Talk:Historicity of the Bible/New version

Scientific v Academic

I like the look of the new version so far. One quibble though is your use of the word "scientific". Can I suggest that you change this to "academic" or "scholarly"? I think that this is probably less contentious, as many people have a narrower definition of the word scientific than your usage of the word allows. --G Rutter 13:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could you expand that a bit? I think the Poepperian view of what constitutes science is the most common, and by that (both) views are definitely scientific. So I would like to better understand what the contention is about. (BTW, I much prefer "academic" to the vague "scholarly"). Gady 14:46, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Restructuring

The page shouldn't be structured in terms of minimalism vs maximalism - that's an essay approach and I'm sure I read somewhere about Wiki entries not being essays. In any case, the more information is added, the more difficult it gets to keep that approach up. The page needs structuring, as I have done, along primarily chronological lines, so that we can have evidence pro/con a historical David etc, without getting bogged down with windy paragraphs about whether people are in one camp or the other, with terms one side rejects. Rd232 00:14, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rd232 hi. First of all, thanks for helping me out with this draft — I don't have much time and I need help. Also, evidently your views are similar to mine... However, you have gone too far in your editing. If the page were to be copied that way to the main page and edit war will ensue immidiately, which would be counterproductive. Contrary to what you said, the page has probably at least three main authors, all maximalists, and they are probably watching it. I would suggest the following:

• Keep the terms minimalist and maximalist, and identify both as scientific. This is a common and valid classification. The old version overused it, but we shouldn't go to the other extreme.
• Use softer language and represent the other side where reasonable.

I'll start right away. Gady 01:24, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, if we have editors who (a) come from a maximalist position and (b) are used to that terminology, then this makes it a little more delicate. Certainly we should define the terms - hopefully we can reach a common definition. That definition, and the subsequent uses of the terms, must take into account:

• The maximalist approach is clearly definable - someone who wishes, for theological reasons, to validate as much of the Bible historically as possible. They may still use a broadly scientific approach (weighing the evidence on both sides, reasonable debate etc) but when they're tossing the evidential coin, there's a definite side they're hoping it to fall on.
• There is no identifiable minimalist approach, as the Philip Davies article makes clear. Few, if any, go around tossing the evidential coin hoping it will disprove the Bible; they just happen to look at the evidence differently (and may even be disappointed at the outcome). And as an external label (used by maximalists), minimalism is worse than useless, because it covers so many positions. As the existing page acknowledges with repeated bits of waffling, you may be a little bit minimalist and a little bit maximalist - in which case the labels are triumphantly meaningless.
• Use of the labels is pointlessly, unconstructively divisive. It is certainly NPOV, because it defines positions in relation to how much they validate the Bible. This is not, as you suggested, scientific - nobody goes around saying "well, he's a Higgs boson minimalist". If you look at other contexts in which the terms minimalist and maximalist are used, this is overwhelmingly in relation to style, in architecture and literature. The terms are unhelpful for scientific debate.

In conclusion, let's define the terms in the intro, and after that use the terms only where necessary (mostly never I think, but we'll see). Also, we could consider using terms like "weak historicity" as a NPOV term for "Biblical minimalism" if we need to use the term in the main body of the page. Oh, on the subject of softer language and balance - we should always strive to do this of course. This is the advantage of wikipedia - there are others to help you get it right! Rd232 12:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Defining the terms and then using them sparingly is just what I had in mind.
• I would strike "for theological reasons" from the definition of maximalist. It probably only accurately describes a minority of the maximalists, and its anyway not our business to speculate about their motives.
• There are no well defined minimalist or maximalist schools of thought, but as adjectives they are still useful, and commonly used. Analogously, "big" and "small" are not well defined, but that doesn't stop us from claiming that an elephant is big, right? Let's minimize our efforts to assuring that the terms are not abused. In general, people on Wikipedia love to tag. Believe me that the "terrorist" tag caused much more contention than the "minimalist" or "maximalist" tag, and yet Wikipedian continue to tag things as terrorists and fight over it.
• Your view of what is scientific is — if I understand it correctly — too restrictive. Read Karl Popper, for example. And BTW, the physics article have their share of POV fights. See e.g. mirror matter and supersymmetry.

Gady 12:26, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• OK, we agree to minimise use of the terms. I think with more evidence and discussion the problem will fade anyway. Hopefully.
• If there are no well-defined schools of min/max thought then the labels are almost by definition likely to be misleading. The new version currently doesn't use the terms and I don't think it needs them either, as it stands. (As for your big analogy - an encylopaedia that defines an elephant as 'big', instead of as 'around 3m tall when fully-grown' isn't really being helpful, is it?)
• I just looked at History of ancient Israel and Judah and we're running into potential problems of duplication here. I can't immediately see how to solve this.
• Another issue - I think we could do with a page Bible as historical source. This would cover the ground of what kind of source the Bible is, and what different people think, and would end up almost by accident clarifying (if not defining) the min/max positions. Looking at History of ancient Israel and Judah, it's almost like the authors thought The Bible and history would do this... maybe it should, but I'm inclined to think it would be less confusing as a separate entry. Rd232 10:21, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You actually asked and answered in the same paragraph... yes, this page is not about history but about the Bible as a historical reference. For this reason there is no serious duplication with History of ancient Israel and Judah which (theoretically, at least) aims at presenting history as reconstructed from various sources. What you are suggesting is to rename this page "The Bible as a historical source". This is a different issue that it would probably be better to discuss later. Let's take things one at a time. Gady 14:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily suggesting renaming this entry - but accepting it as a serious possibility does help clarify that perhaps this should be more of a discussion page about the Bible as source, and perhaps the history of how it has been used as a source etc (changing opinions about validity of different sections), and not get into history as such (which would be elsewhere). In other words, more of a historiographical entry than a historical one. But I'm also thinking about something that summarises the different Wiki entries on more specific topics. I get the feeling this was your intention for the page all along, but I've only just got there. :-)

I need to think about this and spend some more time looking at the different related Wiki entries on the subject; and collate some of the material I think should be in Wiki (can't just type stuff from memory). Which I won't have time to do for a few weeks, so I'll just wish you all the best with this page for now. Rd232 16:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think this page would be the most natural place for your hioriographical information. BTW, Wikipedia's notion of history is stuck somewhere in the 50s. Any entry on historiography, history of science, culture, or gender would be extremely welcome. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. If you want to know your way around the Bible related pages, try Wikipedia:WikiProject Bible. Gady 16:59, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)