological vs. historical issues that tend to arise when discussing religious belief and origins. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There has been some shake up recently and now a discussion with proposals started at talk:the higher criticism. Please feel free to take part. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article source criticism is in such poor shape that it got nominated for an AFD. Could we have some sourced content for this article? GRBerry 01:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated this article for deletion or merger with Passover per WP:POVFORK. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mazzoth. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm wondering if anyone on this project might want to adopt this article. It makes some important points about the interpretive process in connection to whole-part perceptions and post-modernism but they have only partial cites and probably need some amplification. There is also an unattributed mention of Schleiermacher. Another issue: Aside from an occassional book on semiotics, my reading of hermaneutics literature stopped somewhere around the early 1990's and I think this term might have come into use after that point. I don't know whether the term has enough material to justify its own article or if it should be merged into the Hermaneutics article. Any help from someone familiar with the literature relating to this topic would be appreciated. 06:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

We are currently holding elections of coordinators for the Christianity project to select individuals who will take the responsibility to help ensure that assessment, peer review, portal maintainance, and similar directly project-related activities for all the projects and groups relating to Christianity are done in an expeditious manner, similar to the current situation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history and elsewhere. For what it's worth, as the "instigator" of the proposed coordinators, the purpose of having them is not to try to impose any sort of "discipline" on the various projects relating to Christianity, but just to ensure that things like assessment, peer review, portal maintainance, and other similar directly project-related functions get peformed for all the various projects relating to Christianity. If there are any individuals with this project who are already doing such activities for the project, and who want to take on the role more formally, I think nominations are being held open until the end of the elections themselves. And, for the purposes of this election, any member in good standing of any of the Christianity projects can either be nominated or express their votes at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 1. Thank you for your attention. John Carter (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following related articles have been proposed for deletion:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Levite Scribes the Sopherim
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plural verbs with Elohim as God
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/YHWH aleim, YHWH's Council of Elohim

--Shirahadasha (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 04:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is allegedly one of the most important forms of biblical criticism. As it stands, we don't have an article on it. Any help in creating such an article would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Textual criticism/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any parties interested in being one of the coordinators of WikiProject Christianity and its various related projects is encouraged to list themselves as a candidate at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Coordinators/Election 2. It would be particularly beneficial if we had individuals from as broad a range of areas of the project as possible, to help ensure that we have people knowledgable about the widest range of content possible. John Carter (talk) 20:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Wikiproject! Currently there is a discussion which will decide whether wikipedia will delete 49,000 articles about a living person without references, here:

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Since biographies of living people covers so many topics, nearly all wikiproject topics will be effected.

The two opposing positions which have the most support is:

1. supports the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, User:Jehochman
2. opposes the deletion of unreferenced articles about a living person, except in limited circumstances, User:Collect

Comments are welcome. Keep in mind that by default, editor's comments are hidden. Simply press edit next to the section to add your comment.

Please keep in mind that at this point, it seems that editors support deleting unreferenced BLP articles if they are not sourced, so your project may want to source these articles as soon as possible. See the next, message, which may help.

Tools to help your project with unreferenced Biographies of living people

List of cleanup articles for your project

If you don't already have this and are interested in creating a list of articles which need cleanup for your wikiproject see: Cleanup listings A list of examples is here

Moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation pages"

If you are interested in moving unreferenced blp articles to a special "incubation page", contact me, User talk:Ikip

Watchlisting all unreferenced articles

If you are interested in watchlisting all of the unreferenced articles once you install Cleanup_listings, contact me, User talk:Ikip

Ikip 02:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Skeptic's Annotated Bible (3rd nomination) Sumbuddi (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Biblical Criticism articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 22:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A TFD has ben opened on Template:Religious text primary. The TfD was opened on 2 December; so is due to close in two days time. Additional views and the widest input, from all perspectives, would probably be useful. Jheald (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not sure if this is the correct place to mention this; my apologies if not, and please reassign as necessary. Most of the "biblical"-book articles I have read on wikipedia contain an "authorship" or "criticism" section. The vast majority of these only use DH as a critical method. (I am excluding certain apochyrpha and disputed works where solid historical and/or archaeological evidence is cited.) 1) Why is DH used as the primary method of criticism? It does not make sense from a NPOV stance to state analyses generated from a substantially discredited, inherently biased methodology as fact. Statements about, for example, "most modern scholars" are no longer accurate. We're not living in the 19th century. DH authorship sections should at least make some form of disclaimer regarding their value and evidence. 2) Why the lack of other critical methods and analysis? 3) Given the excessive reliance on a single (discredited) method, why are the sections given such prominence? They generally appear as the first section following the TOC, and DH statements often appear in the initial synopsis.

It seems strange to me that, with so much historical, textual, interpretative, cultural, and religious criticism and scholarship generating reasonable questions from actual evidence, wikipedia wastes the criticism section with unfounded speculation.

Elfwiki (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's insanity both that the biblical contradictions page doesn't even mention the skeptics annotated bible website and that the website doesn't have it's own page. Even the SAB doesn't go far enough in listing contradictions. In the "Is it wrong to lie?" section it doesn't mention the contradiction between 2 Corinthians 4:2 ( "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness...") and 2 Corinthians 12:16 ("...being crafty, I caught you with guile.") or Romans 3:7 (For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? ) which despite despite being in the form of an unanswered question is clearly meant to advocate lying for the glory of God or why would it be there? Also missing is any mention of the related bibviz.com with it's unique graphics which clearly make it notable, or any of the individual contradictions listed there.82.69.112.161 (talk) 02:37, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Njboden (talk) 23:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's insanity both that the biblical contradictions page doesn't even mention the skeptics annotated bible website and that the website doesn't have it's own page. Even the SAB doesn't go far enough in listing contradictions. In the "Is it wrong to lie?" section it doesn't mention the contradiction between 2 Corinthians 4:2 ( "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness...") and 2 Corinthians 12:16 ("...being crafty, I caught you with guile.") or Romans 3:7 (For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? ) which despite despite being in the form of an unanswered question is clearly meant to advocate lying for the glory of God or why would it be there? Also missing is any mention of the related bibviz.com with it's unique graphics which clearly make it notable, or any of the individual contradictions listed there.

Perhaps the absence of the website is because it is not scholarly but is terrifically biased. The example used here--2 Corinthians 12:16 is not a contradiction to 4:2--it's sarcasm. Paul is stating an absurdity. Context is everything. Romans has been written on and interpreted more than any other book in the Bible and no actual biblical scholar has ever interpreted 3:7 in the manner you suggest. This website is filled with unsupported distorted nonsense aimed at those who come with a bias and want it confirmed. It could never be used--should never be used--here on Wikipedia.

As for the question asked by u:Elfwiki, that is a good question and a valid point. But much of the scholarship that gets quoted here is outdated. People work in good faith. They just don't know better. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Project News: An admin is admonished
• Achievements: Ralph Abernathy promoted
• Featured article: Missionaries in the rainforest
• Did You Know: Ioan C. Filitti sentenced to death

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^(talk) 11:57, 3 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have been working on Biblical criticism and would deeply appreciate anyone who would take a look at it and offer any suggestions they might have. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:35, 7 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Project News: Is Genesis History? See the RFC.
• Did You Know: Phineas Hodson’s wife dies
• Featured article: Jewish boy causes fall of Roman Catholic Papal States?

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^(talk) 04:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just completed shepherding Biblical criticism through the GA process (which it passed yesterday) after working on improving it for six weeks. I would like to go for 'A' or even 'FA' but I believe peer input is necessary. It needs you! It seems like Biblical criticism is a kind of a flagship article for the Biblical criticism workgroup and should represent our very best work. This is your article--our article. I want everyone from here to have a chance to put something of value into it. Please discuss any substantive changes on the talk page first, but please do come and make suggestions. Everyone interested should have the opportunity for input. It should be on DYK? tomorrow or the next day, so that should increase views --for awhile anyway. Please let some of them be you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The Top 7 Report: The big news was the marriage of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle
• Did You Know: Sun of Unclouded Righteousness
• Our newest Featured list: List of dates predicted for apocalyptic events

* Read this Ichthus in full * Get Ichthus delivered to your Talkpage * – Lionel^(talk) 08:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Alexandrian school has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not Well Sourced/ To The Point Of Not Being Encyclopedic (All Valuable Content Here Could Be Merged Into Another Page With Maybe Three Sentences)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sleyece (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone from this work group have a look at the issue I've raised at Talk:Textual criticism#Stemmatics. I think I've found a basic copy-edit to make, but wanted to have someone who knows a bit more about the topic to check. Newystats (talk) 00:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]