Jump to content

Talk:New Testament

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bibliography: 177

[edit]

I looked up the quote from Bruce Metzger: a textual commentary on The Greek New Testament, and at least the 4th edition don’t have this quote in the page 367, someone please change this quote or look up for the correct one, I couldn’t find it. HBelk (talk) 07:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ESV Study Bible in lead seems odd

[edit]

Better to stick to academic sources for the lead it seems to me. 2600:100C:B0A7:CABD:7D21:CBBA:225D:EEDF (talk) 10:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe

[edit]

@Silverfish: Bernier is only an assistant professor (correct me if I'm wrong). If he authored a scientific revolution of Bible scholarship, that alone would have granted him a full professorship. So, for these reasons, I believe his work is WP:FRINGE, or at least highly WP:UNDUE.

Just taking the marketing for that book at face value, one would believe Bernier is a much greater scholar than Wellhausen. Which did not pan out in reality. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bernier's book isn't fringe given the support it has received by major scholars. Chris Keith himself has endorsed the book, among many others listed.
"Bernier's study on the dating of early Christian literature is bold and disruptive in a field that has become complacent on such matters. Bernier's argument...is notable and impressive, but even more impressive is his transparent style of arguing in such a way that those who agree and disagree will alike find this an invaluable resource."
Seems to sum up the response to the book pretty well.
Not becoming full professor doesn't mean as much these days given the decline in tenure-track roles given. Stephen Carlson mentioned that E.P. Sanders wouldn't have received tenure with Paul and Palestinian Judaism today at Duke.
And being faculty at arguably the top school in Canada is nothing other than impressive. Silverfish2024 (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The book isn't paradigm-shifting, it is preaching to the choir. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say it was paradigm shifting. It actually follows a tendency to date the New Testament earlier, with the Tubingen School in the 19th Century dating many texts well into the Second Century. Harnack turned that down to largely the dates we see today, and Robinson, the only major monograph on the issue during the 20th Century, dated it down even further.
Anyways Chris Keith, perhaps the foremost next-generation NT scholar, among others, does endorse the book and see it as a potential game-changer in scholarship, so your unsourced claim does not seem correct. Silverfish2024 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The only way to stay conservative is to cut yourselves off from the wider scholarship at large. But then you'll just be talking to yourselves and be ignored by others." John W. Loftus. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot see what does this quote have to do with the conversation. It seems pretty ironic, considering that Bernier is a scholar at a good university with favorable views from other top scholars, while John Loftus is not a major critical scholar as far as I can tell. It seems like he is associated with the fringe Christ Myth theory, given he wrote a book with Robert Price. Silverfish2024 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It goes both ways: CMT and the Jesus Seminar are the opposite extreme of the spectrum. They are mostly ignored because they are too far from the academic mainstream.
"Regis College is the Jesuit College associated with the University of Toronto." Laurence A. Moran.
"Regis College is the theological school of the Society of Jesus in Canada, affiliated with the University of Toronto through the Toronto School of Theology" from its own website. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but Bernier's work is definitely not that.
Toronto School of Theology was ranked 1 in Canada and 18 globally by QS. I don't know what you were trying to prove with these quotes, but this makes clear that Bernier is at a good school. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
More exactly, Bernier teaches at the Jesuit College, not TST itself. http://individual.utoronto.ca/hayes/xty_canada/tsthistory.html TST is not a faculty, it is an association of independent faculties. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regis is one of the seven constituent colleges of the Toronto School of Theology (a consortium of separate colleges), so saying Bernier teaches there is fine.
Your link mentions that the school provides educational quality assurance between every member and the University of Toronto, so regardless of the details it is clear that Regis is fully an integral part of Toronto's academic culture.
The overarching point though is that Bernier is not a scholarly fringe, and his work has been received well. If you think otherwise, you should provide some sources suggesting that his book has been unsuccessful. Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did WP:CHOPSY began to teach Bernier's views? The WP:BURDEN is not upon me, to show they don't. It's hard to prove a negative.
Also, my point wasn't "he is fringe", but "he is fringe or undue". tgeorgescu (talk) 20:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHOPSY is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines and has not been endorsed by the community. Obviously cutting-edge research will not be taught to students at university.
I have already proven though the endorsements the positive reception of Bernier's views. And since I have shown my source to be sufficient (and no one has challenged verification), anyone who removes it should justify it.
Once an editor has provided any source..to be sufficient...any editor who later removes the material must articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion
You did identify supposed problems at the very beginning, but I think its clear they have already been refuted and are not correct. Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CHOPSY isn't, but WP:UNDUE and WP:BESTSOURCES are.
If I remember well from attending the University of Amsterdam, I had to read pretty recent papers for several courses. And I was studying at undergraduate level. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The very first line:
Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources
Bernier's work is academically published and by a top scholar and fulfills the 'reliable source' criteria, so removing his work entirely is not justifiable, though I do think I should shorten the description to avoid undue weight. Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the top scholar? Bernier isn't a top scholar. WP:UNDUE cannot be undone through WP:Wikilawyering. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He's at a top 20 world Uni as discussed earlier so yes, its not unreasonable. Chris Keith definitely is. I did not emphasize 'all' either; WP:UNDUE itself did. Wikilawyering is yet another essay that is not binding. Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Red Slash: Since you reverted me on this... everything in the phrasing of that section is subtly favoring the admittedly popular but scholarly-fringe argument that the early Church "had it right." In general, if you add "Modern mainstream scholars hold" to a sentence on Wikipedia, you don't need to include that phrase, you can just state it normally rather than over-qualify it. I'm really not sure an extended section on the "historiography" of older beliefs is due weight; that seems material more suited for Augustinian hypothesis, Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, and so on. Jonathan Bernier in particular appears to be a no-name, and the phrasing is wildly misleading as it seems to describe the case against the traditional ascriptions getting weaker over time, rather than stronger via the trick of picking on one random scholar who picked a very late date. Richard Bauckham is a good source, I've been sourcing from a book of Bauckham's myself recently, but he is in the scholarly minority on his claims of earlier dates, and even he doesn't hold to the traditional ascriptions for the synoptics - which the section occludes by including him in a group that does, and acts as if he agrees on everything. If you are in favor of keeping it, then it needs to be sourced to more "neutral" sources as well, which I suspect would make it read more incendiary if it covers the scholarly debate. I'd much rather lead with the consensus view, and stick the historiographical debate elsewhere to keep this on-topic; if you think we should include it anyway, then it should be off in its own section, and detail all the reasons why modern scholars aren't crazy, rather than the added section's slant of acting as if it was solely the destruction of the Temple argument. SnowFire (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

See WP:FTN. Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*I haven't forgotten about this. I've been trying to avoid WP:OR by weaving a web of cited sources from combining different books, but trying to find a proper scholarly overview of the entire topic and argument. As noted before, I'm fine with adding more on the "traditionalist" perspective, but I am inclined to agree per previous comments that Jonathan Bernier appears to be a nobody, equivalent to citing random websites. Let's at least use Bauckham or the like if we want to cite a more traditionalist perspective. SnowFire (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And... you assume too much, namely that 18th rank worldwide is transferable from UoT to TST, and from TST to the Jesuit College. QS says nothing about TST, let alone the Jesuit College. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TST claimed in public that they are highly ranked by QS, so I doubt there is any real distinction between the two. Regis is one of the colleges that make up the TST, which is a group of schools that collectively comprise the institution, so there is nothing to transfer.
The real discussion, of course, is about Bernier's book Rethinking the Dates. Silverfish2024 (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan Bernier in particular appears to be a no-name ... Jonathan Bernier appears to be a nobody, equivalent to citing random websites. Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bernier's book is an academically published monograph by Baker and has scholarly endorsements from Chris Keith, Isaac T. Soon, so it is definitely not equivalent to citing random websites. Whether an editor has heard about him is irrelevant to establishing reliability. Bernier is not different from Bauckham or Sanders or Fredriksen or any other scholar in that regard. Silverfish2024 (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two scholars in a century arguing for early dates is a "tendency"? Even the CMT has more support... The only way to add this is by contextualizing it, and that would indeed be undue. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, Robinson and Bernier are the only ones to publish proper monographs on the subject. Off the top of my head Maurice Casey, James Crossley, and Dan Wallace support early dates. Not to mention the endorsements Bernier received from Chris Keith, James McGrath, Isaac Soon, and more. It is a minority view, but definitely not fringe, and has a good chance of increased acceptance soon. Silverfish2024 (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:New_Testament&oldid=1269756538"