User talk:Encyclopedic researcher/Biblical literalist chronology

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Chronology of the Bible was copied or moved into User:Encyclopedic researcher/Biblical literalist chronology with this edit on 10:13 7 November 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Draft page

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section from Chronology of the Bible has been set up here as a Userspace draft for further development. Additional structure and content has been added. Additional Wikipedia guidance pages:

The page still lacks Notability which must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources. That's all I have for now.
Cheers. —Telpardec (talk) 11:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

answers to objections

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Note of appreciation: If Telpardec copied the whole section in this user page by hand, line-by-line, all that hard work ought to be acknowledged and appreciated. Being new to Wikipedia, I had thought a mechanism or tool for transferring whole blocks of material was available, and on my talk page I requested info on such a tool, but I read above that Telpardec "copied" everything!
Many thanks for the effort you put forth! That is the kind of respectful academic integrity present in peer-reviewed journals.

—Encyclopedic researcher

Length of the "Too long table" (I like your sense of humor!) renamed "Biblical literalist table":

The following representative lists and tables in Wikipedia equal or exceed the length of the table presented in this article:

20140117 Reviewer does not object to length of table. The length of a table is dictated by its content. The length would only be a style issue in so far as whether it should be subdivided, and whether the subdivisions are logical and contextually relevant. This table is not unduly long for the content, if the content itself is appropriate. This table's subdivisions appear to be fine. But please note that "comparing to" other long tables isn't actually relevant. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Lack of references:

The following representative articles tagged as lacking references and sources are nevertheless present in Wikipedia:

20140117 Please note that "comparing to" articles which may be defective does nothing to promote this one. The relevant issue for this article is its content and its supporting citations. (Admittedly, it can seem strange when other articles do have issues, so your point is understandable. It's just that there is a general consensus that Wikipedia is not looking for a Lowest Common Denominator comparison, it's looking for work product that meets criteria. The optimistic dogma is those articles will eventually be improved or removed.) The good news for this proposed article is that this "defense" isn't needed - there are references, and some of them are adequate - end of story. FeatherPluma (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Notability:

The following representative external links demonstrate the notability of literalist interpretations of Biblical chronology, which according to these sources has been controversially discussed for more than 100 years:

20140117 Please note that WP:N has particular guidelines. For example, the article's specific topic should have received substantial handling in a good quality WP:RS. (3 elements emphasized for clarity.) WordPress ain't going to do it as far as WP:N goes, nor is wilgafney.com or wmich.edu because they fail the third element - see guidelines as to why. (This doesn't mean you can't use these 3 references -you can, but not for notability specifically. Their use as a source, if the article has already established notability with some other reference that DOES meet WP:N, depends on a lesser standard, including how they are used in their particular place within the WP article. It's important to pay attention to the rules of the particular medium, in this case the specific way in which Wikipedia uses language in its guidelines, which reviewer would opine as not conforming to the everyday plain meaning. But the "defense" you are pushing is not needed. Biblical chronologies, and attempts at literalist chronologies are NOT obscure - there are numerous books and journal treatments.) FeatherPluma (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

In the section copied here to be revised and submitted as a separate article I cited as a source of data for the table the Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary (2003), which also has an article "Chronology of the Biblical Period" pp. 291b–295a, Joel F. Drinkard, Jr. and E. Ray Clendenen, and likewise treats of both the literal interpretation of biblical chronology and the many biblical scholars who discount the Bible's chronological data (p. 293). It sources the widely used system of Edwin A. Thiele referenced in Chronology of the Bible together with a chart of Significant Dates in Old Testament Bible History, and it says: "Furthermore, different methods of harmonizing the dates of biblical kings yield slightly different results."

Intro lead too long:

The following representative Wikipedia articles have intro leads which equal or exceed the length of the intro lead of this article:

—and this is not an exhaustive listing.

Original research:

I view this proposed article with what, in the past, I've called a "hostile eye" (toward my own written works) seeking a "pretext" to reject it, in order to avoid inclusion of any element that could be classified as OR. My collegues have told me I'm sometimes too detail-oriented and "nit-picky". But they've found that can be an advantage too. I've read the WPNOR policy multiple times to be clear about what is and what isn't OR. I'm convinced that I've succeeded avoiding OR here mainly because both pro and con views are represented NPOV—but others may disagree. I've consulted WP for years, and I have noticed some instances where "OR" is suggested by editors when it's clearly the case, and also instances where the objection of "OR" appears only as a pretext to reject material submitted in Good Faith, and to generate contention, and even to provoke an edit war just to get it removed from the pages of Wikipedia simply because they didn't like it for one reason or another. In that context the article "Don't Bite the Newcomers" got my attention. I'm impressed by the consistently dispassionate fairness of the Administrators and the results of seeking consensus from the community. Being aware of this, I've constructed this article consistent with WP standards. I am fully aware that objections of "original research" might be invented against it such as:

"sources cited do not explicitly state what is said here"
"facts are presented in a way that does not reflect NPOV and promote a conclusion not supported by the sources"
"no third-party sources present the table constructed in this article".

With these in mind I have carefully avoided defects and constructions that could reasonably and actually be proposed as OR, and have stated only what is present in cited sources that are verifiable.

Inherent difficulties which display readily evident defects are not violations of NPOV:

example – adding two sets of numbers explicitly present in the sources and presenting the differences between the two resulting totalled sums as discrepancies or inconsistencies does not represent a particular POV but only a simple fact. I only state that reconciling them is difficult. I do not say or imply that it is impossible to reconcile them, nor do I state a conclusion that the method is therefore invalidated, which would be Original Research.

Dates implicit in the source material arithmetically derived and explicitly expressed here are not Original Research:

example – The fact that Darius the Mede was 62 years old at the historically established date 539 BCE and explicitly placing the date of his birth at 601 BCE in the table of this article, while no external source, second- or third-party, encyclopedic or otherwise, explicitly states the date of his birth, is not Original Research but simple arithmetic.
Again, adding the numbers of the years presented explicitly in the books of Kings and beginning with the historical date of 587 BCE, then stating as the sum of those years the first year of Solomon's reign as the arithmetically derived 1022 BCE, is not Original Research, even though published second- and third-party sources give a different historical date. 587 + 435 = 1022 is an established mathematical certainty no one can dispute. Simple addition of numbers does not require a cited source, just as the statement that Paris is the capital city of France does not require a verifiable source. Dates determined by a literalist mechanical method of reckoning from a single known historical date are not Original Research even when the resultant dates determined by that particular method do not correspond to dates currently established by scholars and historians. I have stated that they disagree, which is a fact. I have not stated that the one disproves the other, an unjustifiable conclusion which would certainly be Original Research. I have stated that the resultant dates in a chronology reckoned by a literalist method of hermaneutics are not accepted as historical fact by mainstream scholars and historians.
It is the same with the mechanical demonstration of the uncertainty associated with the unknown age of Joshua when he was sent to spy out the land of Canaan. It is certain that he was an adult and a "leader of a house in Israel". Ages for Joshua not impossible in accordance with a literalist reading of both scripture and tradition are proposed (40, 50, 60), and the arithmetical results, supported by explicit phraseology in the biblical text with parallel biblical texts using the same phraseology cited from sources biblical and extra-biblical as having a specific (literal) sense and meaning, are stated. An illustrative demonstration of the fact that "precision dating of biblical chronology for the entire period preceding Joshua is not currently possible" is not Original Research, particularly when it is presented without conclusion pro or con as "representative of" a literalist method of constructing a biblical chronology.
Opting to use a "traditional" age such as 40 for Joshua as a leader of a house in the wilderness of Paran, while somewhat arbitrary, is not Original Research since it is not used to promote a particular point of view or conclusion but only as a servicable number, expressly identified as uncertain and approximate, solely for the purpose of illustration in the Biblical literalist table.

The form and content of the Biblical literalist table is not Original Research:

The table is derived from known multiple translations of the biblical text (not from the original manuscripts), and from second- and third-party sources citing them, just as the form and content of the tables seen in Chronology of the Bible is derived from the second-party sources Seder Olam Rabbah and Assyrian chronology, from ancient manuscripts, and from third-party sources such as scholarly and historical publications and books, and numerous biblical and general encyclopedias. These sources likewise do not present the biblical and historical data in the exact visual form of the tables presented in that article's Overview, Abraham to United Monarchy, and Divided Monarchy.

I submit that the above demonstates the reasonable inclusion of the article being constructed here. I believe that if the proposed article page is approved and created the subsequent statistics of that page will more than adequately demonstrate that its inclusion in Wikipedia is warranted.

Another objection:

It's entirely possible that someone will post an objection against this article saying that it's 'WAY "too dense, too detailed, too abstruse, too complicated, too technical for inclusion in an encyclopedia". The same could be said about the following articles currently included in Wikipedia (this article on Biblical literalist chronology is easy to read in comparison to these):

BLOAT: "This bloated article has too much unnecessary bilge. It could be cut in half."

A related issue. I've read the WP on BLOAT, and I've seen articles so obviously bloated with unnecessary extra argument, solely intended to drive home an "important" point already adequately made, that the author beats it into the ground until it's dead 10 times over. I'm fully aware that I have a tendency to do exactly that. The edit history of this draft article here demonstrates (I hope!) that I have cut back on my own guilty "bloat". I have seen instances where a charge of "bloat" is leveled against an article without explanation or justification or specifying exactly what parts were "bloat"—leaving the impression that the objecting editor just wants to reduce for the sake of "encyclopedic concision" without actually reading the material, but simply "eyeballed" the length of it and automatically decided that it's "just too long". If there is genuine bloat in this draft, then I welcome experienced Wikipedians to trim it down! No problem. Now that I have completed it, and before submitting it, I consider the article now to belong to the Wikipedia community. No interference from me.

20140128 Despite admirable subtlety of detail, the unreferenced hypothetical demonstration could perhaps be perceived as problematic bloat. The literature is replete with strong opinions that there are challenges for any analysis of the era to which this indirect hypothetical ardroitly points. It would be preferable to cite the literature.

With respect. Cheers! Have fun. --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Additional edits

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

@Encyclopedic researcher: Besides the things mentioned in 2 edit summaries of the article, a "last=yes" parameter was added to the Template:Userspace draft at the top of the page. A stray ")" was removed. In 2 places in quotes "God [the Bible]..." was changed to "God...". (We can't add something like that to scripture quotes.)
There are quite a few places where 2 reference systems are used for the same reference, parenthetical and footnote. For the Bibleverse reference "convenience" links, the in-line parenthetical method is best (Proverbs 1:7). For 3rd-party sources, use footnotes only, except where brief attribution is necessary.
Triple-click here, to be of good cheer. —Telpardec (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I had to laugh when I read this, because (duh) I was attempting to fulfill Wikipedia's policy of "frowning on inline external links"—and all Bibleverse links are externals. Thanks for the other clarifications. I'll have to do some re-thinking bacause I'm still new to this, and I'm reminded of the proverb about the "old dog" learning new tricks. (I'm in my late 60s).
You know—I'm beginning to feel like the teenager who poutingly protests: everything I do is "wrong" (poor baby!).
With respect. --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 13:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

At the article, I will likely object to any direct linking to Bible verses because choosing any one particular version would be undue WP:WEIGHT, since there are multiple translation/versions to pick from. So a better approach is just use text without the link (Genesis 1:1). NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hold the horses, I just realized the linked site has multiple translations. At the moment I am undecided what I think, so for the time being please forget I said anything about linking to bible text in the article. My main theme is this: forget whatever you think of the subject, and whatever belief you have. What we do here is report in a WP:NPOV way all of the credible perspectives on a given subject that can be supported with what wikipedia defines as reliable sources. If you only assert one of those perspectives, that's a problem of editorial opinion, rather than "neutral point of view". And that's how you're contribs will be evaluated. As for linking to biblical text, the engine did have different translations. Making that an interesting question. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:55, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Guy! I am fully aware of the mine-field attending any proposed article that's Religious/Bible-related. Believe me, it's not much different from submitting material to the editorial board of a professional journal. I appreciate your obvious tone of sympathy for what will probably happen. However, just as you reviewed and second-guessed your own spontaneous first reaction, so others might (or might not !) and that's O.K. (I see you already know you have a tendency to jump too quickly and that's valuable son.) My intention here is to set out organized material that can be revised by the WP community into a good article for Wikipedia. If it's rejected, or just simply annihilated, I've nevertheless personally gained from working with the existing published data I gathered from scattered elements out there (how 'bout that!—an X-files ref!). I'm also aware after years of reading Wikipedia that there are people who delight in exercising, just for fun, a kind of "demolition derby" on an article, just to see what will happen. That's just too bad. I'll submit the finished article this week, Thursday 26 December, and step back entirely to let happen what will happen (explosive ordnance). If it survives, it'll be a good article, and our readers will benefit. If it doesn't, that's O.K. too. I won't interfere, or defend it. I'm simply giving it to Wikipedia to own. (And isn't that The Prime Directive?). Believe me, I have no intention of OWNing the submitted work. Again, Thanks, Guy, for the warning. Appreciated. With respect --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Addendum to the above: In case I didn't make it fully clear, and to remove all doubt, I heartily endorse unilateral action by other Wikipedians who would like to immediately improve this article by Selective Deletion Without Needing Permission. You don't need to say the article needs this or that: just do it, change it. Go ahead! Feel free! It's all right! (I'll look it over just before submitting it.) Sincerely, with respect --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 06:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Making notes

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Encyclopedic researcher: The ==Notes== section looks OK, with reflist group=note. Now you need to find the <ref></ref> pairs that you want to appear in ==Notes== instead of ==References==, and add: <ref group=note>, or if you have any named refs: <ref name="same-cite-in-3-places" group=note>. You can {{ping}} me in any message area (except my talk page) to alert me that there is a message for me to read somewhere.
—Telpardec 05:29, 14 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Article neutrality

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

While some reviewers may dispute the neutrality of this article, the following points should be considered:

Sources regarding the reasonable possibility of constructing a reliable Biblical literalist chronology both pro and con have been cited in the body of the article and in the References and Notes sections at the foot of the article.
The Intro lead states that a literal interpretation of dates can be drawn from the Biblical text starting with an historically established key base date and using simple arithmetic to add together the numbers in the Biblical text to establish a tabulated chronology—pro. It also states, with the dating of the Exodus as a prime example, that differing, inconsistent, even contradictory, results can be obtained depending on how the calculation is performed—con.
The Biblical literalist table is headed with a disclaimer stating that it is neither definitive nor historically factual—con—but that it is an illustrative demonstration of the results obtained arithmetically by simply calculating and tabulating the numerical values stated in the Biblical texts—pro.
The article states the sources of historically established datings of the events related in the Biblical text, proposed by professional historians and archæologists, based on their findings and conclusions, which do not support the literal counting of numbers in the Bible to derive the dates of those events—con. It also cites the variant and conflicting interpretations of historical dates from those same sources, both specifically and in general, with citations from published third-party sources affirming the fact that they vary, the one from the other, and do not agree, and gives examples of how a literalist reading of the text could resolve those differences historically and archæologically (e.g. Jericho and Antiochus)—pro.
Biblical literalists, e.g. Wood and Jacobovici, are referenced—pro—and Biblical Minimalists (liberal scholars) are referenced—con.
The particular citations of referenced texts of the Bible are linked to an online site that provides a multitude of translations and versions, avoiding undue weight toward particular theological viewpoints and interpretations. Where a single version is displayed by the link, other versions are also already made available at the same linked page by the provider (mainly Biblegateway.com) with a single click. Differences in Bible translations and versions are also stated in the article as examples.
Differences in scholarly sourced dates are treated as a fact without prejudice. And discrepancies between those datings and the numbers in the Bible are exemplified without stating that the one disproves or discredits the other.
The fact that resource manuscripts, texts, materials and publications can differ both from each other and from the Biblical text is highlighted together with the fact that the reliability of any chronology erected will be affected by the data they offer—con.
Dates in the Table are given as the result of a simple mechanical arithmetical calculation (2 + 2 always = 4, which does not need a verifiable, reliable source to support that fact)—pro. Historical dates which differ from them, both from Bernard Grun's Timetables of History and from the cited sources for particular historical dates in linked WP articles, are also given in the Table—con.
More than once the article states that a precise literalist chronology does not seem possible given the difficulties of harmonizing different parts of the Bible which appear inconsistent or contradictory—con. But it also states the (sourced) literalist position that when the chronology of the Biblical text is taken seriously some archæological problems would be immediately resolved—pro.
The point is made at the beginning of the article, both at the end of the Intro lead and in the first part of the body of the article, that the literal sense is primary but that it must be discovered by exegesis and the rules of sound interpretation. This establishes the fact that apparent discrepancies and inconsistencies in literalist dating can be resolved—pro (contingent and conditional).

These points demonstrate that the article represents the majority and minority viewpoints together, both pro and con, and that it adequately presents a Neutral Point Of View representative of the Wikipedia policy of neutrality.
With respect. --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 10:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

finished draft

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

A few words about the content and title.

The title probably should be revised to Biblical literalist chronology (Old Testament). The article does not touch on the New Testament.
This article is intended to answer several questions a reader like myself is sure to bring to it.

What exactly is meant by "Biblical literalist chronology"? Who says? How long has it been going on? How old is this method?
What are the results when the numbers of the years in the Bible are just simply added together and tabulated, just as they are, without any (exegetical) qualification? Just simple calculator arithmetic without scholarship. (It would be kind of satisfying to know, and to be able to check my own tabulation of the Bible.)
Where in history would that tabulation of dates place the persons and events mentioned in the Bible? ("Wouldn't you like to know?")
Is literal letterism solely an evangelical, fundamentalist Protestant approach, or are there conservative, traditionalist Orthodox and Catholic literalists who also "take the Bible at its word"? Related to that: How inclusive is this article when it comes to the books of the Bible? Can any be excluded according to a particular restrictive or limited canon without violating NPOV?
If there are difficulties in dating, what are they, and can they be resolved? Specifying difficulties as a fact is not POV slanted—but any failure to point out that they can actually be resolved, with citation of verifiable sources which state that they can be appropriately and properly resolved, would be against NPOV.
Among scholars and historians, are there any supporters of literalism? Do any of them think it's relevant today? Is it even an issue?
Has a universally agreed consensus been reached on a literalist chronology?

The article includes mention of books included among the Apocrypha and the Pseudepigrapha. The canonical listing of inspired scriptures had not been completely determined before the time of Jesus, so all relevant texts have been included in the Table. All books attributed to Bible characters by name are placed in the Table according to the name of the author in the text itself, for example "Daniel" and "The Psalms of Solomon". Links to WP articles on those books are provided for access to discussion of their actual historical authorship and dating in history.
Those books and texts which do not contain attribution by name to particular Bible characters, (anonymously written) such as Ecclesiastes and Wisdom, are placed in the Table according to Biblical scholars' current estimates of the period in which they were actually written. The Book of Job has traditionally been regarded as having to do with a man who lived before the time of Moses, and some traditionalists have viewed the events of that book as being in the period of time between Joseph in Egypt and the Exodus under Moses, so they would probably place it there in the Table. But since the text doesn't say so, and it doesn't give the author's name, and it utterly lacks any kind of historical allusion, it has been placed in the Table according to the most current dating of Bible scholars of the time of its composition, after the time of the Exile, in the period of Ezra and Nehemiah.
I have tried to be historical, balanced and neutral in the treatment of what remains a volatile issue in Biblical studies and among Christians. There isn't any research here. I know the difference, having actually done some real research myself. This is more like a collection of already existing data presented without any particular conclusion reached and stated. If I had wanted that, I would have written a book, and this ain't it. I have my own entrenched opinion and understanding of genuine literalism. I hope none of you is able to deduce from the tone of this draft alone whether or not I myself am a literal letterist, and whether I am Protestant or Orthodox or Catholic. If not, then the draft is a success, to that degree.

Finally—the article is now as finished as I can make it with what little expertise I have acquired over several decades, and with the most welcome advice and help of those other Wikipedians who contributed no small amount of good advice and experience to its development. Many thanks, to each one of you! Please make any changes and deletions necessary to make it a good article. Destroy it if it has no value. With respect, and best wishes for the New Year. --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

You've certainly invested a lot of time. Now what? Are you going to post this to article space? Our rules don't let you leave it in your user space forever. Without endorsing, or rejecting, anything you have written congrats on at least delivering your baby. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Delighted to hear from you, Guy! As promised, 2200 hrs CST my time, tonight! After that, chop away! And best wishes.
With respect --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 02:08, 27 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

After posting the draft, I found the following relevant External links and added them for additional balanced NPOV:

Bible Time Lines and Chronology (teachinghearts.org)
Timeline of Biblical and World Events (gbgm-umc.org)
Bible World History timeline (bibleworldhistory.com)
Bible Timeline (biblehub.com)
"The Date of the Exodus: The Historical Study of Scripture", Dennis Bratcher (presents differing views, includes datings)
"The Modern Inerrancy Debate", Dennis Bratcher (presents both sides, includes datings)
—this link provides Protestant readers with much needed balance to the CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA link

I believe these 6 links improve the article! With respect, --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 22:15, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

tools.wmflabs.org

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I am concerned that the "internal server tools.wmflabs.org" does not always allow access to the "bibleverse" links. As I went over the article draft this morning, none of them functioned. If this is a frequent problem, it could frustrate readers' attempts to consult and compare multiple texts and versions NPOV. Is there an alternative? --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 14:06, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I just now accessed the "bibleverse" links from another computer at a different site and they all worked just fine. So it's probably not as big a problem as at first it seemed. With respect. --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

U N D E R C O N S T R U C T I O N

@Encyclopedic researcher: The servers (including the main Wikimedia servers) sometimes get overloaded during USA Eastern Time zone 12 noon to about 5 pm. The script for the bibleverse template is only one of many items being switched over to the Wiki-Media Foundation Labs (tools.wmflabs.org) server from toolserver.org and other sites. There will be growing pains for some time to come.
Hang in there. —Telpardec TALK 06:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the response and info! Everyone at Wikipedia has been outstandingly supportive! With respect, --Encyclopedic researcher (talk) 13:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Add topic