Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
: talk page, sure. just so you know my opinion, and i get it from reading Bible dictionaries and such, is that all start off mentioning the "traditional" view of authorship (for every Bible book), then they get into the "current" view. I prefer to the use of "modern critical scholarship" for this view -- the "official term" for modern bible scholars who hold to a "critical" view of the original texts. cheers, ] (]) 12:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
: talk page, sure. just so you know my opinion, and i get it from reading Bible dictionaries and such, is that all start off mentioning the "traditional" view of authorship (for every Bible book), then they get into the "current" view. I prefer to the use of "modern critical scholarship" for this view -- the "official term" for modern bible scholars who hold to a "critical" view of the original texts. cheers, ] (]) 12:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks for your note on the Talk page. I don't have time to respond this weekend, but I will next week. In the meantime I thought it would be a courteous gesture to thank you :). ] (]) 03:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
::Thanks for your note on the Talk page. I don't have time to respond this weekend, but I will next week. In the meantime I thought it would be a courteous gesture to thank you :). ] (]) 03:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
== July 2009 ==
] ] to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a ]{{#if:Garden of Eden|. A contribution you made to ] appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem}}. Please remember to observe our ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|Thank you.}}<!-- Template:uw-npov1 -->] (]) 15:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Garden of Eden|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr -->] (]) 15:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for experimenting with Misplaced Pages. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Passportguy (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Book of Joshua
"Can you add a source for the "compilation" belief?" Not really - I was only editing what was already there, I didn't actually write it. I think that whole section is too long. We only need to describe ideas, not prove them. But I'll have a look for something. PiCo (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Here's something - comes from a book review: "Modern historical-critical research discerns basically the following three stages in the process of literary formation of the book of Joshua (120). The three stages are a basic Deuteronomistic reformulation of pre-Dtr narratives (DtrH) followed respectively by nomistic (DtrN), and Priestly (RedP) redactions." This is apparently called the "Gottingen school" model. I have no idea if it's the dominant model, but the reviewer (or the book?) implies that it is. The book is Michael N. van der Meer, Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses, Supplements to Vetus Testamentum 102. The review is by Steven L. McKenzie in the RBL (2005). See on the RBL website. The reviwer is basically saying that the book is weak, and I gather that the Gottingen School is not the last word on the subject.
The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 72 FAs, 6 FLs, and 145 GAs, which includes 4 more FAs. We did however lose one FL and 1 GAs over the past month, but we still gained overall.
The WikiProject Films has recently created a new task force for Christian films. All interested parties are welcome to join and contribute.
Member contest of the month
Given the lateness of the newsletter last month, the contest from last month continues. Anyone who can bring any of the few Stub class articles among the project's 1000 most often accessed articles by the end of June will get an award. Please see the details Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Christianity#Project challenge of the month.
Welcome to the Ninth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.
I am in the process of going through the various categories related to Christianity. I am finding that several of them may not have sufficient number of members to continue. By the end of the month, I hope to have the main category list finished (yeah, it might take that long, it's huge). At that time, I think we will review all the categories and see which may not have sufficient articles to continue. Please feel free to take part in the discussion regading what the minimum number of category items is, and how to deal with the non-qualifying categories, on the General Forum page.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by -- TinuCherian - 13:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
The Christianity project and its related projects currently have 76 FAs, 8 FLs, and 148 GAs. We gained new recognized content in each field, with 4 FAs promoted, 2 FLs, and 3 GAs. Congratulations and a big thank you to all those who worked on these articles!
I am still working on the categorization matter. With any luck, we should have some results by the end of the month. There are also some discussions regarding project related activities at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/General Forum. One issue in particular that might be addressed is possible elections of new coordinators. Anyone interested in serving in such a capacity is more than welcome to indicate as much.
Related projects news
The WikiProject Films has recently created a new task force for Christian films. All interested parties are welcome to join and contribute.
Member contest of the month
The previous contests are still ongoing, because of the extreme amount of time the categorization is taking me. Anyone who can bring any of the few Stub class articles among the project's 1000 most often accessed articles by the end of July will get an award. Please see the details Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Christianity#Project challenge of the month.
Welcome to the Tenth issue of the WikiProject Christianity newsletter! Use this newsletter as a mechanism to inform yourselves about progress at the project and please be inspired to take more active roles in what we do.
It has been a long time since the last coordinators election. There is a lot for people to do, and I certainly would welcome seeing any individuals with an interest in such a position put themselves forward as candidates. I in particular would very much like to see some degree of "specialization" in the coordinators, so that, for instance, we might have someone knowledgable about some of the specific Christian faith traditions or other main subjects, like Orthodoxy, Lutheranism, Mormonism, the Jehovah's Witnesses, art, theology, and so on. If any parties who have experience with some of our faith- or- subject-based content would be interested in being candidates, I would love to see them do so. Please feel free to take part in the discussion regading what the minimum number of category items is, and how to deal with the non-qualifying categories, on the General Forum page.
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.
This newsletter is automatically delivered by ~~~~
We seem to be in danger of getting into an edit war on this article. I have no objection to your essential point, namely that conservative scholars uphold Mosaic authorship, I'm simply trying to keep the lead as short and simple as possible. Perhaps the talk page is the place to go? PiCo (talk) 06:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
talk page, sure. just so you know my opinion, and i get it from reading Bible dictionaries and such, is that all start off mentioning the "traditional" view of authorship (for every Bible book), then they get into the "current" view. I prefer to the use of "modern critical scholarship" for this view -- the "official term" for modern bible scholars who hold to a "critical" view of the original texts. cheers, SAE (talk) 12:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your note on the Talk page. I don't have time to respond this weekend, but I will next week. In the meantime I thought it would be a courteous gesture to thank you :). PiCo (talk) 03:24, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
July 2009
Welcome to Misplaced Pages, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Misplaced Pages is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Garden of Eden appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you.DreamGuy (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Garden of Eden. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. DreamGuy (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
