Dear Editors:

Here are my recommendations for edits in preparation for the GA candidacy. Rather than repeatedly say "I suggest" or "Please consider," I'll say that here. I don't intend to sound or to be dictatorial. If there are some recommendations you decide not to accept, please provide a brief explanation so I won't wonder if a revision is coming later. I also may learn something new in the process, and that's a good thing!

• There are several sentences that are a real "mouthful" to parse and are exceptionally long. One runs nearly five lines. There are several places where I will recommend breaking the long sentence into two, occasionally three, sentences. Doing so will probably add a few words to each, but it will be worth it.
• Need to standardize the capitalization of Pagan. It appears both ways. Dictionary says: "The word pagan (without a capital P) is often used to describe anyone who is not of the three Abrahamaic religions: Islam, Judaism, or Christianity. Today Pagan, with a capital P, often refers to people who follow Neo-Pagan religions that honour the Earth."
• Please standardize the capitalization of "Christ myth theory" throughout
• Please standardize the capitalization of "biblical" throughout
• Sentences should not begin with a conjunction such as "And," (also marked below).
• It's not incorrect to say "I feel that groceries are too expensive these days." However, in behavioral science a feeling is principally an emotion, not an opinion. "I feel sad," "I feel elated." That dual meaning tends to weaken its use as a stated opinion, which occurs several times in the article. A thesaurus lists reason, reason out, conclude, think, believe, consider, and conceive.

Let's go section by section:

• "sometimes allow" sounds a bit colloquial.
• "that these individuals" → "that none of these ministers were in any sense…Christianity. [new sentence] Rather, they contend….
• Last sentence of Lead first paragraph needs a citation. "The proponents of the theory…."
• "The antecedents" at beginning of second paragraph is hard to match up with the start of the historical sequence. Does it match "forerunners" there? Somehow, antecedents and forerunners don't sound quite equivalent when I read them. "predecessors," maybe?
• The three eras are Early proponents, Early 20th, and Recent—which is fine. Matching them from Lead para. 2 to the text is confusing. Suggest rewording them in the Lead. Split "The first academic…" sentence into two.
• The Lead should include a brief paragraph about Arguments.
• Last paragraph of Lead is one sentence that need division into two. Suggest "circles. Biblical scholars and classical historians ARE…."
• Re: recent editor criticism of flat-earth, etc., these are well-sourced and a plethora of different authors. If someone wants to present a milder more recent quote from modern academic circles, it is an option to add it.

No comments.

"Drawing on this conceptual foundation [comma]…"

• …solar-myth[comma]
• …allegorical statements like [remove comma]
• …has brought forth[remove comma]

• The interjection of Napoleon is a bit of a shock. The sentence smoothly flow from V and D into Napoleon. Suggest making it two sentences and "Napoleon Bonaparte, when stating privately that…, may have been thinking about….
• The "However, their influence…" sentence should be made into two sentences. Semicolons are mostly passé. Recently, I heard a professional editor tell an academic group that if their semicolon key on their keyboard were to break, it would be "no problem."

(Jack Bauer from "24"? )

• "Bauer instead concluded…..Gospels." [new sentence] [drop "that"] The entire Gospel tradition now could be traced…
• "While Bauer initially…cost him his lectureship. [Suggest adding "at the University of Bohn."] It's been awhile since we read of it his academic affiliation.
• Next sentence. [drop beginning the sentence with "And"]
• Next sentence, "Bauer's own comprehensive…" should become at least two, maybe three, sentences.
• [remove the comma after] Seneca the Younger
• [drop] "In accordance with this view," (superfluous filler)
• "Bauer held that Mark was an Italian WHO had been influenced…."
• Next paragraph beginning "Bauer's views." Second sentence weakly and incorrectly begins with "And"

• "(e.g., Edwin Johnson…)" Recommend dropping parenthesis and making that into two sentences, the second beginning: "For instance, Edwin Johnson denied not only a historical Jesus but nearly…."
• "…Schmiedel's intention that these passages[plural]…"
• "history of religions…[rather than the in

• "Against this intellectual background,"[move up] "in 1900" from later in sentence where it reads like Christian origins were in 1900
• "Robertson noted that while the [authentic…" POV? Did Robertson call them authentic? Would "undisputed" be better?]
• "…theology and morality [substitute a comma for "and"]
• Same sentence: [change "gloss" to "glossing"]
• Next sentence, "Robertson argued [insert "THAT the Jesus…"]
• Next sentence, "As a result, Robertson [synonym for "felt" which is weak, perhaps "concluded that"]
• Same sentence, "must have developed later, [insert PROBABLY] among…" for consistency with the hypothesis idea.
• The sentence beginning "The Gentile party…" all the way to the end of the paragraph doesn't mention Robertson at all. It isn't immediately clear what that has to do with what has preceded in this paragraph. Suggest a transition phrase or sentence to make it clear where the flow is headed.

• "Smith therefore FELT…." Stronger synonym, please.
• "In keeping with his theory[comma]"

• Whatever modest fame these two men →Robertson and Smith
• 2/3 Of the way down, "His work proved…." End sentence after "Drews' arguments." Then, "Responses appeared…."
• Final sentence in that paragraph: "In response to his detractors…" is "critics" more appropriate here?
• "…public debates, of which…" It would be better to change it to read: "debates, the most famous of which…"
• Who is von Soden? This is the only place he is mentioned. Please clarify by identifying him somehow.

• Jesus's →Jesus'
• The G.R.S. Mead sentence has a misplaced modifier. It looks like the Talmud lived around 100BCE.
• "Gilgamesh" shouldn't have a comma after it.

• First sentence: "came thus to be" is archaic. Change to "became"
• Next sentence, "As such" is a filler and should be deleted.
• "Further, public debates…." Delete "further"
• …"including such men as…" → "including the Commisar…." "Including" implies an exemplar list follows.

Break sentence after "hallucinogenic mushrooms." Change "and that" to "he claimed."

• Change "Allegro was…" to "G.A. Wells, professor of German at the University of London, quickly superseded, {passive voice}
• "On this view" doesn't read well. Suggest: "According to this view"
• "by the earliest strata of the NT" isn't part of the quote and sounds rather stogy. Suggest it be simplified into something more understandable. As written, the sentence is unclear.

"rehabilitate" could use a more understandable synonym. "Revive" maybe?

• "Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy" sentence should become two sentences. "…ever existed. He maintains…." "
• …feeling that a Gnostic…." Again, "feeling" is weak.
• Next sentence should not begin with "And". Please strike it.
• Likewise in next paragraph, "And slogans…."
• Same paragraph: "In his book[comma] The God Delusion
• I must admit, "meme" is not in my vocabulary, so I looked it up. Perfectly good word. I looked for a synonym but couldn't find one. If anyone knows a good synonym, it might be better.
• Wiki style is to use the ampersand only between the names of two authors.

• Scarcity and… [no ampersand]
• Also please replace it between Clement of Rome & Ignatius
• In the same sentence, suggest a comma after "Apostolic Fathers", and another one after "Antioch)"
• 2nd para. "dependant" → "dependent"

• "…the Christ Myth theory , though" (standardize capitalization)
• Here's one of the "Pagan"s
• "…, And so on." Maybe "others" would be better.
• "More sober refutations…" paragraph: Move "in 1914" in front of "Fred" so there's no ambiguity about what it refers to.
• Biblical scholar Maurice Gogeul, who….
• Para. beginning "Beyond these general treatments…" uses "advocates" close together in first and second sentences. Maybe change one to a synonym.

• Main article: Capitalize "Historicity"
• The (e.g., "For the king knows…) parenthetical expression is confusing. Starting a sentence with "e.g." isn't a great practice. If done, then the "E" must be capitalized. Suggest no parentheses, and a transition phrase or sentence to explain what reader is to get from reading the verse. Its connection to the previous sentence seems vague. An approach would be something like: "Paul the Apostle used such an appeal to well-known events in petitioning King Agrippa: "For the king knows…etc." Please close it with template Ac 26:26 after the closing period of right quotation mark, and no parentheses around the sentence and quotation.
• Para. "In addition…" 'critical' → 'crucial' perhaps?
• Multiple attestation (I'm not sure, but it seems the bulleted points should follow Wiki's rules for capitalizing words in titles.)
• "In contrast to Bauer…." Again, it's been awhile since we read about Jack, er, Bruno. "While Bauer held (such and such), modern scholarship believes…." Having inanimate belief sounds a little strange, even when used to represent scholars. How about "scholars" believe?
• Shouldn't Hypothesis be capitalized to be consistent with Two-Source? Also, here's a great place to break it into two sentences: "Hypothesis. It postulates…."

• The second sentence is a humongous sentence.
• The quotation, James "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ" doesn't have a misplaced modifier, but the punctuation (part of the quote) could contribute to it being misread: "James…who was called Christ." One possible re-word: "Josephus, in his book The Antiquities of the Jews,makes an allusion to the death of James the Apostle. He specifically refers to James as "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." His Antiquities Jewish history is almost universally accepted as legitimate." Then start a new sentence, "A fuller reference to Jesus…." I think Testimonium Flavianum should be italicized.

• "Were the gospels…." Consider "If the Gospels were….." Capitalize gospels? It's also a long sentence. It isn't a very good sentence and needs to be reworded. I'll try: "If the Gospels were purely imaginary, they likely would not include some very specific references to the life of Christ. Mark and other Gospels associate Jesus with Nazareth instead of Bethlehem. The creative narratives do not consistently present Jesus in conformity with preexisting messianic expectations. The fact that…."

• "pagan" ─ caps or no caps consistency
• "Further, mainstream scholarship…" is another long sentence. The emdashes help, but it's still a mouthful. Suggest 2 sentences.
• "gods[145]─the validity…." I think it works better to have the ref and emdash switched. The reference belongs only to the word "gods," while the dash belongs to both sentence segments
• Para. 2: "sloppy" comes up as a bit of a shock. The original may have used that, but since it's not in quotes, I think a different word would be preferable. What about "slipshod"? The other alternative is to include a direct quote or say Yamauchi terms it "sloppy," but that doesn't track with the footnote.
• Another "Pagan" needing caps or no caps consistency
• "Scholars further note…" A comma after "improbable" is needed.
• Is "as evidenced by " a continuation of "improbable" or of "cultural background"? A comma after "background" is needed if it is the former.

• The second sentence, "While advocates…," has no principal clause.
• "As a result Bart Ehrman has labeled…" Comma after "result." One would pause there if reading this aloud.
• "Deconstructed" is a very memorable term that is used in Scarcity & unreliability of extra-biblical source and here. Is there a good synonym for one of them? (very optional)

• "As N.T. Wright has written:" I believe it was an interview. "Said" perhaps.
• Since it was an interview probably transcribed, we probably don't need a [sic] for "Jesus's." We're quoting Wright, and I'm certain he would not write it that way. Suggest correcting it with Jesus'

I've made basically all the recommended changes. Just a few quick points, though. The phrase "critical criteria" should remain as it is (not becoming "crucial criteria") because the criteria are generally accepted tools within higher criticism, not because they're simply "really important". Also, the final block quote's use of "Jesus's" is a little tricky. The Maunal of Style states that it can be either "Jesus'" or "Jesus's" (though "Jesus'" is preferred) so long as it's consistent throughout the article. So far "Jesus'" in the way it normally appears in the article, but there are a few "Jesus's" in the quotations and titles appearing in the footnotes. Should we change Wright's usage to "Jesus'" for uniformity since it appear in the in-line text or should we just leave it since its a quotation? And lastly, WP:LEADCITE indicates that material in the lead only needs to sourced when likely to be challenged. I've been working on this page for a few months now and I can't recall a single time that anything in the lead other than the definition and the scholarly reception was challenged. Is it really necessary then to add the citation to the uncontroversial material? Eugene (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. I accept these appeals as completely valid. My preference is to change Wright's usage to "Jesus'" for uniformity since it appear in the in-line text, particularly in view of the fact that his comments were spoken (interview) by him and not written. Excellent job. I'm sorry you had to make all the edits without any assistance from other editors. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Eugene (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm made the recommended changes (the less one's noted above—and I left "meme" since it's linked). What's the next step? Eugene (talk) 03:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in Talk:Christ myth theory/GA1#Introduction from article reviewer, I extended the review/evaluation time to 21 days from 30 January 2010, hopefully to be able to document Stability. I do not anticipate asking for any other edits. ─AFA Prof01 (talk) 05:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]