Archives
2004 – August 2005 Old project pages Old discussions at overhaul 2009–13

I've proposed the move described above and would like comments. Likewise, it looks lie there are several important articles within that overall topic that need a top to bottom restructuring. I think Historicity and the Bible should be a top level survey covering what the topic is, the general course of public opinion on it, scholarly developments, and then some nuts and bolts on methodology. A summation of the major narratives of the Bible might also be useful. Beneath Historicity of the Bible should be the major book families, such as Historicity of the Hebrew Bible, which can be further subdivided into the component parts (Torah, Prophets, Writings, Later prophets, the Twelve) as necessary. Any thoughts and/or volunteers to help?--Tznkai (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a matter of terminology, I think your use of historicity is unclear. That the Bible (in some form, under various titles) appeared, existed, and was developed in history (the meaning of (historicity) is unquestioned, but that makes discussion of its historicity a matter of its historical composition, collection, and the development of canon (and may involve interpretation of human history). That's not the meaning I get out of a title like "Bible and History", which includes the connections between human history and events presented in the Bible (and may involve interpretation of the Bible itself). There may be some gray areas and overlap between the two, but the two are not one and the same subject. Of course, I may have misconstrued your meaning also. Historicity of the Bible is the narrower subject; did you wish in this way to restrict the content that is placed under this heading? If so, where would material falling outside that subject go? Evensteven (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand "historicity of the Bible" to mean "did the events described in the Bible narratives occur in history or not?" Perhaps that is better understood as "is the Bible historically reliable?" but I feel like that question is an examination of credibility of the Bible as a witness without actual interrogation into the underlying subject matter. (Whether a witness is an honest man or a liar is separate from discussing whether what he saw happened). Maybe it is better titled "historicity of Biblical narratives" but that is ugly. My goal is to cover the answers given the question "Did the events and persons described in the Bible occur in history?" and the immediate background knowledge (the difference between narratives and non-narratives, for example, and whether the recieved text is reliable enough to draw conclusions from) necessary to understand those answers.--Tznkai (talk) 07:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I think I see what your target subject is now. But I would say that is indeed "Historicity of Biblical narratives" (or some such), and definitely not "Historicity of the Bible". I'm sorry that you feel the first is "ugly", but the two titles imply two different subjects, and the second one is not yours. Moreover, the current article Bible and history includes both subjects within its bounds, and then some. I'm afraid that it appears to me that the re-titling that you propose does not match the material you propose to re-organize.

I have the additional concern that the real topic is not so much about historicity as it is about Biblical interpretation and doctrine, or perhaps I should say doctrine as applied to historicity and interpretation. It strikes me that that material is less about the Bible and more about the divisions within "Christianity" (however one cares to define that) and how each division treats the Bible. Hence, I would argue that the place for discussions and articles of this kind would be better placed within the WP structures that describe those divisions rather than in the ones that describe the Bible. Hence, I see it more as work within Project Christianity than within Project Bible. Evensteven (talk) 09:46, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The historicity of Abraham, for example, has significant implications on two, three or four major world religions, depending on how you count Judaism and the Ba'hai faith. The tale of Noah's Ark, if true, would have major consequences. While my content knowledge revolves around academicly postured literature analysis of the Bible, there are also all of the archealogical digs among others to examine the Bible, and the cross overs with antiquity scholars the closer you get to modern times. The destruction of the second temple, Roman occupation, the Maccabees, relations with the Samaritans, all of these are interesting and notable historical events (probably anyway) of which the Bible has served as a sometimes the, primary source. So, I think the topic, while of obvious interest to Christians, is a general phenomena of general interest and need not be ghettoized as an internal dispute.

My complaint about the ugliness of the title is mostly an aside, along with a hope that someone can come up with a title more elegant. An article title must balance precision with length. How does "Biblical historicity" strike you? My brief perusals of the internet and the reference material I have on hand does not show uniform usage of any of the phrases suggested.--Tznkai (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make an excellent point about the implications on other religions, which I was simply looking past when I wrote the above. I'm sold on the topic's staying with Project Bible. I also agree with you about avoiding the ghettoizing of useful topics. But I do recognize the existence of disputes that could easily overrun the usefulness of those topics. Project Bible will need to frame the topics carefully, so that the disputes are not themselves the topic.

"Biblical historicity" strikes me as identical in meaning to "Historicity of the Bible", with the advantage (as a title) that it is shorter. I grant that I have been taking a rather literalist approach in interpreting the phrase, based upon general English usage. My question has been, to what is the word "historicity" applied in the phrase: the Bible itself, or its contents? Both are studies of historical interest. But perhaps not everyone is as rigorous as I in making such distinctions. If the general literature is looser in usage, then it would seem that not all others have found it important enough to retain a sharp distinction. But you say you do not find "uniform usage", so perhaps there are some who do find it important. Whatever my own preference as to meanings, my preference here is to ensure that the title conveys to most people, especially those more expert, a meaning that is not readily confused with something else. I tend to think the word "historicity" can be sloppily applied. But you're right that "Bible and history" is not quite right either. What about "Bible and historicity"? Evensteven (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By not uniform, I mean I see people drawing the distinction you have, and people interpreting the phrase as I do, and some things in between with no clear, at this point of research, consensus. I dislike "and" in titles, but I think you may be right that is the best title. I'll poke around my reference material for a less ambiguous answer.--Tznkai (talk) 21:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also sometimes ambiguous if an expert level author is being sloppy or using historicity the way I am. Example: "The historicity of the book cannot simply be assumed since it telescopes and simplifies what was a long and complex process of occupation of the land by the Israelite tribes. Some details are lacking ... while other events are narrated ... selectively arranged... the book's presentation of reality does not necessarily reflect the actual course of events." New Oxford Annotated Bible 3d, Ed.: Coogan, M 314 HB.--Tznkai (talk) 21:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed about the "and" in titles (normally), but here it detaches "Bible" from "historicity" in a way that exactly disambiguates the varieties of usage, sloppy or not. That's why it seemed to me the best option I could come up with: it permits sufficient breadth of topic while also sufficiently focusing its scope. Perhaps there's some elegance of communication value there, to compensate for inelegance of language. Anyway, elegance of language is only possible where a truly precise expression can be found, and our language may not give us that luxury in this case. Evensteven (talk) 04:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I just created a template for the Nag Hammadi Codices, and there were I think at least five articles that haven't be created or located. It would be nice if someone put their time in creating these articles, so I could have a proper template to post on each article involving the Nag Hammadi Library. I'm just not very good at creating articles on Wikipedia, only editing. Also, if you happen to pass by on a Gnostic article that involves the Nag Hammadi Codices and do not see the temple embedded, please place the template in that article. Here is the template: Template:The Nag Hammadi Codices Please read the "Note" in the template to figure out which articles need to be created or located. — Thank You! — ♣Jerm♣729  —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the note out of the template itself so that it will only be seen on the template page. – Fayenatic London 22:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says "- the two were originally one, but were divided by Christians in the 3rd century AD, and in Jewish circles in the 15th century." When you read the article itself, you see things such as "composition of the "Ezra memoir" and "Nehemiah memoir"" - the body of the article is saying that this was not created as one composition. Can someone fix the lead please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll change the intro to make it sound better. Undo edit if you feel the edit is not right. — ♣Jerm♣729 19:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think my point is from reading the article, modern thinking is that these developed as two separate documents which were then combined, rather than as one, which s what the lead still says. Thanks though for helping. Dougweller (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]