User talk:TomHennell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, TomHennell, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dustimagic *\o/* (talk/contribs) *\o/* 03:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


King James Version Article[edit]


I made an edit which linked to the 1769 text, and you deleted it saying it was a duplicate. However, there were NO OTHER LINKS to this text. It's the King James text most people know, and would expect to find in such an article. There was a reference to a publisher that produces a hard copy, but the site I linked to has it for free in an online form. Why did you make that edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

the full 1769 Oxford Text is provided as Wikisource (see the reference here). In general, for copyright reasons, if a text is available as Wikisource there should be no other link to other sites with the same text. Wikipedia is not a directory of web links. Futhermore, you may not have noticed that the particular link you provided does not access the full King James text, as it omits the Apocrypha (a common problem with Biblical sites, and one that can potentially be very misleading, as they very rarely make it clear to the casual browser that they are only providing a partial text). TomHennell (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Malformed code in Anglicanism article[edit]

In the reference section of the Anglicanism article it looks like there some malformed code. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

John and Jesus[edit]

Hi Tom: About John in the Qur'an, the verse said: "Believing (mosadekan) in a word from Allah". Even if "a word from Allah" refers to Jesus, it doesn't specifically mean that he was a harbenger of Jesus, as also their age were so close to each other. But in the other hand when Allah talked about Jesus in the Qur'an He said clearly, "Harbenger (mobasheran) by a messanger who will come after me his name is Ahmad". AAboelela


Thank for deleting the Shamsuddin references off Gospel of Barnabas. You beat me to it! --JBJ830726 02:20, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


please see my comment on GoB talk page --Mido 12:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome Tom. --Mido 14:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Tom,
Many of the non-canonized pseudepigraphical Gospels are considered "Gnostic", though the Gnostic community themselves are having a hard time defining what Gnosticism is exactly, as you can tell from the Gnosticism article. You are right, I probably should justify this in the Gospel of Barnabas talk page, and I will (hopefully without generating too much of a debate). This Gospel in particular, is problematic because its origin is so late, nonetheless, there are some who argue it was based upon earlier text and treat it as 'secrect knowledge' though I personally accept its origin as having been inspired by Islam. I guess we'll have to see what others say about it.
LinuxDude 13:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


Tom, perhaps I am mistaken. I thought Tatian used the LXX. Lostcaesar 22:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock of lifted or expired.

Request handled by: Yamla 17:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Masoretic Text[edit]


I'm not sure what this missing text should be called. Presumably, it should be what the experts call it, whatever that is. What I have called it in the past is "the Hebrew Bible", or the "current [time provided by context] Hebrew text", or even simply "the Tanakh". Not very exact, but at least not incorrect. I do not know whether more precision is possible, although it is certainly desirable. Best regards, Rwflammang 17:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

If you have a reference to scholars calling this missing text "MT" in any sort of formal document (i.e., not an informal colloquium or chat room), please let me know. Rwflammang 18:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent edit to Western text-type[edit]

Thank you for your recent edit to Western text-type. Your edit included one or more links to the page Greek, which is a disambiguation page. This type of page is intended to direct users to more specific topics. Ordinarily we try to avoid creating links to disambiguation pages, since it is preferable to link directly to the specific topic relevant to the context. You can help Wikipedia by revising the links you added to Western text-type to refer directly to the most relevant topic. (This message was generated by an automatic process; if you believe it to be in error, please accept our apologies and report the error to help us improve this feature.) --Russ (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


To quote the song "Istanbul was Constantinople" and in fact was so until the 20th century. Also, since the references were to Greek libraries, I think it is more appropriate a name. Str1977 (smile back) 21:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


I was not making a personal POV value judgment, as much as following my interpretation (which hopefully isn't misguided) of the naming conventions and manual of style. My first concern is that the name of the article on this person is Jerome, not Saint Jerome. The reason for this is WP:NCNT: Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint"... Furthermore, the spirit of MoS:BIO seems to suggest we shouldn't throw the title "Saint" around when not necessary. Those guidelines says we shouldn't use "Dr." or "Professor", nor honorifics like "His holiness" or "Her majesty", instead favoring a prose explanations of these characteristics "X obtained a doctorate in physics from Cornell" "Y, who is called honorifically "His majesty" by his subjects". So we could say "Jerome, who is revered by Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches as a saint, worked on translating the Greek bible into Latin". But going to the article and adding an honorific title in front of every instance of his name, when the article isn't even named "Saint Jerome" seems to go against the above cited guidelines. I hope you understand.-Andrew c 14:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Pericope de Adultera[edit]

You deleted my chart with this note:

Is this original reasearch of your own, or has it been published? If the former, then - whatever its merits - it should be removed.

What kind of nonsense is that? It is original research of my own, and it has every right to be in the article, which is a discussion of the evidence for and against the passage.

"whatever its merits - it should be removed" ??? what are you talking about?

Facts and theories should always of course be evaluated based upon their merits, and not just "authorities". If you object to its implications, or question its interpretation as evidence, then just add your own comments, and keep them separate from mine.

This passage in John is a controversial passage, with many variations to be found in contemporary scholarly opinion. You can't just impose your own here at Wikipedia. A good article on this subject will eventually accumulate a wide variety of opinion and evidence from independant research, and that is what will make it a good article. At least 100 articles a year are published on John, and dozens on this passage.

Don't try to censor research or filibuster accumulated evidence. If you can't contribute constructively, leave the article alone.

Sincerely, Naz

Tom, you're right that I didn't carefully distinguish between "genuine" and "original to John." I count on smart people to catch me when I overreach, so thanks. Next, I'd like to find a way to point out that the proponents of "original to John" are the scholarly equivalent of creationists. Leadwind (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Authorised King James Version[edit]

I'm on your side now in the battle over the 'z' ! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 20:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bishops Bible[edit]

This could be made a GA article with a minimal amount of effort. Can you help me cite existing material? -- SECisek 17:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I meant the main article, but once it is GA we could easily cut down and paste a very good section for the KJV article. Are you familiar with Wikipedia:Inline citation? We need to cite what is already there and then round out the article, but it is close. -- SECisek 15:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

First see Wikipedia:Footnotes then look at Wikipedia:Citation templates. They seem at first as if they are very difficult to use, however they are not. They also make getting a GA promotion for an article quite easy. In-line citations are the most important things you can learn to use at wikipedia.

If it is too much for you, continue to put as much info about the source as possible in brackets and someone like myself will drop it into a proper reference for you. Everything entered into Wikipedia should have citation if possible. If you have more questions, feel free to ask me. -- SECisek 17:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Morning Prayer/BCP[edit]

Tom, I see you've turned you're attention to these articles. Some time ago, I made a bit of an effort at straightening out Morning Prayer, but didn't get particularly far. Still, you may find User:David Underdown/Morning Prayer useful (or not). Morning Prayer is dreadfully lacking in references, so it would be a great help if you could add some, if you have relevant sources. David Underdown 14:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare and the BCP[edit]

I am sorry if I jumped in wrongly. 'Thou shalt do no murder' which you quote is, of course, from the book of Exodus also. Can yo tell me of examples, not from Scripture that are from the BCP in Shakespeare. I had thought, from Susan Bridgen as well as from Duffy, that Shakespeare'sw references are mostly (and subversively) Catholic; but they may be wrong.Roger Arguile 09:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I am convinced. I am still not sure what the implication is. If that is the only reference connectng the playwright with the BCP the sentence suggests more of a connection than the use of a common phrase. Shakespeare would, of course, have attended church - the law required it - but he was no different from anyone else.

BTW I hope you take no offence at my deleting the material on parish worship - which WUTWC has now restored. I did so with some reluctance and should really have offered a justification - which I shall now do. My problem is partly with evidence and partly with relevance. (I was also instrigued that you added it, as far as I can see, under the rubric of a minor amendment, but no matter.) Roger Arguile 07:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Anglican collaboration of the month[edit]

Wassupwestcoast 01:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Authorized King James Version[edit]

I know very well that you've done a ton of work for the article. One of the things it very much needs is to provide more in-line citations. Since most of the existing citations are already yours - you are practically the only editor who added sourced text - would you be able to source: at least the obvious unsourced bits? I realize this is an imposition and Wikipedia is very much voluntary driven so please don't misunderstand...I'm only pleading for your expertise. So if you want to and you have th inclination it would be a useful excerise. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not abandoned you! I have allocated a couple of hours tomorrow to help you format the citations! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Did you mean 'Daniell, David (2003), The Bible in English: its history and influence', because the Harvard citations had (Daniell 2005). I changed everything to '2003'. Hope I haven't mucked things up. I will continue copy edit tomorrow. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
absolutely right - I must get new glasses. TomHennell (talk) 01:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Authorized King James Version[edit]

In the Authorized King James Version article, for the reference to Bruce, Frederick Fyvie (2002), History of the Bible in English, Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, ISBN 0718890329 , I have changed the harvard reference (Bruce 1970 p=??) to (Bruce 2002 p=??). Is this OK?. And, the same thing with the reference to Daiches, David (1968), The King James Version of the English Bible: An Account of the Development and Sources of the English Bible of 1611 With Special Reference to the Hebrew Tradition, Hamden, Conn: Archon Books, ISBN 0208004939 . The harvard citation was to (Daiches 1941 p =??) and I've changed it to (Daiches 1968 pp=??). Is this also OK? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


You may want to take Authorized King James Version to Wikipedia:Peer review and then to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Mind you it is a miserable process. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Authorized Version[edit]

I see you have changed this from UK spelling (..ize) to US spelling (..ise) - on the principle of local usage within quotes. I am afraid I cannot understand your logic, but will not change it back without giving you an opportunity to explain fully. TomHennell (talk) 02:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I appreciate the opportunnity. The logic is that it is commonly known as the "Authorised Version" in the United Kingdom, but it is not known as the "Authorized Version" here. It isn't the spelling of the word 'authoris/zed' that we are discussing, but the title of a book in usage in the UK. I hope this clarifies. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments, I am interested in what you say, although authorised version is how I have always seen it here in the UK. Google "authorised version bible" gives 325,000 and the same text with the 's' gives 1,740,000. The text of :: shows 'authorised' in the text, even though the heading has the AE version. I can understand that an American based commentator may well use the AE spelling of Authorized, which is fine, but it wouldn't be correct to say that that is how it is referred to in the UK. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 17:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


There has been some question about who was the first Anglican bishop outside the British Isles. Do you have a proper and irrefutable citation for Samuel Seabury so we can end this mess? --Secisek (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rood, Rood screen and Pulpitum[edit]

Somebody asked me about these, and the interwiki links to the screen seem to mostly relate to the pulpitum, as does the commonscat. I have adjusted some, I hope correctly, but others remain as they were. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just asked a question about this on the Talk:Rood screen discussion page. Maybe someone can help me understand this more correctly, so we can decide about the interwiki link from the German article. Thanks! Anna (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman[edit]

Mr Ehrman now has a very bad problem. [1] According to Ehrman there are no such text to validate that the resurrection was not made up whole cloth by Greek communities before the canon text was put to paper. According to Ehrman because of no evidence it had to have been all "made up" with one outrageous tale trying to out do the previous. Well now, so much for that. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Authorized King James Version[edit]

I have reverted again the US spellings. If you check the talk page you will find that this has been extensively discussed, and the ruling agreed is that British English is to be preferred consistently in this article. This follows the general Wiki rule (which is not as you appear to think); that any articles relating to British subjects use British English, ditto Australian, ditto American. Otherwise, spelling and grammar should generally follow that of the originator of the article - and should not be changed from one form to another. There is no rule that Wikipedia generally conforms to any one set of local English conventions. TomHennell (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I must have overlooked that. The old adage "Always look before you leap" comes to mind. I somehow missed seeing that little notice. That makes sense. Once you get to know me better, you'll find out that I've become somewhat famous here on WP for my stupid moments. Chalk this up as another one of those. My apologies and thanks for the explanation and for not making me feel more stupid than I've already shown myself to be. Good to know. Best wishes. --Jgstokes-We can disagree without being disagreeable (talk) 00:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Extensive Formal Equivalence of the Bible[edit]

No the state was accurate that was posted before because it this is verified by both the Library of Congress and Guiness as the first formal equivalence translation of the Ancient Hebrew Bible into English. The translations that you were refering to are actually a balence between dynamic and formal equivalence translations. View an example of the text online at —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saverx (talkcontribs) 16:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Minuscule 2427[edit]

Yes, Minuscule 2427 is 19th century forgery, but it represents the Alexandrian text-type in the best quality (without Byzantine readings). Every manuscript with the Alexandrian text which was written after 4th century has allien readings (usually Byzantine). Minuscule 2427 is classified in official catalogues, official institutions (Institute for New Testament Textual Research). It has I Category of Aland. It is not very important in which century was written manuscript. More important is from which manuscripts was rewritten. Many manuscripts with Alexandrian text-type were corrected by peoples who preffered Byzantince text-type (f.e. P66 Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Regius). Many mansucripts were destroyed (f.e. Codex Coislinianus). Why so many Alexandrian manuscripts are in a fragmentary and very poor condition? (f.e. Minuscule 33, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Freerianus). Only Codex Vaticanus is in good condition, because it was not used very often.

Wikipedia, it is not place for a private opinions. The articles must represent official point of vieuw of experts in every field.

By the way, you distroyed an article by deleting end marks of the table |}.

The Alexandrian text uses grammar from Greek-koine (f.e. οι δε ειπαν), Byzantine text uses grammar from Byzantine-Greek (f.e. οι δε ειπον). This text has not much additions, manuscripts represented this tradition are in great agreement. Unfortunately we cannot say that about manuscript of the Byzantine text-type (a lot of individual readings, a lot of additions). Dean Burgon and Edward Miller were last scholars which supported Byzantine text-type, but they lived in 19th century, and they did not have our knowledge. According to Burgon Textus Receptus must be corrected. Two of his books about reconstruction of Byzantine text-type were published posthoumosly.

One year ago Deutsche Bibelgesselschaft edited The Gospel According to John in the Byzantine Tradition. They used only one uncial codex in main text, Codex Koridethi, other uncials are cited only in crittical apparatus. Yes, only one uncial, but in Introduction you can read: "Manuscript 038 (Θ) represents a text on the boundary of what might reasonably be considered a manuscript of the Byzantine tradition in John" (Introduction, p. V). This edition based on minuscule 35 from 11th century. Codex Alexandrinus, Codex Ephraemi, Codex Basilensis, and other uncials which represent early Byzantine text are cited only in crittical apparatus. Supportes of Byzantine text-type and supportes of Textus Receptus in one point are agreed, they do not like ancient readings. They always think, every early manuscript is corrupted, only late manuscript is good.

Of course Byzantine text-type it is not Textus Receptus. Ortodox Church never used and never will use Textus Receptus. Textus Receptus has about 40 readings (or more) from Codex Bezae (Robert Estienne used Codex Bazae). It has some Ceasarean readings in Gospels (from Minuscule 1). It was influenced by Vulgate. Why do you prefer text in which so much corruptions? So much additions.

I red book of D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible. I know your point of vieuw. 99% of manuscript represent "traditional text". 85% of papyri represent traditional text. Old-Latin manuscripts represented "traditional text". Ireneus, Origen and other church fathers used traditional text. In Codex Sinaiticus 14 000 corrections. Why so much lieses? The Western text-type has nothing common with Textus Receptus (only Byzantine grammar, and some readings, not numerous which were used by Robert Estienne). The Alexandrian text in 85% agrees with Textus Receptus, and always you can find some "traditional" readings in every ancient manuscript. Peoples who read this type of books will never know true. They think, Textus Receptus was always in using, they think Orthodox church uses this text. Who corrected Codex Sinaiticus?

I prefer Alexandrian text-type, because this text use original grammar, and not much corruptions in this text (f.e. itacismus), but I see some errors, and some lacks in this text.

I know you love Holy Scripture. You prefer Textus Receptus because it was used by protestant in 16th century. It belongs to protestant tradition. But I think a protestant must stay with distance to every tradition, even protestant tradition. Be sure I am protestant. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will not include 2427 to this table again, but probably Codex Guelferbytanus B also should be excluded from this table. It is surprised that even authoriteis like Kurt Aland bielieved in this codex. I appreciate Burgon and Miller but not Waite. God bless you. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
One of the most interesting additions of the Alexandrian text-type we can find in Gospel of Matthew 27:49: "The other took a spear and pierced His side, and immediately water and blood came out" (see: John 19:34). We can find this textual variant in codices: Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Regius, and several other witnesses of Alexandrian text-type. Of course it is not authentical. Probably it was added in a result of figthing with Docetism. Every from four textes of the NT is corrupt, but in different way. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for my mistake Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine text-type[edit]

In section Characteristics of the Byzantine text, in second paragraph, of this article I found a something strange:

(...) many distinctive Byzantine readings have been found in these texts — albeit in manuscripts that otherwise conform more to other text-types or none. Word albeit. I do not understand. Is it correct? We should do a something. Congratulatons for your work in Papyrus 52. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not finish my work in this article. It will take a lot of time in the future. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Matthew 16:2b-3[edit]

You have a lot of edits in articles like Mark 16, John 7:53-8:11, and Comma Johanneum. It means Matt. 16:2b-3 should be your subject. It is also an interesting passage. I only initiated article, but it is not finished. Of course here is no place for original research, but if we will use all arguments and opinions of scholars it will enough. Do you have some interesting arguments? I invite you for editing in this article. This article should have at least 15 000 scores, I think. With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Rylands Library Papyrus P52[edit]

I see your work. When you will finish give more references and the article can receive GA. Congratulation. The articles "Codex Alexandrinus" and "Codex Vaticanus" and several others should be GA in the future. So, we have work. You can also edit Textual variants in the New Testament if you have a time. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

KJV Italics[edit]


It is my policy to avoid "revert wars" whenever possible. I do so by discussing the conflicting statements in order to resolve the issue.

You have made a change "correcting the correction" in the King James Version article.

My copy of the KJV uses two typefaces, Roman and Italic, as has every printing for at least the past 200 years. Directly translated words are printed in Roman. Due to the fact that Hebrew and Greek to not follow English syntactical rules, in was necesssary to supply other words either to conform to English grammar or to avoid gross ambiguities. These words are printed in Italics.

When I came upon the article, it had the two typefaces interchanged, with the Italics for the straight translation, and the Roman for the supplied words. I corrected this.

Now you have come along and replaced it with a claim that the two typefaces are Blackletter and Roman. This is incorrect, as a glance at a copy of the KJV will demonstrate.

And now I ask myself how would someone who appears to know his business come to make such a mistake. Only one solution comes to mind. It is possible - and mind you this is merely a guess on my part - that you may be aware of a fact not in my possession, to wit, the orginal edition of the KJV used a Blackletter/Roman combination which has since been universally replaced with the Roman/Italic system.

If such is the case, then you are obligated to clarify matters by inserting the information that the Blackletter/Roman combo has been superceded by the Roman/Italic. If, however, such is not the case, then your revision is merely an error and you should revert it.

That ball is in your court. B00P (talk) 06:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

It appears that I made a remarkably good guess regarding typefaces. (I must be careful not to break my arm while patting myself on the back.)
Your newly (re-)expanded version is well-written and clear. Issue resolved. B00P (talk) 02:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes check.svg

Wiki Site[edit]

Hi there, fancy editing a new site? (talk) 08:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice idea, but I suggest you should add the Septuagint to the Textus Receptus and Masoretic text in your set of source versions. A site that promotes the King James Bible should not ignore the KJV texts of the Apocrypha. TomHennell (talk) 08:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Family Kr[edit]

Thanks for your edit. What do you think about Alexandrian variant in Mark 6:22:

  • θυγατρος αυτου Ηρωδιαδος — א B D L Δ 565

The Byzantine text has θυγατρος αυτης Ηρωδιαδος and some other manuscripts have θυγατρος αυτης της Ηρωδιαδος (A C K Θ Π). Lectio dificilior? or corrupt? Alexandrian reading was preffered by Westcott-Hort and by Aland.

I think Codex Sinaiticus has mixed text. It has Caesarean readings in many places, but the Caesarean text is still not well defined. Interpolation in Matthew 8:13 is rather Caesarean, not Alexandrian. It has a lot of Western readings. Sinaiticus has some conflations:

Matthew 14:29

και ηλθεν — B C 700 1010 syrc, s, copsa, arm geo
ελθειν — אc, C2, D K L P W Δ Θ Π 073 0119 f1, f13, 28 33 565 892 1009 1071 Byz it vg copbo
ελθειν ηλθεν ουν — א

Colossians 3:17

κυριυ Ιησου — B Byz
Ιησου Χριστου — A C D F G
κυριυ — L
κυριυ Ιησου Χριστου — א vgc

Vaticanus has conflation in Colossians 1:12:

τω ικανωσαντι — p46, א, A C Dc E K L P W H
τω καλεσαντι — D* F G d e f m
τω καλεσαντι και ικανωσαντι — Β

According to Wisse Codex Bezae in Luke represents Alexandian text-type (chapters 1; 10; 20). It is not representant of pure Western text in the Gospels. Klijn in 1959 argumented that it has mixed text. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:56, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the Alexandrian reading is corrupt. I do not know modern translations, which used the Alexandrian reading. In Matthew 8:13b Sinaiticus has interpolation (Caesarean?): και υποστρεψας ο εκατονταρχος εις τον οικον αυτου εν αυτη τη ωρα ευρεν τον παιδα υγιαινοντα (and when the centurion returned to the house in that hour, he found the slave well), as well as codices C, (N), Θ, (0250), f1, (33, 1241), g1, syrh. In several cases f1 supported text of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus almost against all other manuscripts. We need to expand families Kx and Kr. Unfortunatelly I use only work of Soden (digitalized and not complete) and work of Wisse (good work but only Luke 1, 10, and 20). I do not know work of Maurice Robinson (cited in the article Family Kr). Yesterday I found that text of Minuscule 483 represents Kx but in Luke it was corrected toward Kr. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Codex Vaticanus[edit]

Thanks for your work in Codex Fuldensis. We need expand this article, but actually I am looking for somebody who will copyedit Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209. According to me some sections should be expanded (scribes and correctors, provenance, importance). Especially section importance is difficult to me because of my English. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Today I have found this:

Very usefull. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:09, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Codex Romanus[edit]

Hi. "Codex Romanus", before Leszek intervened, was redirected to "Codex Vaticanus". I think it is better to keep it redirected so, instead of letting it point to any particular codex of the list there. Are there any objections? Mamurra (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

None whatsoever, go ahead; assuming it is the case that all manuscrpits designated "Codex Romanus" are shelved in the Vatican library, then that would be entirely appropriate. But I thought it might be necessary to edit that particular disambiguation page to make clear what was going on to anyone finding themselves in it. Regards TomHennell (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

WH theory[edit]

The inter-relationship between significant ancient manuscripts

This diagrammen was constracted on the basis of the Encyclopedia Biblica, vol. IV (1903). It looks like Westcott-Hort theory but perhaps not in every detail. The interrelationship between Peshitta and Coptic versions... Origen and Western text... A something strange. I think it is not stricte WH point of view. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


Good question! I double-checked the Museum of London notice: the fragments are not specifically described as monastic or parochial, but the attached notice specifically explains the destructions of carvings during the "Dissolution", of which these fragments are shown as an example. The fragments are also part of an exhibit about the "Dissolution" proper, in which the introduction mentions the destruction of "religious houses". I guess this properly clarifies that the fragment should be under the "Dissolution" article. Thanks for asking! Best regards PHG Per Honor et Gloria 20:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edits to the Mithras article[edit]

Tom, I see that you've made quite a number of edits to the Mithras article. But I couldn't see that you had given any references for any of them. Can you give a reference for each to a specialist scholarly source or an ancient source? Roger Pearse (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Will do (they are mainly from Clauss, as you probably recognise) TomHennell (talk) 09:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I wasn't sure, but I thought some looked familiar! Thanks for adding this! Roger Pearse (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Manchester Cathedral[edit]

Can you explain this to me? It says in the intro that the cathedral has "flat fan-vaulted ceilings". What is mean by this? There is a fan vault under the tower. Do the aisles also have fan vaults, and can they be reasonably described as "flat"? Has the writer unknowingly confused some mention of the tower vault with the flat wooden arch-braced ceiling? Amandajm (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

the only fan vault is the one within the tower. All the other vessels have low-pitch wooden roofs, that of the nave being supported by the famous "angel orchestra". The church as we now see it was rebuilt by the Stanley's (the Earls of Derby) after they had struck rich by backing Henry VII at the Battle of Bosworth (and by Thomas Stanley marrying the Kings mother, Margert Beaufort). In effect, the Manchester college became a sort of secondary Windsor or Chapel Royal, which is how it survived the Reformation as a collegiate corporation. TomHennell (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I think this image was taken in the main nave of Manchester Cathedral (although you'd have to ask user:Parrot of Doom who took the image), and for what it's worth it doesn't look anything like the photo on the fan vault article. The article probably needs to say which bits are fan-vaulted (preferably with a source). Nev1 (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Picture is taken from under the west tower, looking east - the fan vault is directly overhead. You can see the angel orchestra supporting the nave roof (with gilded instruments)
What my query here intends to indicate is that someone who is working on this article and is familiar with the building needs to correct this small problem. Amandajm (talk) 11:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


Message on talk page. Amandajm (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Cit Error[edit]

Tom, I noticed a red cit error notice in the Ref. section but do not know what the problem is. Can you look into it. Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

British bias in Rood Screen article[edit]

For example a chapter entitled "Notable British examples" gives me the idea that we aren't unable (or ignorant) to find details about other countries. If it is not a extremely typical feature of one country, we should give the article an international scope (for example retitling that paragraph as "Examples", with subsections "Britain", "Germany", "Scandinavia" etc... For an Italian example, see my new Vezzolano Abbey (the link leads to a photo of the rood screen, I seem; by the way, if you've time you could cleanup my mediocre English). Let me know and good work.--'''Attilios''' (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer[edit]

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of John[edit]

Thank you for your comment. The quotation you cited was altered from what I originally posted. I only posted that the Gospel of John's sole reference to the Nativity was at least apparently contradictory to the nativity story found in Luke and Matthew. This is not verbatim how I put it in that particular article, but as I wrote it in Nativity of Jesus:

"The Gospel of John makes only a passing reference to the nativity in a discussion among Pharisees in chapter 7. John 7:42 quotes a Pharisee as saying "Shall Christ come out of Galilee? Hath not the Scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem," and later in 7:52 the same Pharisee states "Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet," stating that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem but in Galilee. John does nothing to refute or correct the Pharisee (nor to affirm him) in his claim. This is the only reference to the birth of Jesus in the Gospel of John; John instead focuses on the concept of the Word of God become flesh."

I am not of sufficient expertise to answer your question on irony, and I did not put that statement there; someone else who edited the page after me did. An earlier edit of mine had in fact claimed that John implicitly endorsed it, but I revised that statement as it would be in the realm of original research and conjecture on my part, which obviously doesn't belong here. The main point I was trying to make in that statement is the difference between the nativity in Matthew and Luke and the picture given by this conversation in John, which can be fairly stated given the scripture alone. Feel free to revise/remove at your own discretion.J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 02:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


Good grief! One has to watch articles so carefully! Many editors are hesitant to delete some inane, out-of-place material because it is factual, apparently factual, or even referenced. I missed that one. My favourite was the description of a church organ that was powered by a fan driven by an electric motor in a small purpose-built shed beside the church. Someone inserted the details of the free lunchtime recitals on Tuesday in such a way that it read as if they took part in the shed. Amandajm (talk) 17:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of John[edit]

Re: the Jesus Seminar. I replied to your post on the talk page with a simple "support", but I wanted to express my appreciation here for the work you put into your thoughtful reply. Rklawton (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


Some editors are wanting to restore the skeptical POV that existed on Gospel of John. I made a comment on the talk page on this, although am going to mostly stay out of this. You seem to know a lot about this topic, so I think it would be good if you could make some more comments on the talk page so we can get an end product that isn't as skewed as it was before.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


I appreciate your participation with the editing of Gospel of John. If you have a second, could you please leave your two cents over on the talk page of Jesus (the discussion on this issue is at Talk:Jesus#Disputed_vs._debated). Three of my edits were reverted (here, here and here). I think they better reflected scholarly debate on the issues, and I am wondering what you think about them and if they should be part of the article.RomanHistorian (talk) 02:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with what you said on my talk page. Why not propose this re-write of the article on the Jesus talk page?RomanHistorian (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if you could look at two edits that I made here and here and tell me if you think they should have been reverted. They are pretty much the same thing, and were reverted because editors think Darrell Bock is fringe or an "apologist". I think the substance of the edits accurately reflects the nuances of scholarship on the issue.RomanHistorian (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Please take a look at Talk:Gospel_of_Matthew#Changes if you get a chance.RomanHistorian (talk) 06:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:CANVAS Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
If you have a chance, please take a look at Gospel of Luke. Leadwind has been deleting a lot of material and sources he says are "sectarian".RomanHistorian (talk) 17:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Another violation of WP:CANVAS. Note how it's spot-cast to an ally and is in no way neutrally worded. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to avoid a misunderstanding: the charge of WP:CANVAS violation is leveled solely at Roman. Tom has done nothing wrong in this regard. He cannot be held accountable for Roman's actions; only Roman can. 04:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind is now introducing his POV into Gospel of Mark and Gospel of Matthew, using the same destructive edit warring method he used on Gospel of Luke. Yet again, he deletes a lot of sources from scholars who are personally religious. Not only that, but he adds liberal scholars and then suggests they represent the mainstream. One of his changes modified a sentence that stated liberal scholar Bart Ehrman's opinion and restated it as though it represented consensus.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, it does represent consensus. Your repeated inclusion of fringe sectarian views is a violation of consensus, not to mention WP:RS. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

"majority viewpoint"[edit]

Tom, if I'm wrong about WP:WEIGHT and how to tell whether a viewpoint is "majority," then I really need to be disabused of my error, and maybe you're the one to do it. The policy seems to say that we should take what we find in commonly accepted reference texts to be the majority viewpoint (unless commonly accepted reference texts themselves disagree with each other). Leadwind (talk) 15:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, I think you may have glossed the policy incorrectly. The full Jimmy Wales quote (with respect to Physics) is:
What do mainstream physics texts say on the matter? What do the majority of prominent physicists say on the matter? Is there significant debate one way or the other within the mainstream scientific community on this point?
If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts
If your viewpoint is held by a significant scientific minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents, and the article should certainly address the controversy without taking sides.:
If your viewpoint is held by an extremely small minority, then _whether it's true or not, whether you can prove it or not_, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, except perhaps in some ancilliary article. Wikipedia is not the place for original research.
The full quote I think makes it clear that "commonly accepted reference texts" should be glossed as 'standard reference texts on the subject of the article'; rather than as 'encyclopedic texts of general reference'. I would understand that to mean that e.g. on an article on a musical subject, the views of Grove's dictionary would always be citable; but that the views of the Encyclopedia Britannica would not.
in respect of Biblical subjects in the English language, the equivalent of Grove is probably the Anchor Bible Dictionary; but that has the disadvantage of not readily accessible except in specialist libararies (you may be lucky to have it on your shelves, I do not). Failing that, many (perhaps too many) Wikipedia articles refer to the 'Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church'. Personally, I would prefer the "Oxford Companion to the Bible"; in that its treatment of Biblical subjects is fuller, the contributions are signed, and the contributors are all, by definition, prominent scholars wihtin the scope of Jimmy Wales definition (albeit with slight a bias in favour of Bruce Metzger's mates).
but the world of New Testament critical scholarship is not that extensive - basically Gottingen, Tubingen, Oxford, Cambridge, Aberdeen, Princeton, Notre Dame and New York (Union Theological Seminary). Pretty well everyone 'prominent' in the field has some connection to one or another of these institutions; and most contribute to a relatively small circle of journals in English - Journal of Theological Studies, New Testament Studies, Catholic Biblical Quarterly.
If I were to venture a view of what might then be taken as th 'majority' view on the subject of the authorship of the Gospels; I think the following would be a reasonably safe statement of the current consensus.
- that the enterprise by the early church (following Iraeneus) to establish the four canonical gospels as uniquely 'apostolic' is not grounded in any historical findings. Matthew and John are not the memoirs of two members of the twelve, Mark is not recording the memoirs of Peter, Luke is not recording the memoir of Paul.
- that none of the synoptics is an eyewitness account; Matthew and Luke rely on Mark for their historical narrative, and Mark is neither an eyewitness, nor does he have personal knowledge of the geography of Jerusalem and Palestine.
- that the author of the narrative sections in John knew Jerusalem (before 70 AD) well. The majority view now is that at least the accounts of the Trial and Passion of Jesus in John utilise eyewitness sources - which is not to say at all that they are neutral history or intended to be.
- that the author of Luke is most likely to be identified with the person referred to accompanying Paul in the letter to Philemon
- that author of Mark may be identified with the person who travelled with, and then split from, Paul; but that 'Mark' is so common a name that no absolute identification can be made; there being nothing in the text itself to confirm or refute such a speculation.
- that the author of Matthew had little of no knowledge of Jerusalem before 70 AD, but had some contact (mainly antagonistic) with participants in the rabbinic project to reconstruct Judaism following the disaster of the Jewish War.
- that Q existed soon after 70 AD as a collection of teachings attributed to Jesus; but there is no evidence of its having been compiled or circulated earlier, and in particular no reason to regard it as prior to Mark.
- that Mark must have been writtern during (or possibly immediately after) the Jewish War of 66 - 70 AD. TomHennell (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with your choice of references, but even so you've generated a statement of the majority view that I can work with. If we establish these statements as the "majority view," that would solve a lot of arguments on a lot of pages. Leadwind (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Forget I said anything about disagreeing. The point is that I can work with the "majority view" as you read it. Can we edit these views into the respective pages? If you can quote the Oxford Companion to back these up, it will mean the end to certain squabbling about what the majority view is or if there even is one. I can back you up with quotes from the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, if that would help. Leadwind (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Authorship of the Bible[edit]

As you seem to be well-informed on this subject, perhaps you'd like to look over/update the NT sections of this article. PiCo (talk) 09:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Mithras article[edit]

I'd like to thank you for watching over this article this year. It is undoubtedly owing to you that it has survived 6 months without serious damage. Thank you! Roger Pearse (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

What is your thought on the edit by CivilisedEducation? Roger Pearse (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your note. Your view is mine on the value of Meyer's remarks (and indeed on this "parallels" issue -- never seen a non-subjective use of that argument, even in scholarly publications). In fact even the preface to that book seemed nervous about his "trenchant" comments!
I'm not sure whether Meyer has in fact edited the text of the Mithras liturgy, or merely translated it; I wasn't able to locate his 1976 publication. His translation seems to have become the standard in English, and was reprinted by Betz in his new edition. But Meyer's remarks even about the Mithras liturgy as Mithraic did not seem to agree with what I gleaned from a couple of reviews of Betz in the RBL (which I added links to in the Mithras Liturgy article). I knew of him mainly as a gnostic scholar, and his stuff on the Gospel of Judas was useful. So I can't evaluate his stuff on the Mithras liturgy yet. I hear your thought on Meyer, tho.
I agree entirely that the passages in Justin and Tertullian should be relevant to Mithras, tho -- they're primary evidence about the cult, and heaven knows we have very little. You know, I really wish we had the "Mithras and other gods" section still in the article. It helped to tone down the distinctive "Mithras and Jesus" stuff, by including stuff about the syncretism of the cult.
I've reverted the changes made a couple of times, but I can't do more reverts, I think. So I'll think I'll just look in again in a few weeks or months and fix whatever damage has been done then. But shout if you need my help sooner than that -- Roger Pearse (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


Perhaps it is the time for Vulgate. I am just finished my work on Polish artcicle pl:Wulgata (it will GA-article by three days). It contained several errors. I am about to finish Russian article ru:Ватиканский кодекс (it will GA-article by few days). One user asked me why English and Polish articles are much longer (Codex Vaticanus). So, I hope I will have more time. I want to create Vulgata Sixtina, "Vulgata Clementina" (Vulgata Stuttgartiana?), and probably several Vulgate manuscripts. There is Nova Vulgata on four wikis (not English). Polish Neo-Wulgata was written on the basis of Watchtower.

Today Codex Carolinus is on the Main Page of Polish Wikipedia. It is a fourth time (or fifth). Several days ago somebody added wonderfull link - digital facsimile of the Codex Bezae. It is not first time (earlier in Codex Boreelianus, Guelferbytanus, Monacensis, etc.).

Did you see this book? Wikipedia articles from Category:6th-century biblical manuscripts.

Codex Fossatensis was identified in 2010 as Old-Latin manuscript (stronly intrepolated by Vulgata). It is housed in Petersburg (RNL, F.v.I,8). We like news like this. Sangermanensis? Maybe later. In February? I need to prepare two articles for printing (31 january - last term). With regards. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mediation regarding Mithras[edit]

Hi Tom. Many thanks for your input on the talk page of the mediation case at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-12/Mithraic mysteries.

Can I persuade you to sign your name on the case page under "Acceptance of Mediation" at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2011-02-12/Mithraic mysteries? I promise it won't be too painful (well, hopefully), and Roger has already helpfully signed up. As I see it, the more people that know about and care about the topic, the better. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Tom! As the mediation gets underway, I have laid out some guidelines here. Please sign your name there to indicate your agreement to the guidelines, as a showing of good faith for the process. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 03:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Commissioners' church[edit]

Thanks for your addition to this article. The information you added is useful, but is uncited, and as such runs the risk of being deleted. Would you please add a reference to the paragraph. Many thanks. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Jacob Palaeologus[edit]

delighted to see someone work on this article. ‎In ictu oculi (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

there is a very useful biographical essay in the Introduction to the 1994 edition of the Disputatio Scholastica TomHennell (talk) 10:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
Proceeds in excellent fashion, I don't intend to fiddle around the edges while you are working on it. But just a small request - in the case of a sentence like e.g. "In effect they were retaining much of the form of trinitarian worship, while re-interpreting it in anti-trinitarian terms." - is that Palaeologus' view or is that George Huntston Williams' view? Important distinction with WP:PSTS. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Jacob Palaeologus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aegean (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Jacob Palaeologus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Maximilian II, Ragusa, Lord's Supper, Grace, Atonement and Marani

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Schurer reference[edit]

Hi, I left a note/placeholder about the Schurer reference you mentioned. Given that you know that item better, you can probably do a better job of explaining it. Could we talk you into adding that to the detailed analysis section? Your help will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Given that you obviously know this topic (and probably know it better than myself) your help, suggestions and edits there will be appreciated. The fact is that I figured this topic as I went along, so given that you already know it, that would be a better way. Books from the 1970s are still ok in Wikipedia, specially if they have not been contradicted by other items, e.g. it is well known where Vermes stands today. By the time we get to the pre-Beatles era then references from that time start to get questioned, unless the topic is somewhat static. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I added references based on your suggestion of internal/external arguments. Do yiu have some immediate references for the last 2 paragraphs in Talk:Josephus_on_Jesus#Arguments_against_authenticity_2 where the picture of Eusebius is? They are:

  • A second internal argument against the Testimonium's authenticity is that the passage is an intrusion into the progression of Josephus' narrative at the point in which it appears in the Antiquities of the Jews.
  • A third internal argument against the authenticity of the Testimonium is that the passage is noticeably shorter and more cursory than such notices generally in the Antiquities.

Thanks. History2007 (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. In the meantime I found a few references (not Schurer but for the other material) and added them. Once you find other references, we can add those too. I think the main arguments again the Testimonium are now listed pretty comprehensively, and unless you have other material we can declare that stable. The next step will be the arguments against the James and John passages, but there are less of those. You suggestions regarding an outline of those will also be appreciated. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
On that note, if you have a few bullet points for the major arguments in favor authenticity of James, John and/or TFl that will help me structure that section as well. I know the arguments in general, but if you give the general skeleton first, it will probably flow better. History2007 (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The item you added about 62AD etc. was pretty useful, and I just added references etc. I have now integrated those items into a test page under the talk page, if you want to see what they look like. The authenticity section is the incomplete part. If you have a few bullet points for that section, then we are close to having a good page. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:04, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Gospel of Barnabas[edit]

You deleted my paragraph on Paul and Barnabas as being of questionable relevance, but i was under the assumption that objectivity would warrant a counter view in the case of such an fringe postulation. I had never read anyone holding that either Paul or Barnabas had an actual doctrinal dispute with Paul, and which is a case of reading that into the text. The sources i provided reflect the common position that the action of Peter (and Barnabas) in separating from the Gentiles was one of spiritual declension, being in contrast to the gospel they themselves preached and affirmed. Merely because some hold to a different view should not mean the traditional one should be excluded Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Peace dove.svg

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello TomHennell. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 23:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Dissolution of the Monasteries[edit]

Absolute nonsense. You are quoting a biased article to begin with. The opening paragraph need only state that Henry broke with the main part of the Catholic Church and refused recognition of the Pope in England, Your statement implies that he broke with Rome because of the money consumed by the monasteries - not true, it was a power thang. Therefore, your statement was POV. Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 21:43, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gospel of Barnabas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unitarian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dissolution of the Monasteries, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Humanist and Grace (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dissolution of the Monasteries, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Civil law, Thomas Audley and Luther (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dissolution of the Monasteries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reading (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Title = "Authorized or King James Version"?[edit]

I am contacting you because you seem to be a long-running contributor to the Authorized King James Version article and I'd like your opinion before going any further with my idea of changing the title. I see no point in starting a long-running "edit-wrangle" if the odds are stacked against a change. My basic concern is that the current title is what might be politely called a "theoretical hybrid" (it does seem to be used by one or more publishers possibly to save printing different editions for each side of the Atlantic) but standard usage seems to be either AV or KJV (largely the latter to judge from Yahoo search results). My basic concerns are that the current title is inaccurate, and therefore unencyclopaedic, and has also produced some improper linking (see for example, Middle_English_Bible_translations and Godhead_in_Christianity). You might also be interested in the following conversation [User_talk:Johnbod#AV_vs_KJV] which touches on this and other concerns about the article. Jpacobb (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for a prompt reply on my user-talk-page: very clear and to the point! It seems that the current title is probably the least unacceptable option. Jpacobb (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Perpetual Curate[edit]

A comment and a question. Comment "stipendiary priest is a dead link". Qn. Do you have a good source for "stipendiary priest, whose employment could be terminated at will by their patron"? While it may depend on the definition of stipendiary priest, if not a perpetual curate, a s.p. would presumably be an assistant curate and as such licensed an incumbent and subject to dismissal by him rather than a patron (whether clerical or lay). Jpacobb (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I have added another paragraph on my talk-page which I trust explains and expands my concerns. Jpacobb (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dissolution of the Monasteries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rector (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Perpetual Curate[edit]

It is very nice that you are taking the time to put so much effort into this article and I do hope you are enjoying it. Do you think you might devote the leading paragraph to telling readers what a perpetual curate was (and the kind that were given those appointments) and why perpetual curacies existed (and what their nature was) as simply briefly and elegantly as you can? Much much more briefly than the present over-long opening paragraph. Hunting the Snark can come later. All that other stuff is marvellous to have in case a reader might be interested. Regards, Eddaido (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks for your kind words. I agree that the lead para needs clarification (and pruning?); but I am perhaps too involved in the intricacies. Would you like to have a go; as you have been working on the article a lot longer than I have? My perspective is that the problem - with relation to the lead - is that the term 'perpetual curate' was in current usage, and designated a recognisable cultural entity, essentially in the Early-Victorian period. To an Early Victorian (like Trollope) 'perpetual curate' was a key signifier and potentially a serious problem; to a High Victorian (like Lewis Carroll) is was a logical paradox of history. To summarise Steer's parish law: the rule is that every incumbent is a rector; but if by exception an incumbent is not a rector, then they are a vicar; but if by exception the incumbent vicar is not a vicar, then they are still a perpetual curate.
Of course one can trace the origin of the status of perpetual curate to the practice of the medieval papacy; of articulating a rule, then selling the right to be an exception to the rule, and then sellng the right to be an exception to the exception; but that does not explain why England, Wales and Ireland (uniquely, I think) maintained both the medieval rule and its complex of exceptions, within a church order that rejected the authority of the Papal See; nor does it explain why the resultant formal anomalies persisted and were reproduced through the radical changes and reforms launched (or perhaps forced upon) the Early Victorian Church of England.
But how much of this background do you think should be within your question 'why perpetual curacies existed?' TomHennell (talk) 11:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, my first suggestion would be that you try defining / describing these things within particular periods. How would that fit with your plans for simplifying? Eddaido (talk) 12:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Can you be a bit more specific; which 'things' do you judge should be defined/described in the lead para? TomHennell (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if this is quite what you mean but you could for example restrict the lead to say something like this: A Perpetual Curate in the times that Trollope wrote about was . . . and then a perpetual curacy was . . . (because I suspect this is the period most of the large number of daily visitors are interested in)
Otherwise you leave me (without your knowledge experience and training etc) just bamboozled. That is not to say that the rest of your essay may not be of great interest to many if not most other visitors it just leaves me puzzled and frankly thwarted because all I learn is its complicated. As you can write as you have surely you can write down to those of us simpler folk who come for guidance from you.
It seems you do not like to answer your correspondence on your own talk page. Is there a particular reason for that? Regards, Eddaido (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I have reworked the lead para. Is that what you are looking for? Otherwise please have a go yourself. TomHennell (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, that's more the kind of thing though I (and this is personal to me) am not totally comfortable that it is accurate. At least it gives a more readily intelligible basis to work from.
But, sticking with the lead . . . maybe this is the point to move to the article's talk page.
Otherwise I do find the whole article mighty discursive (fluent and expansive rather than formulaic and abbreviated says Google). There does too seem to be duplication in other parts of the same article, I mean explanations that are covered elsewhere in Wikipedia but just gum up this article. Well, maybe that's a criticism I could level at much else in WP and it must be why so many of us are here, trying to improve on someone else's contributions ; ). My contributions to this article were wiped a while ago so I now have the privilege of standing back and commenting. I've said I'm not entirely happy that you have it correct but (and this is good) I will have to do some research before entering detailed disputation and for the moment I prefer old cars. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Perpetual curate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pluralism
Vicar (Anglicanism) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Pluralism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2013 (UTC)


Hi, any plans to change the perpetual curate article or shall I do it? Was waiting for you to do it because it is all yours. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 08:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

August 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Rylands Library Papyrus P52 may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 110. that it also showed the same two forms of alpha as <math>\mathfrak{P}</math><sup>52</sup>) in simultaneous use.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Garima Gospels, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colophon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Relics of Barnabas in Sumera[edit]

Dear TomHennel,

in, you add informations about Sumera. Where does your informations come from? Thanks Maïeul (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

- Long time ago I'm afraid; the information came from a history of the monastery at Sumela, which stated that the relics of Barnabas had been gifted to the monastery by Justinian, but lost during the reign of Heraclius. I think I assumed that the gospel book had passed with the relics. I subsequently learned that a different tradition had the gospel book remaining in a chapel in the royal palace - and edited the article accordingly. TomHennell (talk) 01:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have the reference of this history of Sumela? I have found nothing like this in my sources. The main information is about presence in St Stephen chapel of the imperial palace (Alexander of Cyprus, Some byzantine chronicle, Severus of Antiochus)
Maïeul (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


I am no expert in the field of Cathedrals , but I do note your interest and expertise in steering significant improvements to the article. From my very tangential knowledge, I was slightly surprised to note that there was no reference to the three volumes of "Winkles Cathedral". I see that Henry Winkles has an article and I would acknowledge that inclusion of theses volumes as a ref or as further reading might seem to impose a British bias; but I thought I would pose the question to an editor who knew what they were talking about. Regards  Velella  Velella Talk   09:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cathedral, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Oratory, Decurion and Divine Office (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cathedral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metropolitan cathedral (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)